Re: [videoblogging] Spam from posting here

[Clint Sharp]

LeanBackVids.com wrote:

> Speaking of spam (that canada vloggers thread)... it sucks that if you
> post to this board then your associated email will go out to those who
> request the group messages via email.
>
> A simple script to snatch email and after a few days you'd have
> yourself a very focused market to spam.
>
> More to fear. We are coming up on Halloween after all.
>
> -Matt
> ---
> http://www.leanbackvids.com
> http://www.vlogmap.org
>
If you end up with spam in your inbox, it's not likely to come from 
someone harvesting your email from this mailing list.  Having your email 
address broadcast to all the members of a mailing list you're on is just 
one of those dangers of being on the Internet.

Clint

-- 
Clint Sharp
New Media Guy & Technologist
ClintSharp.comContact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

We are the media. 



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Citizen Journalism - multimedia.05

[Clint Sharp]

jonny goldstein wrote:

> My impression of this guy who commented  is that he's young, he's 
> passionate, and very
> opinionated. He's posted like 7 comments so far on that one post. I 
> think he's calling
> things like he sees them, even if in a totally snotty way. I 
> recommended he go check out
> Steve's army birthday post, and he dug it, so he's capable of 
> appreciating stuff, if he thinks
> it's well done. I think the kind of passion this guy is showing is 
> great, even if he comes off
> as a little immature in the playground style of his critiques. Let's 
> see what Palazzo posts as
> his semester progresses.

One of the things about putting your stuff out to the world and asking 
for critiques is expecting that some of that world are going to come 
back to you with negative feedback.  Some people are just assholes.  
It's probably not something to get into much of a sweat about.  However, 
I'd think one thing to note about all this is that people who have paid 
for an education (especially the ones in the process of receiving one) 
often come out with a sense of entitlement and an over-assessment of 
what skill they themselves possess.  I'd write off what this guy has 
said mainly to a lack of life experience.

Clint

-- 
Clint Sharp
New Media Guy & Technologist
ClintSharp.com  Contact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

We are the media.



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Skype With Video

[Clint Sharp]

Michael Meiser wrote:

> ROCK!   Good bye mac platform isolationism... hello friends who just 
> happen to use windows. :)
>
> Damn fuscking cult business practices.
>
> BTW, ichat video does supposedly work with a windows AOL client, but 
> I've never seen it work.
>
> -Mike
>
I've done it, it works.

Clint

-- 
Clint Sharp
New Media Guy & Technologist
ClintSharp.comContact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

We are the media. 



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/I258zB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Remember when videoblogging was...

[Clint Sharp]

chris_koehn wrote:

> ...independent journalism?
>
> ...connecting people?
>
> ...the occasional interesting artistic tidbit?
>
> ...criticized for being too banal?
>
> ...an endless debate on what it really was?

Ah, the good ole' days.  Strange the compressed time schedule these 
days.  It used to be something had to be around for more than a couple 
of years before we started talking about good ole' days.  Oh well.

Clint

-- 
Clint Sharp
New Media Guy & Technologist
ClintSharp.com  Contact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

We are the media.



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2jUsvC/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Free video isn't stealing

[Clint Sharp]

JD Lasica wrote:

> It may be that I'm in an unforgiving mood from two straight days of
> downpours, but I laid into a NY Times writer today for suggesting that
> that the only video available for his video iPod comes from Hollywood.
> Anything else you can find online must come from "stealing."
>
> http://www.newmediamusings.com/blog/2005/12/free_video_isnt.html
>
> Free video isn't stealing. Maybe if we repeat it enough times, the
> message will sink in.
>
> jd lasica
> http://www.newmediamusings.com
>
Professionals working for media entities that have been around hundreds 
of years are going to find it hard to accept that their system isn't the 
only way to do things, since it basically has been the only way for as 
long as anyone can remember.  It seems that some professional 
journalists have been able to grok and get behind new media ideals, but 
for the most part they look only at the amount of content that is mainly 
drivel and assume it's *all* useless drivel.  Tools are being written 
which will hopefully allow the best of the video content to float to the 
top, and then maybe we can start getting the recognition that Hollywood 
isn't the only place good content comes from.

Part of new media is that good content is the exception rather than the 
rule, and what people are failing to realize is that it's the same way 
with old media.  However, old media has done an excellent job of 
assuming if you hide behind the NY Times brand or the CNN brand or the 
Washington Post brand that you must be a top notch reporter who has 
researched all his/her facts and you are presenting an accurate 
representation of the facts, but the awful truth is that that just isn't 
the case.  Reporters are lazy as we've all seen.  They will mindlessly 
repeat what other reporters have written, accurate or not.  We have as 
much work convincing the public that everyone should be somewhat 
skeptical of everything they read and watch instead of allowing places 
like the NY Times to convince them that they are indeed the lock on the 
truth as we do convincing them that new media, blogs, podcasts and vlogs 
are worth reading, listening to and watching.

Good post, JD.

Clint

-- 
Clint Sharp
New Media Guy & Technologist
ClintSharp.com  Contact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

We are the media.



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] delicious down ?

[Clint Sharp]

Markus Sandy wrote:

  
you're joking. right? 
  
yes, see their blog about some outages
  

Sadly, it's still not 100%.  I tagged some stuff today
(http://del.icio.us/Coccyx/competition) and it's still showing no
items, even though they're showing up under the other tag I put them
in.  Weird.

Clint

-- 
Clint Sharp
New Media Guy & Technologist
ClintSharp.comContact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

We are the media. 





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] New FireAnt

[Clint Sharp]

Andreas Haugstrup wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:44:14 +0100, Michael Sullivan  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
> josh,
> dont make me greasemonkey fireant!
> ha.
  
Hehe. :o)
In Opera I get ?ajax=off appended to all links. I'm wondering what kind
of  
Ajax-y goodness I'm missing out on and I'm wondering if FireANT is
doing  
some kind of browser-sniffing because Opera does support Ajax. So I  
considered Greasemonkey-ing my way out of it (because Opera has native 
  
Greasemonkey support and it rocks).
  
I found the blog post permalinks. If I click to see the video preview
I  
get the links. Maybe turning the blog post title into a link is an idea.
  
- Andreas
-- 
http://www.solitude.dk/
>
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
   
We had it that way for a while (titles as permalinks) and it's
confusing as hell for the user.  They're not expecting to be taken off
site when every other link on the site drills down.  Besides, clicking
on a channel gets you a buttload of details about the channel,
including the ability to preview or queue all their past feed items.

I'll test in Opera to see if our AJAX libraries work.  It's actually
something I plan on fixing, but the ajax=off is added actually for
Safari, which pukes with Rico, our AJAX library.  It's also there for
the search engines and other browsers I can't verify AJAX support in as
well.  I've hand coded another method for getting content in to Safari
(which is missing XML Serialization and an html properly on the
returned AJAX object, so neither IE nor FireFox's methods for getting
the XHTML from the xmlhttp object back work in Safari, but I have found
another method for doing it with responseText, which is a bit poorer,
but does work, I just haven't adapted the Preview window to use it yet).

We don't provide direct links to the media.  Is this something people
would like to see?  You can queue it and easily get that info out of
the RSS, but I'm not sure people would like us hotlinking to their
media files.  What do other people think?  I don't want to start
another debate about whether media files should be seperated from
Videoblog posts (direct downloads), but should we offer hotlinks to the
media for download?

Clint
-- 
Clint Sharp
New Media Guy & Technologist
ClintSharp.comContact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

We are the media. 





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  


Explains
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] New FireAnt

[Clint Sharp]

Michael Sullivan wrote:

> I'm quite surprised that of all sites, this one currently has blog
> permalinks removed.
>
>
> correction... i did see the comments link inside the preview player.
> better than nothing, just wanted to point that out (as verdi did).
> but would prefer the link being somewhere without need to load up a 
> video first in order to access it. 
>
> sull

That's something we might do, but clutter is always an issue.  We're 
also having issues with the fact that we're trying to design for a 
fairly narrow directory window in the application and a full browser 
window for everyone else.  Hopefully we'll get that corrected soon as 
well.  However, I will say that everyone here knows us and they know we 
listen to feedback and that we're good guys, so the hostile attitude I'm 
picking up doesn't seem quite necessary.

We provide links to the users blog on the channel page.  We provide 
links to the permalink of the blog post where appropriate and there's 
room in the interface (while watching a video).  If you want to get the 
site for the channel, it's not that hard to find.  Not only that, but 
the way in which to get to it is consistent with FireAnt's interface on 
both the Mac and PC which we've been praised for, but translating that 
to the web is drawing criticism?  I'm just not getting it.

Clint



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] New FireAnt

[Clint Sharp]

Pete Prodoehl wrote:

>
> Shouldn't indexers just ignore Ajax/Javascript stuff? Are you serving
> different content to indexers? Are you worried about what that may do to
> page ranking?

I do, but it's a byproduct of having to give different features to 
different browsers.  People have to do this all the time.  People on the 
SEO boards talk about Google penalizing for cloaking, but the fact of 
the matter is that User-Agent based customization of the display is just 
a part of the web.  People have provided text only versions of their 
sites for years.  The fact is, we're not modifying our output based on 
User-Agent to optimize our search engine rankings, we're doing it to 
optimize the user experience, and that's fairly obvious from looking at 
the site.

Clint



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] New FireAnt

[Clint Sharp]

Jen Simmons wrote:

> Can you use two different css style sheets? -- Have FireAnt pull up a 
> non-regular-web-browser stylesheet that has a different layout of the 
> same content.
>
> jen

We've done that before, but the fact of the matter we just don't have 
the bandwidth to maintain the layout for both.

Clint




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] New FireAnt

[Clint Sharp]

Jen Simmons wrote:

> It's not that much more bandwidth to have two stylesheets -- I'm not 
> talking about two different websites. A stylesheet is like 4kb -- 
> smaller than one extra photo.

Sorry, I was referring to bandwidth in terms of the fact that we don't 
have the personnel to handle it.  We need to be focused on adding 
features people will actually care about rather than designing seperate 
style sheets for seperate widths.

>
> Looking at your code -- you are using structural xhtml for a lot of 
> the page, but then you've got a table in there for positioning. If you 
> rewrite the structure so that the css handles _all_ positioning, and 
> you have no tables / no html positioning, then the only thing that has 
> to load different from one version to the other (web browser vs. 
> Fireant) is to pull the appropriate style sheet. You can build the 
> design so that the two versions show different content, even while 
> they show the same htm file. A div can be showing and positioned in 
> one place by one stylesheet, while being positioned in a different 
> place on the other stylesheet -- or hidden all together. The trick is 
> just to program something into FireAnt that triggers the alternative 
> stylesheet, different from all other browsers.

Actually, the tables are in there because doing CSS based layouts for 
things that were aligned tabularly (like a table) was just too 
difficult.  Tables are not evil people, it's just that they should be 
used in a semantically correct fashion.  We are aligning data 
tablularly, so therefore we used tables (and they have a nice byproduct 
of most browsers rendering it right without shitloads of effort, unlike 
CSS, unfortunately).  99% of the layout on the site is controlled by 
CSS, including the layout of the tables.

>
> Looking at your code somemore... yeah, you've got a _lot_ of styling 
> mark-up in your html. If you yank all of that out of there, and put it 
> all in the external css file you'll see your bandwidth go way down!

It's there for a reason.  Those are output based on variables present in 
the templating system.  The system needs to display various states for 
different reasons.  Yes, I could create classes that do the same thing, 
but frankly when you're looking at the code, sometimes it's easier to 
see that one result of an if does a display: none and one does a 
display: block than trying to remember what the class names do in the 
CSS.  I've got something like 30k lines already in this codebase, it's 
not exactly simple to maintain :).

>
> You've just got to get someone / turn yourselfs into someone who can 
> code the layout by using 100% css positioning, and 0% html 
> positioning, and pull _all_ styling out of the html mark-up and put it 
> in the external stylesheets.
>
> Not only can you use two stylesheets for two different places (like 
> full-screen browsers and Fireant), but you will be much further along 
> in making the site compatible with cell phone browsers, and be in a 
> great place to do visual redesigns without having to change your html 
> markup on every single page.
>
> i hope this helps (and isn't annoyingly bold of me to tell you what to 
> do),
> jen

It would have been fine, if there wouldn't have been the 
misunderstanding about bandwidth.  Trust me, I know all about CSS, and I 
can go on for hours about the hours I've spent trying to workaround 
various rendering quirks in various different browsers.  Take a look 
again at our CSS file.  Don't tell me that with 1000 lines of stylesheet 
I'm not using CSS for layout and positioning.  90%+ of our site is 
arranged using div tags and CSS positioning.  Tables are used where we 
have tabular data (the main page).  The issue of multiple layouts is not 
a CSS or markup issue, it's a time issue, hope that clarifies.

Clint

-- 
Clint Sharp
New Media Guy & Technologist
ClintSharp.comContact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

We are the media. 



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom Changes?

[Clint Sharp]

Andreas Haugstrup wrote:

>
> Press releases are never guaranteed to make it into a telegram or story. 
> And thank god for that.

No shit.  People who talk about sending out Press Releases probably haven't 
spent a lot of time reading them.  Just because it goes on the newswire doesn't 
mean it's newsworthy :).

Clint

-- 
Clint Sharp
New Media Guy & Technologist
ClintSharp.comContact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

We are the media. 



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom Changes?

[Clint Sharp]

Markus Sandy wrote:

  
  
in case you missed this
  
  http://melslife.org/archives/2005/07/20/dr-phil-can-you-please-help/
  
a classic about this group

Well, this answers the question as to why my wife got so many comments
on her blog today :).

Maybe one of these days we'll find time to do some more videos.

Clint

-- 
Clint Sharp
New Media Guy & Technologist
ClintSharp.comContact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

We are the media. 





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Podfading

[Clint Sharp]

Pete Prodoehl wrote:

>
> I'd guess it's as real as every abandoned "home page", website, forum,
> wiki, blog, etc...
>
> Are there any abandoned videoblogs yet? :)
>
> Pete

Don't know about abandoned, but I've been far too busy coding recently 
to post any videos.  Still heavily involved in the community, I just 
don't have any time to create content.  I'll get to doing that next 
video when the next 32 hour day comes around.

Clint

-- 
Clint Sharp
New Media Guy & Technologist
ClintSharp.comContact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

We are the media. 



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom Changes?

[Clint Sharp]

Jen Simmons wrote:

> It drives me nuts that Andrew perpetually insists that he makes the 
> show for free or close-to-free. It's cheaper than ABC World News 
> Tonight -- for sure! That's what should be celebrated, not this idea 
> that any kid in the barrio should be able to make Rocketboom with 
> their bus money (if they even have 85 cents for the Vía bus). I'm 
> working four jobs to pay the rent, and while I'd like to work on my 
> videoblog show all day every day, 3 to 4 hours a week is the most I 
> ever get -- not 5 x 8-10-hour days, working with a collaborator I've 
> hired. Promotion is $0?? Again, only to someone who doesn't understand 
> that _all_ time is money when you freelance, and that top-tier 
> contacts from elite schools and an Manhattan address are not free.

That's a totally unfair criticism and you know it.  They're talking 
about cash outlay, which is obvious, not opportunity cost of doing 
business without revenue or with limited revenue.  This is standard in 
all small business.  If a business owner were to factor in the thousands 
of hours they put into creating something from scratch at the cost of 
working for someone else, no one would do it.  On average, I'd say most 
small business owners probably work for $5/hr, but the end reward for a 
successful enterprise is worth it in the long run.

>
> Oh, and maybe someone can explain to Andrew the difference between 
> hits and individual viewers. 150,000 hits does not equate to 150,000 
> people.

You must not think much of Andrew to assume he isn't smart enough to 
install one of the dozens of free stats programs which differentiate 
viewers from hits.

In the end, you don't need a trust fund to do something like 
Rocketboom.  I'd happily invest the dollars outlayed for hosting costs 
to be building the brand they're building, even in my current state w/o 
income.  Nobody said entrepeneurship was cheap, but I'd hate to see 
anyone trying to start a business that couldn't afford to do what 
Rocketboom is doing.  It would cost more to run a lawn-mowing business 
with a couple of employees, trucks, lawnmowers and other equipment, and 
god knows how many thousands of mom-and-pop landscaping companies there 
are in this country.  I'd happily trade all the expenses of the 
previously mentioned business w/o any income for the Rocketboom brand.

Clint


-- 
Clint Sharp
New Media Guy & Technologist
ClintSharp.comContact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

We are the media. 



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom Changes?

[Clint Sharp]

Markus Sandy wrote:

  
good to see a few posts from you clint!
  
hope you and mel are doing well
  
all moved in yet?
  
Any videobloggers out your way?

Vlogmap says no :).  Closest one is reelfun up in Northwest Arkansas
(hour or two drive depending on how far north they are).  I'm working
on organizing a local blogger meetup in town to start working on my
Local Web project, but it's slow going (lots of research finding
bloggers, thank god for Bloggers profile pages).

We're moved into my in-laws house, but we'll be moving back into our
house at the end of the month, so we won't be totally settled until
then.

Everything's going great.  It's good to see the sun again :)

Clint

-- 
Clint Sharp
New Media Guy & Technologist
ClintSharp.comContact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

We are the media. 





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] sharing iMovie control between 2 macs

[Clint Sharp]

Displaying video (especially DV encoded video, not highly compressed) over a wireless network isn't really feasible.ClintOn 2/15/06, Ron Watson
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Does anyone know of a way to control iMovie on one of my mactops from the other one?I would like to share control of iMovie between computers via my wireless network. That would be really cool.
Later, Ron





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] sharing iMovie control between 2 macs

[Clint Sharp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DV#Video_compression36 Megabits per second for DV, on average.  This doesn't include any sort of other display overhead.
Most wireless connections don't actually get 54 megabits of throughput (also, they're half duplex if I remember right).  Trying to push 36 megabits through a wireless connection will cause lots of collisions and packet loss.  It wouldn't make for a very good editing experience.
Secondly, he wants to be able to control iMovie, which means using something like a remote desktop technology, none of which support video very well (they're designed to minimize bandwidth for traditional PC use).
ClintOn 2/15/06, Tony Pelliccio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Considering that you get 54Mbps over a G network I'd imagine that you could push video without too much latency.   





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Server stats question

[Clint Sharp]

Just to clarify, in a meeting I had with Microsoft back a few months ago, BITS will be used for all podcast downloads that uiltize Microsoft's new shared feed system in IE7.  Don't expect this problem to go away anytime soon.
ClintOn 2/17/06, André Sala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BITS is the technology that Microsoft uses to deliver WindowsAutomatic Updates.  As Markus said, it is a component designed tocontrol and throttle background downloads as not to make any largeresource hit on a user's computer.






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: RSS Channel Images

[Clint Sharp]

Just as a note, the FireAnt directory prefers iTunes images because of
the size limitations of standard RSS images. We need larger images, and
whether you like the iTunes spec or not, it's the only thing that
provides large images that can be scaled down instead of being scaled
up.

ClintOn 2/18/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




It says if the itunes:image tag isn't present, it will use the RSS
image tag... can anyone say "redundant"?

-Josh

  






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Server stats question

[Clint Sharp]

People will use it because it's easy.  This is the Microsoft
advantage (or trap, depending on how you look at it).  Saying
RSS->enclosure->download() is a lot simpler than writing a
library that does the downloading for you :).

ClintOn 2/17/06, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doesn't that create a substantial (and unnecessary) amount of overhead forthe webserver to deal with? Why use this technology at all?
- Andreas--http://www.solitude.dk/>Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Server Cooperative -- wanna start one?

[Clint Sharp]

To second your concerns, I would add that Dreamhost or any of a
thousand other hosting companies already do a good job of sharing
servers professionally.  I don't see any savings for anyone in
trying to do this themselves as opposed to using a cheaper hosting
provider.  Secondly, Dreamhost offers 1 TB of transfer on a $10/mo
hosting account, when most dedicated servers only offer 1.8 to 2 TB for
a hosted server for somewhere between $100-$200 a month.  The math
doesn't add up if all you want to do is host files.

To get a better deal, you're really going to have to lease rack space
in a datacenter, buy some hardware and install it your self.

ClintOn 2/18/06, David Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




I am not interested in becoming part of some consortium of vloggers.
All I am interested in is a simple solution of a dedicated server
where the bandwidth is reserved strictly for the use of hosting videos
off of. No home page. No listings. Just a file server is all I want.
Blip and Ourmedia already do what it is you are talking about.

I know I said that I would be interested in getting into this however
rather than get involved with a gazillion ideas of how people want to
try and become the next Blip or Ourmedia or Internet Archive, I think
I'll bail out of this idea right now and host my own videos myself.

David
http://www.taoofdavid.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Anne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hi all. lurker here...
> 
> i have been reading this thread with interest.
> 
> could not a group of like minded vloggers get a host with lots of
> bandwidth that they each pay into and name a domain. then, the main
> domain could be used to list the contributing videoblogs and maybe a
> blurb about them (how about a most recent upload from each of them
> too?) then, each of them would have a subdomain off of the main one
> that they could use as their own videoblog.
> 
> eg: coolvids.com (intro to the project and it's participants)
> 
> ed.coolvids.com
> vic.coolvids.com
> sandy.coolvids.cometc.
> 
> each subdomain should be able to track their own stats, etc, shouldn't
> they? i'm not a technical person by any means. i don't know how many
> subdomains are allowed, etc. is there a limit or does it depend on the
> package?
> 
> ...unless you're talking about something that encompasses many
> participants. then i would think that a paid service would be better.
> 
> i would be very interested in seeing small groups of compatible
> videoblogs working together, however. i think it would be much more
> successful that way.
> 
> anne
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "davecircumnavigator"
>  wrote:
> >
> > I'll noodle it and post again.  
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since videobloggers have high bandwidth requirements and ISPs give
> > > > discounts for planned large bandwidth consumption, would anyone be
> > > > interested in a server cooperative where we negotiate as a group 
> > for
> > > > server space and bandwidth?  Has this been tried on this group?  
> > If
> > > > every member of this group is paying a monthly basic web hosting 
> > fee of
> > > > $5, that's almost $10,000 a month and that buys A LOT of 
> > bandwidth.
> > > 
> > > good idea Dave.
> > > this was briught up a long time ago...but never acted on.
> > > 
> > > can you come up with some scenarios and workflow?
> > > if we had a target to shoot for...itll be easier to get people to 
> > jump on board.
> > > 
> > > How much storage for each person?
> > > how much bandwdith?
> > > how would stats work?
> > > 
> > > Jay
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Adventures in Videoblogging
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
>










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  


Individual
  
  

Fireant
  
  

Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




  















  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: RSS Channel Images

[Clint Sharp]

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss#ltimagegtSubelementOfLtchannelgt

"
	Maximum value for width is 144, default value is 88. 


	Maximum value for height is 400, default value is 31."

This means that people publishing images under the RSS maximum width is
144 pixels.  This isn't nearly large enough to display large
channel images without upsizing.  However, iTunes image is
recommended at least 300x300 pixels, which allows us to scale down the
image to a more reasonable size (our large images are 160 pixels in
width and scaled to maintain aspect ratio on the height).

ClintOn 2/18/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



i dont understand about the size stuff i've seen some huge rss channel images come through.  can you explain?  oh and, its kinda funny that FireANT uses iTunes spec ha.  i look at FA as the Alternative to iTunes.
so stop it!  heheh






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Server Cooperative -- wanna start one?

[Clint Sharp]

I'd be happy to dance.  There are currently thousands of hosting
options from thousands of providers who make it their business to
maximize the amount of people you can fit onto one server.  Those
people are not the people on this list.  I suggest you check them
out.

Vlog hosting needs two things, servers and bandwidth.  A
"collective" or a shared hosting resource of vloggers is never going to
be able to compete with people who's business it is to make a profit
doing this.  You are not going to be able to rent a server from
anyone, delve it up between a bunch of high-bandwidth users and make it
economically feasible.  The best option is to be in the hosting
business, in which you divide up hosting resources between high
bandwidth users and low-bandwidth users.  Combining a group of
unprofitable users is unprofitable, no matter how you do the
math.  Much better to let the companies whose business it is
combine users who, while they may be allocated hundreds of gigabytes a
month of transfer, don't use it, with users who do.

There are two options in the vlog hosting world, and I don't see a need
for a third.  There are people who want to host their vlogs for
free, and thus they make a tradeoff in terms of service, and there are
those who are willing to pay.  I'm all for free services, and I
happily recommend them to people who don't really care whether their
users can access their videos.  There are also paid options, which
cost a mimimal amount a month (honestly, if you can't afford $120/yr,
you can't afford the camera and the computer to vlog either,
probably).  I recommend the paid options to most people.  Who
wants to invest the time and effort to create a middle option when the
second option is already so cheap?

Clint

On 2/18/06, David Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




First off...*I* never asked a question. Learn reading skills.

Second. My conversations take place in person where I can see a
persons eyes. I trust about 1% of what I read online.

Last. I really dont care about being part of some vlog collective. The
original concept was for some people to group funds together for a
server that would host videos.

Care to dance a little more?

David
http://www.taoofdavid.com
  






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Server Cooperative -- wanna start one?

[Clint Sharp]

I want Porsche looks and performance, with the ease of maintenance of a
Japanese automobile and the price of a Geo Metro, think that will work
out for me? :)

Honestly, I don't have much patience for people who want to have
hobbies but they can't afford them.  Hobbies are expensive. 
Golf is a hobby, it's expensive.  Computers are a hobby, they're
expensive.  Wood-working is a hobby, that's expensive.  My
wife likes to sew, that's expensive too.  Nobody is out there
saying there should be a service where my wife can get fabric for free
so she can be a better seamstress.

I will grant you that hosting options aren't necessarily easy. 
That's a problem that someone could probably make some money solving,
but seeing as I haven't used the majority of hosting providers, there's
probably someone who's made it pretty easy and I just don't know about
them :).

ClintOn 2/18/06, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


quite obviously there is a third option: people who want it free, but
without the trade off of poor availability/performance/etc
  






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Server Cooperative -- wanna start one?

[Clint Sharp]

Every vlogger is more popular than 90% of businesses and regular users
hosting websites.  Even the most image intensive website would
really have to be visited a lot of times to equal the average video
size.  Most of my videos were at least 15 megabytes, which a lot
of websites don't use in a week of views.  That's just one video
view!

1-3 TB would be ok for sharing among a group of vloggers, although I'm
not exactly sure of the math either, as to how many users you could fit
on that.  Lets say you leased a server, to the tune of a minimum
of $99 a month, for which most places gives you less than 2
TB.   Saying every video was 15 MB, and every video was
viewed about 100 times on average, and every vloggers published 7
videos a month, you could fit maybe 200 vloggers on there. You can get
10 dreamhost managed accounts for that amount for 10 TB, which you
could share among 1000 vloggers.  The math doesn't add up for
dedicated servers.  It's easier to let the hosting companies
aggregate it, because they have the volume to stick low bandwidth users
on the same servers with high bandwidth users.  Putting a group of
vloggers together just isn't smart when there are so many low-bandwidth
users out there.

However, you could in theory with those numbers aggregate 1000 vloggers
for $1000/mo.  However, aggregating those means someone needs to
manage those 10 dreamhost accounts and manage all the users, transfers,
space etc (or a dedicated server depending on which route you've
chosen).  This person needs to collect the money to pay that $1000
a month, for a 1000 users, $1/mo, or find some other way of paying for
it.  Philanthropically, it's not necessarily a bad thing, it just
doesn't make much sense to me, that someone would want to donate that
much time.  There's a profit potential there though.

Throttling is very expensive in terms of administrative time.  You
would either have to pay for some software to do that for you or write
your own, which is time consuming and expensive, far more opportunity
cost than just buying a bunch of DreamHost accounts.

I keep coming back to collecting the money in my head too.  Have
you ever rented an apartment from a bunch of friends?  Remember
how much it sucked because one of your buddies couldn't come up with
the rent like every other month and everybody else had to chip in to
keep from getting evicted?  Renting a server amongst a bunch of a
people to me seems like it would work out the same way.

To me, the only reason to lease your own server instead of paying for
managed hosting is because you need to run software on there that you
can't run on a managed server (something that doesn't fit into the LAMP
acronym), otherwise, it's cheaper, easier and less headache to pay
someone else to manage it for you.  Lastly, even though you could
cut costs by sharing the bandwidth among hosting accounts, I just can't
see it working on a large scale.

Clint

On 2/18/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



mathmatically,
this depends, right?. first, you are assuming every vlogger would be
popular to the point of usining up much of the 1-3TB.  in
actuality, most vloggers of a small consortium would prob not use up
this allotment.  i'm talking under 30 vloggers.  i dont have
#s to back this up... but on average, i think 1-3 TB would be ok. am i
wrong?  when hosting companies advertise these large numbers they do
so because they know that most to all will never need or reach even 10%
that amount per month.  its called marketing.  ok, we are
talking video serving so this is obviously a group of higher bandwidth
users than typical people wanting to host pages and pictures but
still. i am not convinved by what you say.  i understand some
of what you are *trying* to say, but you seem to be very close-minded
when maybe their is some logic here. and what about throttling the pipe?  and what about a
managed dedicated server at a hosting facility basically providing same
type of service and quuality and backbone as a shared hosti
know... getting paid shared hosting is a fine option.  what i am
not totally seeing is how a small group of people getting dedicated
server is as bad as you say.  willing to be enlightened though...
as others here are too.  so, can you cut through it and dispell
how it breaks down.. sort of like adam did?   and leave out
the clint wit.sull






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Server Cooperative -- wanna start one?

[Clint Sharp]

People around the world would be served much better by abundant food,
clean water and cheap housing.  That aside, hosting is not an
issue for people who can afford the hardware and software to actually
create the videos.  If you want to make vlogging affordable for
people, cheaper computers and cheaper cameras are the problem to solve,
not hosting.

ClintOn 2/19/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



screw
the under-privileged people around the world who we once, and still on
occasion, evangelized to and about vlogging could liberate the
world wants to hear and see your stories.  screw them because they
cant afford it.  whatever.  patience is a virtue, you know.sull






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Server Cooperative -- wanna start one?

[Clint Sharp]

Your problem is twofold.  One is throughput as you're
saying.  The second and harder problem is montly transfer
limitations.  I've spent quite a while researching hosting
providers, and nobody offers more than 4 terabytes transfer for
$200/mo, and about half that for $100/mo.  It doesn't take long
serving video times to chew up 2 to 4 terabytes amongst a group of
vloggers (one highly linked video could blow that for everyone). 
There are no dedicated server options that I have been able to find
(that doesn't mean they don't exist, but not at the 30 or so providers
I've looked at), that offer anything that comes close to the amount of
bandwidth I'd want to share amongst a group of vloggers.  You'd
think that if $10/mo buys you 1 TB on a shared managed server, that
$100/mo would get you 10TB on a dedicated server (probably more since
you're responsible for managing it yourself), but it just isn't the
case.

ClintOn 2/19/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



whats the data pipe at dreamhost like?  if i can get 300-400mb/sec data rate on a dedicated hosting plan, what can i get from a $10 per month dreamhost plan? this
is the performance issue... the BIG issue in my opinion.  and the
primary issue behind the interest in this idea i think.
does dreamhot throttle data rate?  fat pipes are better ;-)






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: RSS Channel Images

[Clint Sharp]

   http://missbhavens.blogspot.comlink
>  http://idisk.mac.com/missbhavens-Public/star.jpg"url>