New ad for Carlton Draft
Stephen Oakes
pharro
"Stephen Oakes" <soa...@XXXbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:rwHDe.54211$oJ.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
And you've just been viral marketed!!!
pharro
pharro
"Stephen Oakes" <soa...@XXXbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:rwHDe.54211$oJ.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
And now they've just played it on The Footy Show despite apparent claims
that it would never be used as a TV commercial - it was supposed to be an
internet/email campaign. Funny how Nine just happened to have a broadcast
quality master rather than a streamed or downloaded version. Someone at Nine
Sales ought to be demanding some cash for the screening.
pharro
Anthony Horan
> http://www.bigad.com.au/
>
> Sigh..it'll probably work.
When I get three separate Java access security warnings just by going to
that page, and when it seems they want me to auto-download something called
the "Vividas Player" to view it, CUB can fuck the hell off and perhaps get a
clue about how to design a web site.
Use a standard, accepted video format, idiots.
Mamma Mia
"Anthony Horan" <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:190r9tzk5kcrf.18n02d2mhcfoq$.dlg@40tude.net...
ditto. ad wont work on me!
Stephen Oakes
"pharro" <nospam> wrote...
>> Sigh..it'll probably work.
>
> And you've just been viral marketed!!!
No I haven't. I know someone in it.
--
Stephen Oakes
Stephen Oakes
"pharro" <nospam> wrote...
> And now they've just played it on The Footy Show despite apparent claims
> that it would never be used as a TV commercial
What are you talking about? It was always intended to be a TV commercial.
Where did these "apparent claims" come from?
--
Stephen Oakes
-db-
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 06:45:43 GMT, Stephen Oakes wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.bigad.com.au/
>>
>>Sigh..it'll probably work.
>
>
> When I get three separate Java access security warnings just by going to
> that page, and when it seems they want me to auto-download something called
> the "Vividas Player" to view it, CUB can fuck the hell off and perhaps get a
> clue about how to design a web site.
any site that tells a user what software they need or that their site is
best viewed at 1024x768 or using a particular browser or best viewed
"while standing in a bucket of warm rice and looked at with opera
glasses from a distance of 3.14159265 metres" deserves to go "into the bin".
>
> Use a standard, accepted video format, idiots.
hear hear
ant
out and buy some Carleton Draught to encourage them. The old ones (canoes)
were pretty good albeit a bit laboured, but this one's a pearler.
Love it.
--
ant
DGENR8
"-db-" <widepope.at....@foo.bar> wrote in message
news:LRWDe.55008$oJ....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I find people who bitch about Internet advertising, despite it's guises,
methods, technologies, and technological acceptedness, etc..., rather
charlatanical.
It's a conundrum.
You accept the Internet in all it's guises as a divine form of
communication, yet bitch about advertising processes and methods within.
The drivers, and the very reason you have access to this *divine being* that
is
"The Internet".
"Darn Ma! They be using this new darn nabbit thing called a "motor car"!
Shoot."
Rather "Ma and Pa Kettle in Nebraska", isn't it?
Just as an aside.
With Love,
Tony.
(or should we all stick to HTML 1.0 and never budge from there?)
Anthony Horan
> I find people who bitch about Internet advertising, despite it's guises,
> methods, technologies, and technological acceptedness, etc..., rather
> charlatanical.
>
> It's a conundrum.
co·nun·drum
n.
1. A riddle in which a fanciful question is answered by a pun.
2. A paradoxical, insoluble, or difficult problem; a dilemma: “the
conundrum, thus far unanswered, of achieving full employment without
inflation” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
Where's the condundrum in bitching about internet advertising?
> You accept the Internet in all it's guises as a divine form of
> communication, yet bitch about advertising processes and methods within.
Of course I do in this case. CUB want people to see their ad, yet use a
format that requires the download of a Java (ugh) video player of unknown
origin, the process of which throws up Java security warnings. Should I just
ignore security warnings and let any Java applet have free access to my hard
disk? Maybe I should go install some spyware as well - hey, it's the
internet, right? Why bitch? Why moan? Let's all go get viruses and trojans!
It's the future!
> The drivers, and the very reason you have access to this *divine being* that is
> "The Internet".
Pardon?
> (or should we all stick to HTML 1.0 and never budge from there?)
Completely different thing, and you know that full well.
If CUB want to show people on the internet an ad, then by all means, use the
Vividas Player - but give users the option of NOT risking the security
warnings. Give users streams in Windows Media and Quicktime as well.
- Anthony
Graham
"-db-" <widepope.at....@foo.bar> wrote in message
news:LRWDe.55008$oJ....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
with it is that I'm og via dial up and it would play for a while,
bufer..play for a while...but a great ad....all the fuss about software is
just plain silly
gra
pharro
"Mamma Mia" <ab...@sweden.com> wrote in message
news:42dfe7f3$0$8417$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
You keep using your dud media player then. This thing is bloody brilliant
(the streaming tech, not the ad.) And it's a local development.
pharro
pharro
Sources at the company who created the streaming technology. Have you seen
the ad in a commercial break? It's designed as a viral campaign and it's
working stupendously. 35,000 downloads in about 5 hours. And that's business
hours. They've now played it on ACA apparently so that's 2 free screenings
on the NINE Network. Pretty clever.
pharro
DGENR8
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:30:50 +1000, DGENR8 wrote:
>
>> I find people who bitch about Internet advertising, despite it's guises,
>> methods, technologies, and technological acceptedness, etc..., rather
>> charlatanical.
>>
>> It's a conundrum.
>
> co·nun·drum
> n.
>
> 1. A riddle in which a fanciful question is answered by a pun.
>
> 2. A paradoxical, insoluble, or difficult problem; a dilemma: ´the
> conundrum, thus far unanswered, of achieving full employment without
>
> Where's the condundrum in bitching about internet advertising?
>
>> You accept the Internet in all it's guises as a divine form of
>> communication, yet bitch about advertising processes and methods within.
>
> Of course I do in this case. CUB want people to see their ad, yet use a
> format that requires the download of a Java (ugh) video player of unknown
> origin, the process of which throws up Java security warnings. Should I
> just
> ignore security warnings and let any Java applet have free access to my
> hard
> disk? Maybe I should go install some spyware as well - hey, it's the
> internet, right? Why bitch? Why moan? Let's all go get viruses and
> trojans!
> It's the future!
>
>> The drivers, and the very reason you have access to this *divine being*
>> that is
>> "The Internet".
>
> Pardon?
>
>> (or should we all stick to HTML 1.0 and never budge from there?)
>
> Completely different thing, and you know that full well.
>
> If CUB want to show people on the internet an ad, then by all means, use
> the
> Vividas Player - but give users the option of NOT risking the security
> warnings. Give users streams in Windows Media and Quicktime as well.
>
>
> - Anthony
Bah!
I looked at it using Mozilla Firebird. The appropriate (singular) warning
was displayed, and I accepted it, (as it was properly signed). Where's the
problem? Security? Oh well, either you have faith in the signing process or
not. Just like people who are still shit scared of buying stuff on the 'Net
using their credit card I suppose.
Nobody has ever died as a result of an Internet plug-in.
You can't buy a PC today, even of 5 years vintage (as mine is) that can't
happily add this plug-in, and many more, with any noticable difference in
performance. I'm packing a massive 128 meg of RAM baby! :)
Zero issues, other than ignorance, and a fear that Aliens will one day eat
your Buick.
It's a great ad. A huge production, and one not noticably given to copious
quantities of CGI.
(Though they're pretty good these days, so who knows, or cares really).
Go Aussie!!!
Still not a huge beer drinker though.
Love,
Tony.
Bill Benzel
:
: You accept the Internet in all it's guises as a divine form of
: communication, yet bitch about advertising processes and methods within.
: The drivers, and the very reason you have access to this *divine being* that
: is
: "The Internet".
Bullshit!!
"The Internet" has been around for about 30 years -- the crass
commercialization of "The Internet" began much later with the inception
of protocols that made it accessible to people with no background in
technology. With access to billions of idiots who, like sheep, will
click on any link presented to them, it's no wonder that demons arose to
corrupt it. And, with over 100K signatures in my antivirus library and
the spam to mail ratio in my inbox running about 12 to 1 I find "The
Internet" to be far from divine!!
--
Bill
AT DOT
reply to bbenzel adelphia net
DGENR8
"Graham" <hu...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:42e0...@news.alphalink.com.au...
True, in a sense, however...
In terms of the true potential of The Internet, the software is
"potentially" years behind.
There needs to be some very sharp new unadulterated blood injected into the
whole thing.
Not to mention "slag" opportunities against the hardware.
In terms of "Moore's Law", there appears to be a disturbing slow-down.
Plenty of research going on. Just not enough delivery. Someone is slacking
off.
Or, milking the current environment for every dollar possible, which of
course is the reality.
It's like petrol.
Not acceptible Jan.
Seriously.
Tony.
DGENR8
"Bill Benzel" <nos...@fuvm.org> wrote in message
news:hz6Ee.2745$Q75.5...@newshog.newsread.com...
No Bullshit.
The "crass commercialization" is the best thing that has happened to it.
Were it not so, you would most likely not be connected, nor even have any
knowledge of it. It would be the domain of the military, astute scholars,
and bugger all else. (Actually, that could never have happend. The Internet
was a given as sure as life itself. Think about it.) I would not be
responding to you now. We both would not have any idea of the variety of
product, (or as easy access to it) as we do today. Pricing for anything
would still be absurd, as were share prices then. The world would still be
lagging in the Industrial Revolution, shitting itself about where the next
barrel of oil would be coming from. You would have access to about 1/1000
the music, and about 1/1000 the news that you do today, - if not for the
"crass commercialization". Mate, I could go on for ever with thousands of
reasons. It's a passionate subject of mine. But, you know, all you have to
do is apply common sense. Do you think the Internet was EVER free? Why does
it exist? Who is funding it? It is not a singular entity by any means, and
can not be properly referred to in the singular. But, if by some strange
dimension that was missed by Eienstein, there should happen to be a
sitiuation where "advertising" was completely obliterated, what would the
Internet be? Would it exist? Two possible answers. One is hopelessly not
correct.
Cheers,
Tony
Bill Benzel
:
Tony, with all due respect I agree in principle with everything you've
said. I've had USENET access since the late 1980s in one form or
another and I'm neither a military person nor an astute scholar. I just
happened to work in telecommunications -- the companies who paid my
wages were among the original architects of ARPANET. I've watched this
evolution in real time.
I, too, can go on about the personal value of the net, how it's changed
my life, etc. But I cannot, as you seem to, turn a blind eye to the
negative aspects (most of which began to appear after the paradigm shift
of the early 1990s spam being the obvious exception). As a result I
refuse to click on the subject link.
I'm not about to expose myself to malicious software for the sake of a
laugh. It takes way too much time and effort to get rid of it.
ant
> It's a great ad. A huge production, and one not noticably given to
> copious quantities of CGI.
> (Though they're pretty good these days, so who knows, or cares
> really).
I liked the bit where they started hitting the fence! Like sheep.
--
ant
Spork
Well you're perpetuating a viral marketing campaign.
-db-
> "-db-" <widepope.at....@foo.bar> wrote in message
> news:LRWDe.55008$oJ....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>Anthony Horan wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 06:45:43 GMT, Stephen Oakes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.bigad.com.au/
>>>>
>>>>Sigh..it'll probably work.
>>>
>>>
>>>When I get three separate Java access security warnings just by going to
>>>that page, and when it seems they want me to auto-download something
>>>called
>>>the "Vividas Player" to view it, CUB can fuck the hell off and perhaps
>>>get a
>>>clue about how to design a web site.
>>
>>any site that tells a user what software they need or that their site is
>>best viewed at 1024x768 or using a particular browser or best viewed
>>"while standing in a bucket of warm rice and looked at with opera glasses
>>from a distance of 3.14159265 metres" deserves to go "into the bin".
>>
>>>Use a standard, accepted video format, idiots.
>>
>>hear hear
>
>
> I find people who bitch about Internet advertising, despite it's guises,
> methods, technologies, and technological acceptedness, etc..., rather
> charlatanical.
i'm not bitching about internet advertising per se but rather the
standards use by CUB for me to see their add.
why should i be told what software to run to see a website. it should
just bloody well work - afterall we have the technology! they could
also offer other video formats like: real, windows media, quicktime or
divx but they don't. instead i'm required to download some proprietary
java app that throws up all sorts of security warnings. no thankyou!
they have limited their audience and that's bad design - pure and simple.
>
> It's a conundrum.
>
> You accept the Internet in all it's guises as a divine form of
> communication, yet bitch about advertising processes and methods within.
> The drivers, and the very reason you have access to this *divine being* that
> is
> "The Internet".
>
> "Darn Ma! They be using this new darn nabbit thing called a "motor car"!
> Shoot."
>
> Rather "Ma and Pa Kettle in Nebraska", isn't it?
nope, i'm happy to embrace new fangles just not happy to be forced to
download unsoftware i know nothing about. if you want to practise
unsafe computing and end up with a comp infested with viruses and
spyware then good ahead, be my guest.
>
> Just as an aside.
>
> With Love,
>
> Tony.
> (or should we all stick to HTML 1.0 and never budge from there?)
we've moved on the html 4 & xhmtl standards now. it's not that hard to
do a site based on web standards these days.
Anthony Horan
> Sources at the company who created the streaming technology.
The company really should (1) provide more information about their product
on their web site, as there is pretty much none there at the moment, and (2)
fix the Java security problem. Until then, local or not, they can bite me.
> 35,000 downloads in about 5 hours.
Oh, well tell me where I can DOWNLOAD the ad and I'll watch it that way
then!
> They've now played it on ACA apparently so that's 2 free screenings
> on the NINE Network.
Free? Or paid? Hmmmm?
- Anthony
Anthony Horan
> I looked at it using Mozilla Firebird. The appropriate (singular) warning
> was displayed, and I accepted it, (as it was properly signed).
It did not come up as a signed Java applet in Opera.
> Where's the problem? Security?
Duh. The applet wanted access to write to my hard disks. Alarm bells,
anyone?
> Nobody has ever died as a result of an Internet plug-in.
No, but plenty of people have had their computers trashed and rendered
unusable by them.
> It's a great ad. A huge production, and one not noticably given to copious
> quantities of CGI.
Well, if they ever make it available for download as a REAL video file, I'll
happily have a look.
> Go Aussie!!!
Already am one, thanks all the same.
- Anthony
P
There is no way on this earth these screenings were free. The fact that
"The Footy Show" (I can't speak for ACA as I didn't see it) screened the ad
in its entirety and passed it off as "programming" is a disgrace and (yet
again) if the ABA had any balls they'd be looking into it.
Brissie
>
>"Stephen Oakes" <soa...@XXXbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>news:lbVDe.54928$oJ.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "pharro" <nospam> wrote...
>>> And now they've just played it on The Footy Show despite apparent claims
>>> that it would never be used as a TV commercial
>>
>> What are you talking about? It was always intended to be a TV commercial.
>>
>> Where did these "apparent claims" come from?
>>
>
>
>Sources at the company who created the streaming technology.
Carlton didn't create the streaming technology
It's been used before for other things, and wasn't intended for that
ad.
The creators of the streaming technology have said that they don't
intend it to be used for TV broadcasts
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 06:45:43 GMT, Stephen Oakes wrote:
>
>> http://www.bigad.com.au/
>>
>> Sigh..it'll probably work.
>
>When I get three separate Java access security warnings just by going to
>that page, and when it seems they want me to auto-download something called
>the "Vividas Player" to view it, '
So you never go to sites that require Media Player, Real Player,
Quicktime, Flash, Shockwave?
Just like thos Vividas is a media form. It's much newer and only been
around for about 12 months, and only seen around 3 sites that use it
(because unlike the others using that technology requires a royalty
paymeny)
>Use a standard, accepted video format, idiots.
Vividas is a standard.
It's also by far the best for streaming
You don't get close to that quality with MPEG, RM or Quicktime for
streaming.
Brissie
wrote:
You need at least DSL to view it
DSL 256kb - select low
DSL 512kb - select medium
DSL 1500 or cable - Select High
The technology is only really aimed at those 3, because of it's very
high quality. But there are 2 lower formats, but in the 3 sites that
I've seen that use this technology they've never been used.
Brissie
>> I find people who bitch about Internet advertising, despite it's guises,
>> methods, technologies, and technological acceptedness, etc..., rather
>> charlatanical.
>
>i'm not bitching about internet advertising per se but rather the
>standards use by CUB for me to see their add.
All sites do
They use the best
They can use MPEG, MOV, etc. but they use the best. One they have to
pay to use. The other formats you don't need to pay
You use NineMSN Video.
You have to use Windows Media Player for that.
Do you complain?
No
Why is this different
And at least this allows you to use Mozilla. NineMSN Video you can't
use Firefox. Only IE
>why should i be told what software to run to see a website. it should
>just bloody well work - afterall we have the technology!
All sites do
It's impossible for every site to provide every video in every
available media format.
> some proprietary java app that throws up all sorts of security warnings. no thankyou!
It's been around for 12 months, and it's by far the best for streaming
media
>they have limited their audience and that's bad design - pure and simple.
No it's not. People like you complaining about it, creates exposure.
Most people don't have a problem with using the best available
streaming media player to view media. People like yourself also won't
view something just because it's in Real format. (Yes Real Player
sucks, but there are other legal Real Players out there)
>nope, i'm happy to embrace new fangles just not happy to be forced to
>download unsoftware i know nothing about.
Not know a lot about? Why not? Vividas is very well known to be a
sensational development, and was only developed recently in Australia.
> if you want to practise unsafe computing and end up with a comp infested with viruses and
>spyware then good ahead, be my guest.
Looking at the software the warning gave should tell you that it's not
a problem.
If you know what you're doing you can view any site you want without
being infected. Obviously you're not that computer savvy, if you
decline perfectly safe downloads.
>we've moved on the html 4 & xhmtl standards now. it's not that hard to
>do a site based on web standards these days.
And CUB did
Real, WMV, AVI, etc. None of them are in the Web Standards. Vividas
isn't either.
But you just proved that your claim "I know a lot about computers" is
pure crap, because even 5-year olds who have never used a computer
know all about Vividas.
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Where's the problem? Security?
>
>Duh. The applet wanted access to write to my hard disks. Alarm bells,
>anyone?
>No, but plenty of people have had their computers trashed and rendered
>unusable by them.
Only stupid people who accept dodgy plug-ins. Vividas isn't
>Well, if they ever make it available for download as a REAL video file, I'll
>happily have a look.
And Real Media streamed looks shit.
Anthony Horan
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:16:28 +1000, Anthony Horan
> <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>When I get three separate Java access security warnings just by going to
>>that page, and when it seems they want me to auto-download something called
>>the "Vividas Player" to view it, '
>
> So you never go to sites that require Media Player, Real Player,
> Quicktime, Flash, Shockwave?
Of course I do. But none of the above require installation of software that
nobody has ever heard of that throws up security warnings in the process. I
saw no privacy policy, no identification of the company responsible for the
software, no information about the implications of what I was installing.
For all I knew, it could have been a trojan, or spyware/adware. I don't take
stupid risks like that with my system, which is why it is 100% spyware,
adware and virus free.
Oh, and of the above, only Flash and Shockwave are "drive-by" installs. Both
are from a reputable company (Macromedia) and there is full disclosure
before installing.
> Just like thos Vividas is a media form. It's much newer and only been
> around for about 12 months, and only seen around 3 sites that use it
> (because unlike the others using that technology requires a royalty
> paymeny)
Well that should doom the format, then.
>>Use a standard, accepted video format, idiots.
>
> Vividas is a standard.
"Standard" means accepted and widely-used. Vividas is neither. I doubt
anyone here had even heard of it before this discussion came up.
> You don't get close to that quality with MPEG, RM or Quicktime for
> streaming.
I'm not interested in video streaming. Just let me download the thing.
- Anthony
Anthony Horan
> Not know a lot about? Why not? Vividas is very well known to be a
> sensational development, and was only developed recently in Australia.
> But you just proved that your claim "I know a lot about computers" is
> pure crap, because even 5-year olds who have never used a computer
> know all about Vividas.
Utter bollocks.
Do a search for "Vividas Player" in Google. Only 14 results.
Do the same search in Google Groups. Only one result - this thread.
Brissie
>i'm not bitching about internet advertising per se but rather the
>standards use by CUB for me to see their add.
>
>why should i be told what software to run to see a website. it should
>just bloody well work - afterall we have the technology! they could
>also offer other video formats like: real, windows media, quicktime or
>divx but they don't. instead i'm required to download some proprietary
>java app that throws up all sorts of security warnings. no thankyou!
Read all about it at
Here are some others
http://www.vividas.com/au/streaming/
The online War Of The World campaign used Vividas. As did the online
campaign for Magadascar
The new Lexus advert is online in Vidias
Ditto Jaguar
Fact is if you're not using Vividas you're behind the times.
I take it you took 4 years to upgrade to XP? Because XP wasn't
standard?
If you want to live in the past, live in the past. But don't expect
anyone else to.
Here is the info from the About Us
-----------------
ividas was founded as eGenie Australia Pty. Ltd., in August 2000. The
purpose of the company was to develop technology to enable computer
users to access full screen broadcast quality video without the need
to install software. A 2 year R&D project was undertaken in Melbourne
with funding provided by private investors.
Patents were lodged in 2001 and the company believes that these will
ultimately be granted world wide. A continual process of patent
applications is being undertaken as development continues.
As the technology has continued to develop, a broad range of blue chip
corporate and government clients have become adopters across a diverse
range of applications. A Macintosh OSX compatible version of the
Vividas player was launched in March 2004.
In 2003, a London based investment group, Sigma Technology Fund,
became significant investors in the company and a London based holding
company was formed. Three wholly owned subsidiary companies now
service USA, Europe and Australasia.
-----------------------
People like you piss me off.
You want to live in the past. I bet you complained when the DVD Player
came out, saying "Hey it's not a VCR, I'm not going to use it because
it could damage me"
Anthony Horan
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:33:49 +1000, Anthony Horan
> <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No, but plenty of people have had their computers trashed and rendered
>>unusable by them.
>
> Only stupid people who accept dodgy plug-ins. Vividas isn't
And we know this... HOW, exactly? *No* information is provided to the end
user when the download is initiated. Nothing.
>>Well, if they ever make it available for download as a REAL video file, I'll
>>happily have a look.
>
> And Real Media streamed looks shit.
Duh. Not "Real" as in the brand name and format. REAL as in a video file
that is playable by common Windows and Mac video players. Divx/Xvid,
Quicktime or even WMV would be just fine.
FWIW, here's the link to the "large" video file:
http://www.bigad.com.au/viv/3787_bigAd_730.viv
First person to figure out how to convert it to something usable wins :)
- Anthony
Stephen Oakes
"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote...
> It's been around for 12 months, and it's by far the best for streaming
> media
Says who? Why?
> But you just proved that your claim "I know a lot about computers" is
> pure crap, because even 5-year olds who have never used a computer
> know all about Vividas.
Well, this thirty-something year-old computer professional hasn't heard of
it before!
--
Stephen Oakes
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:30:37 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:33:49 +1000, Anthony Horan
>> <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>No, but plenty of people have had their computers trashed and rendered
>>>unusable by them.
>>
>> Only stupid people who accept dodgy plug-ins. Vividas isn't
>
>And we know this... HOW, exactly? *No* information is provided to the end
>user when the download is initiated. Nothing.
>
>>>Well, if they ever make it available for download as a REAL video file, I'll
>>>happily have a look.
>>
>> And Real Media streamed looks shit.
>
>Duh. Not "Real" as in the brand name and format. REAL as in a video file
>that is playable by common Windows and Mac video players. Divx/Xvid,
>Quicktime or even WMV would be just fine.
And all of them looked shit streamed
Vividas is a REAL video format
>FWIW, here's the link to the "large" video file:
>
>http://www.bigad.com.au/viv/3787_bigAd_730.viv
>
>First person to figure out how to convert it to something usable wins :)
You can't. It isn't designed for that. It's designed for streaming
video. Not to download and storef.
In the future you'll be able to watch movies with Vividas. And they
don't want you converting them and distribute them all over the place.
Brissie
Do the same searching for just Vividas. Vividas is a Registered
trademark. So if they're talking about Vividas they are talking about
this. Over 200,000 results
Same. If someone mentions Quicktime, they do say "Quicktime player",
they say just "Quicktime" or "Quicktime format", etc. They don't say
WMV Player, or AVI player. They just say WMV, AVI, etc.
>Do the same search in Google Groups. Only one result - this thread.
Ditto. But 653 results.
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:17:30 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:16:28 +1000, Anthony Horan
>> <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>When I get three separate Java access security warnings just by going to
>>>that page, and when it seems they want me to auto-download something called
>>>the "Vividas Player" to view it, '
>>
>> So you never go to sites that require Media Player, Real Player,
>> Quicktime, Flash, Shockwave?
>
>Of course I do. But none of the above require installation of software that
>nobody has ever heard of that throws up security warnings in the process
Everyone has heard of Vividas
>. I>>saw no privacy policy, no identification of the company responsible for the >software, no information about the implications of what I was installing.
How about you visit their site - www.vividas.com ? Make sense?
>For all I knew, it could have been a trojan, or spyware/adware. I don't take
>stupid risks like that with my system, which is why it is 100% spyware,
>adware and virus free.
I've never had a virus or spyware either, and I downloaded it. Why?
Because it's harmless.
>Oh, and of the above, only Flash and Shockwave are "drive-by" installs. Both
>are from a reputable company (Macromedia) and there is full disclosure
>before installing.
And in MacroMedia's early days I'm sure there were people like you
saying the same thing about them. And didn't they prove themselves to
be utter morons?
>Well that should doom the format, then.
No because it's the best. People pay for the best.
This is the only format that can fully stream without any hiccups a
full-length movie.
>"Standard" means accepted and widely-used. Vividas is neither. I doubt
>anyone here had even heard of it before this discussion came up.
Most people have
>> You don't get close to that quality with MPEG, RM or Quicktime for
>> streaming.
>
>I'm not interested in video streaming. Just let me download the thing.
And violate copyright? Vividas also is much more secure than the other
formats.
d
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:27:39 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>> Not know a lot about? Why not? Vividas is very well known to be a
>> sensational development, and was only developed recently in Australia.
>
>> But you just proved that your claim "I know a lot about computers" is
>> pure crap, because even 5-year olds who have never used a computer
>> know all about Vividas.
>
> Utter bollocks.
>
> Do a search for "Vividas Player" in Google. Only 14 results.
Don't know what funky version of Google you are using Anthony, but
Results 1 - 10 of about 19 for Vividas Player site:.au.
Results 1 - 10 of about 927 for Vividas Player.
Results 1 - 10 of about 253,000 for Vividas
d
Brissie
<soa...@XXXbigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote...
>> It's been around for 12 months, and it's by far the best for streaming
>> media
>
>Says who?
Everyone
> Why?
Watch it. It's 100 times better. It's clear. Same as DVD is clearly
better quality than VHS
>> But you just proved that your claim "I know a lot about computers" is
>> pure crap, because even 5-year olds who have never used a computer
>> know all about Vividas.
>
>Well, this thirty-something year-old computer professional hasn't heard of
>it before!
Well you're one of those "professionals" that follow books, instead of
knowing what you're doing. If anything happens that deviates from what
the book says you have no idea and has to call someone to help you.
Same as the idiots who man tech support centres and call themselves
"Computer experts" when all they do is read scripts, and if you
mention anything not mentioned in the script they say "What's DHCP?",
etc.
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:30:37 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:33:49 +1000, Anthony Horan
>> <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>No, but plenty of people have had their computers trashed and rendered
>>>unusable by them.
>>
>> Only stupid people who accept dodgy plug-ins. Vividas isn't
>
>And we know this... HOW, exactly? *No* information is provided to the end
>user when the download is initiated. Nothing.
>
>>>Well, if they ever make it available for download as a REAL video file, I'll
>>>happily have a look.
>>
>> And Real Media streamed looks shit.
>
>Duh. Not "Real" as in the brand name and format. REAL as in a video file
>that is playable by common Windows and Mac video players. Divx/Xvid,
>Quicktime or even WMV would be just fine.
DivX & Quicktime playback does not come standard with XP. You have to
download and install it seperatly. This is no different.
Even if you download the likes of WinAmp, etc. that doesn't come with
DivX. You have to install the codec seperatly.
When divX first came out did you refuse to install it for several
years? Because you're overly cautious nature said "Oh something bad
might happen to my computer"
Anthony Horan
> Fact is if you're not using Vividas you're behind the times.
ROFL!!
A proprietary streaming format that clients have to PAY to use? Behind the
times my arse.
> I take it you took 4 years to upgrade to XP? Because XP wasn't
> standard?
Well, I upgraded to XP on the day it was released.
> People like you piss me off.
You've proven before that you're an idiot, and your fanatical Vividas
cheerleading and idiotic analogies in this thread only serve to confirm
that.
Anthony Horan
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:53:27 GMT, "Stephen Oakes"
> <soa...@XXXbigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote...
>>> It's been around for 12 months, and it's by far the best for streaming
>>> media
>>
>>Says who?
>
> Everyone
Everyone? The only people I've seen calling it the "best" are Vividas and
you.
Anthony Horan
>>Duh. Not "Real" as in the brand name and format. REAL as in a video file
>>that is playable by common Windows and Mac video players. Divx/Xvid,
>>Quicktime or even WMV would be just fine.
>
> And all of them looked shit streamed
Paying attention yet? I don't *want* to stream video. I want to be able to
download it.
>>http://www.bigad.com.au/viv/3787_bigAd_730.viv
>>
>>First person to figure out how to convert it to something usable wins :)
>
> You can't. It isn't designed for that. It's designed for streaming
> video. Not to download and storef.
Exactly. So it's useless to me and to hundreds of thousands of others. Not
to mention the poor sods on dialup who can't watch it at all even if they
wanted to.
> In the future you'll be able to watch movies with Vividas. And they
> don't want you converting them and distribute them all over the place.
They'll be hacked, *if* the format proves popular. Something I can't see
happening any time soon.
Anthony Horan
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:46:41 +1000, Anthony Horan
> <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:27:39 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>>
>>> Not know a lot about? Why not? Vividas is very well known to be a
>>> sensational development, and was only developed recently in Australia.
>>
>>> But you just proved that your claim "I know a lot about computers" is
>>> pure crap, because even 5-year olds who have never used a computer
>>> know all about Vividas.
>>
>>Utter bollocks.
>>
>>Do a search for "Vividas Player" in Google. Only 14 results.
>
> Do the same searching for just Vividas. Vividas is a Registered
> trademark. So if they're talking about Vividas they are talking about
> this. Over 200,000 results
No results that tell you what the hell the thing is, though, and whether or
not it's safe to install.
>>Do the same search in Google Groups. Only one result - this thread.
>
> Ditto. But 653 results.
Funny, I only get 51 in Groups searching on "Vividas". One result is this
thread. Most of the rest are in Spanish, where "vividas" means "lived".
The one thing I *don't* see is "everyone" talking about it.
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:54:49 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>>>Duh. Not "Real" as in the brand name and format. REAL as in a video file
>>>that is playable by common Windows and Mac video players. Divx/Xvid,
>>>Quicktime or even WMV would be just fine.
>>
>> And all of them looked shit streamed
>
>Paying attention yet? I don't *want* to stream video. I want to be able to
>download it.
Well you can't. And they don't want you to. If you download it, you
can pirate it. That's why they don't let you.
You can't download the NineMSN Videos either and I don't see you
complaining about them.
>>>http://www.bigad.com.au/viv/3787_bigAd_730.viv
>>>
>>>First person to figure out how to convert it to something usable wins :)
>>
>> You can't. It isn't designed for that. It's designed for streaming
>> video. Not to download and storef.
>
>Exactly. So it's useless to me and to hundreds of thousands of others. Not
>to mention the poor sods on dialup who can't watch it at all even if they
>wanted to.
Vividas does support Dial-up
Vividas has 5 levels
1. Dial-up
2. IDSN
3. Low (256k DSL)
4. Medium (512k DSL)
5. High (1500k DSL and higher)
So Vividas supports Dial-up, and some Vividas video has a dial-up
level. But Carlton only provide the highest 3 levels. They don't have
the lower 3. It's not the format that doesn't support it, it's Carlton
And people who own the video have the right to decide if they want it
downloadable or not. Having downloaded video pirated all over the Web
is a major problem, and one reason why companies don't sell TV shows
over the Net. This format will allow that to happen (of course they'll
still be able to be copied, by using TV Out and recording on a DVD.
But it's not the same as downloading a DivX file and sharing it -
takes longer. Same as copying an actual DVD)
Here's an idea. Switch to broadband. You can get cheap broadband for
$15 a month. And good speed broadband for $30 a month.
Brissie
Expand your reading material past comic books
Anthony Horan
> Everyone has heard of Vividas
I'm promoting you to first-class moron. Congratulations.
As I said earlier, nobody here seemed to have heard of it except YOU. Or are
you trying to assert that you are "everyone". You're so arrogant in your own
little fantasy world, you probably did mean exactly that.
>>. I>>saw no privacy policy, no identification of the company responsible for the >software, no information about the implications of what I was installing.
>
> How about you visit their site - www.vividas.com ? Make sense?
There is precisely ZERO information about their player app there. Believe
me, I checked.
>>For all I knew, it could have been a trojan, or spyware/adware. I don't take
>>stupid risks like that with my system, which is why it is 100% spyware,
>>adware and virus free.
>
> I've never had a virus or spyware either, and I downloaded it. Why?
> Because it's harmless.
You're missing the original point. Again.
>>Well that should doom the format, then.
>
> No because it's the best. People pay for the best.
*Snigger*
Don't happen to work for Vividas or their marketing team, by any chance?
> This is the only format that can fully stream without any hiccups a
> full-length movie.
But who actually WANTS to stream a full-length movie? Despite all the
latest-and-greatest hyperbole touted by the media, I seriously doubt many
people do.
>>"Standard" means accepted and widely-used. Vividas is neither. I doubt
>>anyone here had even heard of it before this discussion came up.
>
> Most people have
No, nobody but you has.
>>I'm not interested in video streaming. Just let me download the thing.
>
> And violate copyright?
It's a fucking TV commercial! I would think CUB would *want* people to
spread it around!
> Vividas also is much more secure than the other formats.
That won't last.
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:52:12 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>> Fact is if you're not using Vividas you're behind the times.
>
>ROFL!!
>
>A proprietary streaming format that clients have to PAY to use? Behind the
>times my arse.
Yes, same as manufacturers can now make VCRs without paying license
fees. For every DVD they make they have to pay a license fee. Same as
CDs, companies have to pay a royalty payment for every CD/DVD they
produce. They don't for tapes or records
In the future they won't have to pay royalty fees for DVD
Players/recorders or CDs/DVDs
Fact is when new technology comes out royalty payments are made. Old
technology becomes free to use.
Using your argument we won't be using DVD Players and still be using
records and tapes instead of CDs.
You can't have it both ways.
>> I take it you took 4 years to upgrade to XP? Because XP wasn't
>> standard?
>
>Well, I upgraded to XP on the day it was released.
Well then you're a hypocrit
>
Anthony Horan
> When divX first came out did you refuse to install it for several
> years? Because you're overly cautious nature said "Oh something bad
> might happen to my computer"
No, but then, their installer and their web site gave me real information
about the nature of what I was installing, and there was plenty of
discussion about it online.
The Vividas installer wants to me to grant it extra Java permissions, but
does not tell me what those permissions are. Unacceptable.
Captain Murphy
>> Where's the problem? Security?
>
> Duh. The applet wanted access to write to my hard disks. Alarm bells,
> anyone?
Dude, you're on the Internet, every application you use that's
internet aware is writing to your hard disk with pretty much
full permissions. No-one can keep track of every read or write
to their hard disk that an application makes.
Even an expert would have no clue unless they spent all their
time on the machine watching every single byte in and out, which
would render the computer pretty much useless as nothing useful
could get done.
Did you know that the Macromedia Flash applet can be set
to use up to unlimited hard disk space for storage? Or that
it can take full control of any webcams, microphones and
video capture devices attached to the system? Probably not
and you likely have that on your drive right now without a
second thought.
>> Nobody has ever died as a result of an Internet plug-in.
>
> No, but plenty of people have had their computers trashed and rendered
> unusable by them.
And people have had their systems trashed by using security software
like ZoneAlarm and Norton Internet Security.
Brissie
Look at the details
Also go to the Vividas website
Graham
"Anthony Horan" <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141jska24k21.1uougrsr3alnk$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:41:26 +1000, pharro wrote:
>
>> Sources at the company who created the streaming technology.
>
> The company really should (1) provide more information about their product
> on their web site, as there is pretty much none there at the moment, and
> (2)
> fix the Java security problem. Until then, local or not, they can bite me.
>
>> 35,000 downloads in about 5 hours.
>
> Oh, well tell me where I can DOWNLOAD the ad and I'll watch it that way
> then!
>
>> They've now played it on ACA apparently so that's 2 free screenings
>> on the NINE Network.
>
> Free? Or paid? Hmmmm?
>
>
> - Anthony
folks..its a beer ad...Carlton Draught....Just how many people do you think
are going to go running to a pub and but a pot Carlton Draught because of
this ad? Talk about a storm in a pot...its entertainment more than
anything...and no one has mentioned abusing the tune Carimia Burana or
however its spelt..
gra
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:01:31 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>> Everyone has heard of Vividas
>
>I'm promoting you to first-class moron. Congratulations.
>
>As I said earlier, nobody here seemed to have heard of it except YOU. Or are
>you trying to assert that you are "everyone". You're so arrogant in your own
>little fantasy world, you probably did mean exactly that.
Read the other posts. About 80% of people have.
There have been major articles written in computer magazines
Heck 12-18 months ago there was even stories in the newspaper and on
the TV news, about this ground-breaking technology which will
revolutionise the way media is distributed on the Net(the reporters
words not mine) and how it was an Australian company that did it.
>>>. I>>saw no privacy policy, no identification of the company responsible for the >software, no information about the implications of what I was installing.
>>
>> How about you visit their site - www.vividas.com ? Make sense?
>
>There is precisely ZERO information about their player app there. Believe
>me, I checked.
>
>>>For all I knew, it could have been a trojan, or spyware/adware. I don't take
>>>stupid risks like that with my system, which is why it is 100% spyware,
>>>adware and virus free.
>>
>> I've never had a virus or spyware either, and I downloaded it. Why?
>> Because it's harmless.
>
>You're missing the original point. Again.
>
>>>Well that should doom the format, then.
>>
>> No because it's the best. People pay for the best.
>
>*Snigger*
>
>Don't happen to work for Vividas or their marketing team, by any chance?
>
>> This is the only format that can fully stream without any hiccups a
>> full-length movie.
>
>But who actually WANTS to stream a full-length movie? Despite all the
>latest-and-greatest hyperbole touted by the media, I seriously doubt many
>people do.
Not just that. But anything.
Try watching anything streamed in full-screen with any other format.
There will be some pauses. Not with this.
And lots of people do want full-length movies. Downloading of movies &
TV Shows now uses 40% of Internet bandwidth.
>>>"Standard" means accepted and widely-used. Vividas is neither. I doubt
>>>anyone here had even heard of it before this discussion came up.
>>
>> Most people have
>
>No, nobody but you has.
And the others
>>>I'm not interested in video streaming. Just let me download the thing.
>>
>> And violate copyright?
>
>It's a fucking TV commercial! I would think CUB would *want* people to
>spread it around!
Actually they don't. They still have copyright. Companies have sued
before for unlawful distribution of commercials.
They want it distributed, but in a controlled environment. They don't
want their advertisment appearing on sites that don't meet their
approval. Carlton probably won't because they sell beer, but a lot of
companies don't allow themselves to be advertised(even for free) on
adult sites. Because being associated with them can create a poor
view. Similarily 5 companies pulled their TV advertising during the L
Word last year because the Catholic people banded together and vowed
to boycott the companies until the ads stopped appearing during the
show because the show is "extremely evil".
Trust me. You put that Carlton ad on a site that they disprove of,
you'll be sued. Because it could harm them as people may boycott the
company due to their association with material they disagree with.
tonymy01
> Read the other posts. About 80% of people have.
Well I haven't.
And so much for "streaming" when you can download the "high quality" version
of it and it is simply a 5meg file?
I agree with all the posters so far about this not being in a recognisable
format.
I see a link in a newsgroup with "look at this", with no obvious association
to "carlton UB" and pop-ups asking if I want to install various things, I
declined this generous offer to get a worm or spyware too...
It is only after a few of you have done the deed and no-one is complaining
that it has trashed their systems and TCP port 32374 is suddenly accepting
connections that I have decided that it is likely safe.
And of course, because I declined the pop-up request, it wouldn't work for
me. I ended up having to quit all of my many open IE windows, relaunch
and it asked for permissions again and I accepted this time. The silly
thing was that I went to the vividas website to try and fix it (prior to
completely closing the browser down) and couldn't get anywhere, same error
in the bottom left about java permissions or something.
All this trouble for a silly new format....
Not only that, but the damn thing changed my screen res to something
stupidly small, went full screen, killed my TV-overlay I have always
running, and just looked plain shit for a supposed high quality image...
But the ad was quite cool... ;-)
Cheers
--
Tonymy01
http://tonyspage.abock.de for Topfield TAPS, links etc.
Brissie
<tony_h@*remove*bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
>> Read the other posts. About 80% of people have.
>
>Well I haven't.
>And so much for "streaming" when you can download the "high quality" version
>of it and it is simply a 5meg file?
>I agree with all the posters so far about this not being in a recognisable
>format.
>I see a link in a newsgroup with "look at this", with no obvious association
>to "carlton UB" and pop-ups asking if I want to install various things, I
>declined this generous offer to get a worm or spyware too...
The whole site is Carlton. It's obvious.
Remember it's a .au address. Not anyone can register them. You need a
registered trademark to do so. So a criminal off the street can't use
a registered trademark of another organisation to create the site.
Especially since this site has also been mentioned in many daily major
newspapers today.
>And of course, because I declined the pop-up request, it wouldn't work for
>me. I ended up having to quit all of my many open IE windows, relaunch
>and it asked for permissions again and I accepted this time. The silly
>thing was that I went to the vividas website to try and fix it (prior to
>completely closing the browser down) and couldn't get anywhere, same error
>in the bottom left about java permissions or something.
>All this trouble for a silly new format...
Set your computer up properly. Nothing like that for me. But then I
use Firefox, not IE.
>Not only that, but the damn thing changed my screen res to something
>stupidly small,
> went full screen
Exactly. That's a good thing. If you select 'low' quality, then it
doesn't go full screen, only opens in a window. But if you select high
quality then you have the required speed to get it in full screen
without anything else. You don't watch TV with crap around the video,
so you don't on the computer either.
tonymy01
> The whole site is Carlton. It's obvious.
How is http://www.bigad.com.au/ obviously carlton please tell?
Anyone can put a page together to look like a real page, I assume this is
how all those "please re-setup your password with "insert some bank name
here"bank" catch out newbies. This page has a whole 4 words on it
"Carlton Draught Big Ad" to identify it (both page title and text on page),
how is this supposed to tell me with a cursory glance it is affiliated with
CUB and not some scheme to make me run some activeX or other applet I don't
want to. Big deal it has an ".au" extension, I am sure there are plenty of
freebie hosters out there with .au and anyone can redirect DNS requests to
that hostname to another page anyway
.
> Especially since this site has also been mentioned in many daily major
> newspapers today.
Don't ever buy the paper, didn't go out near a newsagent anyway.
> Set your computer up properly. Nothing like that for me. But then I
> use Firefox, not IE.
You twit, I declined the pop-up (the security warning, you know, the one
anyone gets if they don't want their browser hijacked by fuck knows what out
there), and it seemed that by doing this it impacted all requests to the
player from any site. If you want to setup your firefox to not ask/decline
these things, then so-be it.
>> Not only that, but the damn thing changed my screen res to something
>> stupidly small,
>> went full screen
>
> Exactly. That's a good thing. If you select 'low' quality, then it
> doesn't go full screen, only opens in a window. But if you select high
> quality then you have the required speed to get it in full screen
> without anything else. You don't watch TV with crap around the video,
> so you don't on the computer either.
But I don't like things taking control of my screen res (=icons moved all
over the place, =overlays shutdown). I much prefer to watch it in its
native res, and give me the choice to watch in full screen if I so wish (but
still don't like my 1600x1200 setting fucked with).
Look, you keep harping on about the virtues of this wonderful streaming
technology (bullshit.. that was not streaming when it clearly is merely
downloading a 5meg file to play, in seconds too, no need for streaming for
that, yeah, alright, so maybe it plays while downloading, so can a number of
standard formats too), I don't see it. The 5meg file was worse resolution
than most TV show DIVXs I have seen (well, if it didn't zoom up to
fullscreen with a 19" monitor 30cm from my face maybe it might have looked
better).
Give me a 720x576 native of it, at native non-zoom size, and I might be
impressed.
Brissie
<tony_h@*remove*bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
>news:ppk4e111jn969a28l...@4ax.com
>> The whole site is Carlton. It's obvious.
>
>How is http://www.bigad.com.au/ obviously carlton please tell?
Because Carlton own the 'bigad' trademark. And you need to own the
trademark to register a .au domain
>Anyone can put a page together to look like a real page,
Not on a .au domain
> This page has a whole 4 words on it "Carlton Draught Big Ad" to identify it (both page title and text on page),
>how is this supposed to tell me with a cursory glance it is affiliated with
>CUB
Because it's a .au domain
> and not some scheme to make me run some activeX or other applet
Firefox doesn't support ActiveX
> Big deal it has an ".au" extension, I am sure there are plenty of
>freebie hosters out there with .au
You can NOT register a .au domain unless you own the trademark. You
put in a request and it is examined before granting you the domain
> If you want to setup your firefox to not ask/decline these things, then so-be it.
I do have popups automatically blocked. And it never said this was a
popup. Because Firefox can actually determine that it wasn't an actual
popup but a video.
>native res, and give me the choice to watch in full screen if I so wish
You don't have to watch it in full screen. Just select low resolution
(or if they have the options avaialble which Carlton don't Dial-up or
ISDN). Only Medium and High are full-screen
> so maybe it plays while downloading, so can a number of standard formats too)
But all of the others pause, and/or have long delays before starting
to play. This one starts straight away with no pauses
> The 5meg file was worse resolution than most TV show DIVXs I have seen
You obviously didn't view the High quality file then.
tonymy01
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:09:58 GMT, "tonymy01"
> <tony_h@*remove*bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>> "Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
>> news:ppk4e111jn969a28l...@4ax.com
>>> The whole site is Carlton. It's obvious.
>>
>> How is http://www.bigad.com.au/ obviously carlton please tell?
>
> Because Carlton own the 'bigad' trademark. And you need to own the
> trademark to register a .au domain
Oh, so this is obvious to blind freddy is it? bigad related to carlton,
hmm, maybe only if we do a domain search. I am sure there might be a
harbour bridge I can sell you at http://www.bigsky.com.au too...
>> Anyone can put a page together to look like a real page,
>
> Not on a .au domain
http://users.bigpond.net.au/tony_h/CarltoinDSmallAd.htm
> Firefox doesn't support ActiveX
Whatever, it was SP2 for IE doing its job and asking if I really wanted to
run some unheard of tool from some unheard of group. It wasn't activeX,
this was my haste to post about the popup. It is an applet warning, and
says "Vividas Europe Limited" in the text... the publisher is "Thawte
Consulting cc" whoever they are...
>> The 5meg file was worse resolution than most TV show DIVXs I have
>> seen
>
> You obviously didn't view the High quality file then.
What a crock, 5meg for a, what, 30second commercial is definitely not high
quality, no matter how good the compression is. You see, with my inferior
browser "IE" I see when I hover over the "HIGH" button a file link
referenced, which I downloaded, and it is 5.35meg. Perhaps if one wasn't
watching through coke bottle glasses (or a 12inch black&white MacIISE
screen) they might see that the quality is quite poor...
I gather you post on aus.politics a lot, because you sure like arguing for
the sake of it...
Like I said, I ended up viewing the damn thing FFS, I just thought I would
indicate I had similar feelings to others on their very valid points.
Brissie
<tony_h@*remove*bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
>news:bfn4e15a0pf1h2ssa...@4ax.com
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:09:58 GMT, "tonymy01"
>> <tony_h@*remove*bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ppk4e111jn969a28l...@4ax.com
>>>> The whole site is Carlton. It's obvious.
>>>
>>> How is http://www.bigad.com.au/ obviously carlton please tell?
>>
>> Because Carlton own the 'bigad' trademark. And you need to own the
>> trademark to register a .au domain
>
>Oh, so this is obvious to blind freddy is it?
Yes if you look at registered trademarks you'll see who owns it
>hmm, maybe only if we do a domain search. I am sure there might be a
>harbour bridge I can sell you at http://www.bigsky.com.au too...
You know selling something you don't own is fraud?
> It wasn't activeX,
It was Java
>>> The 5meg file was worse resolution than most TV show DIVXs I have
>>> seen
>>
>> You obviously didn't view the High quality file then.
>What a crock, 5meg for a, what, 30second commercial is definitely not high
>quality, no matter how good the compression is. You see, with my inferior
>browser "IE" I see when I hover over the "HIGH" button a file link
>referenced, which I downloaded, and it is 5.35meg. Perhaps if one wasn't
>watching through coke bottle glasses (or a 12inch black&white MacIISE
>screen) they might see that the quality is quite poor...
The resolution of a DivX file is 600-700x350-400
The resolution of Vividas files (Medium & High) is higher than that
(Significantly so for the high resolution). No divX file comes close
to the resolution of the High quality.
Graham
>
> Exactly. So it's useless to me and to hundreds of thousands of others. Not
> to mention the poor sods on dialup who can't watch it at all even if they
> wanted to.
I'm on dialup..I watched it online
gra
Graham
>>so I gather you guys didn't see the ad..its a pisser. Only problem I have
>>with it is that I'm og via dial up and it would play for a while,
>>bufer..play for a while...but a great ad....all the fuss about software is
>>just plain silly
>
> You need at least DSL to view it
>
> DSL 256kb - select low
> DSL 512kb - select medium
> DSL 1500 or cable - Select High
bullshit..I viewed it using dialup albeit a bit shakey with it stopping to
buffer
gra
>
> The technology is only really aimed at those 3, because of it's very
> high quality. But there are 2 lower formats, but in the 3 sites that
> I've seen that use this technology they've never been used.
Brissie
wrote:
>
>
>>>so I gather you guys didn't see the ad..its a pisser. Only problem I have
>>>with it is that I'm og via dial up and it would play for a while,
>>>bufer..play for a while...but a great ad....all the fuss about software is
>>>just plain silly
>>
>> You need at least DSL to view it
>>
>> DSL 256kb - select low
>> DSL 512kb - select medium
>> DSL 1500 or cable - Select High
>
>
>bullshit..I viewed it using dialup albeit a bit shakey with it stopping to
>buffer
Exactly. You said it "a bit shakey with it stopping the buffer"
That means it doesn't work correctly.
You CAN download a 200GB file with dial-up. But it will take forever
so of course you say you can't do it.
I think you need to understand the terms "You need this"
Minimum system requirements for games are the same. They do work on
lower specs just not properly. This was the same. It works but not
properly
Brissie
wrote:
>
>>
>> Exactly. So it's useless to me and to hundreds of thousands of others. Not
>> to mention the poor sods on dialup who can't watch it at all even if they
>> wanted to.
>
>I'm on dialup..I watched it online
>
But you admitted yourself there were pauses
-db-
>>>I find people who bitch about Internet advertising, despite it's guises,
>>>methods, technologies, and technological acceptedness, etc..., rather
>>>charlatanical.
>>
>>i'm not bitching about internet advertising per se but rather the
>>standards use by CUB for me to see their add.
>
>
> All sites do
>
> They use the best
>
> They can use MPEG, MOV, etc. but they use the best. One they have to
> pay to use. The other formats you don't need to pay
>
> You use NineMSN Video.
>
> You have to use Windows Media Player for that.
>
> Do you complain?
>
> No
>
> Why is this different
>
> And at least this allows you to use Mozilla. NineMSN Video you can't
> use Firefox. Only IE
well, IE is old dog of a browser. it has not had a decent revamp in 3
years. it is nowhere near as secure as firefox. IE is also way behind
in terms of web standards. hell, it can't even do cascading stylesheets
properly. do a google on "peekaboo bug" for an example.
>
>
>>why should i be told what software to run to see a website. it should
>>just bloody well work - afterall we have the technology!
>
>
> All sites do
no, they most certainly do not. for example. i can use most of the
westpac site for my banking but not all features - for that, i'm obliged
to use IE. my mortgage company redesigned their site a few months back
and rendered a site that had previously worked fine on firefox utterly
unusable. half the graphics wouldn't load and i couldn't log in unless
i went backwards to IE. luckily they saw the light and changed it the
javascript so that it no longer shuts out modern, standards compliant
browsers.
>
> It's impossible for every site to provide every video in every
> available media format.
i'm not asking that - just a well known alternative.
>
>
>>some proprietary java app that throws up all sorts of security warnings. no thankyou!
>
>
> It's been around for 12 months, and it's by far the best for streaming
> media
maybe it is, but CUB have done a poor job of convincing me why I should
download vividas software. no explantion at all. compare that to
ripcurl.com which actually explains why they use vividas.
>
>
>>they have limited their audience and that's bad design - pure and simple.
>
>
> No it's not. People like you complaining about it, creates exposure.
exposure aint no good if it doesn't work.
> Most people don't have a problem with using the best available
> streaming media player to view media. People like yourself also won't
> view something just because it's in Real format. (Yes Real Player
> sucks, but there are other legal Real Players out there)
>
>
>
>>nope, i'm happy to embrace new fangles just not happy to be forced to
>>download unsoftware i know nothing about.
>
>
> Not know a lot about? Why not? Vividas is very well known to be a
> sensational development, and was only developed recently in Australia.
>
>
>> if you want to practise unsafe computing and end up with a comp infested with viruses and
>>spyware then good ahead, be my guest.
>
>
> Looking at the software the warning gave should tell you that it's not
> a problem.
if i get a warning message i heed it. i will check out the software &
only install it when i do some research & find it is safe to do so.
anybody who is stupid enough to click the "yes" button every time they
are asked to download some software will get what they deserve.
>
> If you know what you're doing you can view any site you want without
> being infected. Obviously you're not that computer savvy, if you
> decline perfectly safe downloads.
>
>
>>we've moved on the html 4 & xhmtl standards now. it's not that hard to
>>do a site based on web standards these days.
>
>
> And CUB did
actually that site does not validate as html. go check for yourself if
you want:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigad.com.au
>
> Real, WMV, AVI, etc. None of them are in the Web Standards. Vividas
> isn't either.
true
>
> But you just proved that your claim "I know a lot about computers" is
> pure crap, because even 5-year olds who have never used a computer
> know all about Vividas.
what a load of toss! i never made any such claim of expertise. all i'm
asking is that CUB give an alternative media version or explain to users
why we should use an unproven format. vividas may well be technically
superior to its competitors but it has yet to gain widepread acceptance.
CUB need to ask themselves whether the website is promoting beer or
vividas. i assume it is the beer. but, if that question needs to asked
then it seems to me they have failed to promote the beer adequately by
blurring the message.
Brissie
<widepope.at....@foo.bar> wrote:
>Brissie wrote:
>>>>I find people who bitch about Internet advertising, despite it's guises,
>>>>methods, technologies, and technological acceptedness, etc..., rather
>>>>charlatanical.
>>>
>>>i'm not bitching about internet advertising per se but rather the
>>>standards use by CUB for me to see their add.
>>
>>
>> All sites do
>>
>> They use the best
>>
>> They can use MPEG, MOV, etc. but they use the best. One they have to
>> pay to use. The other formats you don't need to pay
>>
>> You use NineMSN Video.
>>
>> You have to use Windows Media Player for that.
>>
>> Do you complain?
>>
>> No
>>
>> Why is this different
>>
>> And at least this allows you to use Mozilla. NineMSN Video you can't
>> use Firefox. Only IE
>
>well, IE is old dog of a browser. it has not had a decent revamp in 3
>years. it is nowhere near as secure as firefox. IE is also way behind
>in terms of web standards. hell, it can't even do cascading stylesheets
>properly. do a google on "peekaboo bug" for an example.
Exactly
IE is shit, and if Microsoft weren't involved in NineMSN they'd
probably allow other browsers to view NineMSN Video
I love the Microsoft release that showed that Firefox didn't work
properply. They created a site that they said was to standards. They
said Firefox didn't display it properly, and IE did. Sure it looked
better in IE, but it displayed correctly under Firefox. And adding one
small 7 character string would have allowed Firefox to display it the
same way.
So there attempt to say Firefox doesn't adhere to the standards proved
to be wrong, or just a blatant lie to try and fool people who aren't
great with CSS.
>no, they most certainly do not. for example. i can use most of the
>westpac site for my banking but not all features - for that, i'm obliged
>to use IE.
The only things that shouldn't work are ActiveX. ActiveX is so
incredibly insecure that you'll never want to use ActiveX. If Westpac
use ActiveX, I'd be worried.
>maybe it is, but CUB have done a poor job of convincing me why I should
>download vividas software. no explantion at all. compare that to
>ripcurl.com which actually explains why they use vividas.
>>
>>
>>>they have limited their audience and that's bad design - pure and simple.
>>
>>
>> No it's not. People like you complaining about it, creates exposure.
>
>exposure aint no good if it doesn't work.
But the name "Carlton Draught" still gets mentioned. That's the most
important. They create ads like these to make people talk about them
and mention the name, not to necessarily view the ad.
>if i get a warning message i heed it. i will check out the software &
>only install it when i do some research & find it is safe to do so.
>anybody who is stupid enough to click the "yes" button every time they
>are asked to download some software will get what they deserve.
I've never once had a spyware or virus problem in the last 10 years.
Just seeing Vividas should tell you that it's fine.
>actually that site does not validate as html. go check for yourself if
>you want:
>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigad.com.au
But those errors are the bullshit errors, nothing major.
>> But you just proved that your claim "I know a lot about computers" is
>> pure crap
>
>what a load of toss! i never made any such claim of expertise.
2 years ago you did. Yes I have a good memory and remember.
> all i'm asking is that CUB give an alternative media version or explain to users
>why we should use an unproven format.
It's proven itself.
>CUB need to ask themselves whether the website is promoting beer or
>vividas. i assume it is the beer. but, if that question needs to asked
>then it seems to me they have failed to promote the beer adequately by
>blurring the message.
The beer is being promoted even more by people complaining about the
format.
d
RE: Firefox
> no, they most certainly do not. for example. i can use most of the
> westpac site for my banking but not all features - for that, i'm obliged
> to use IE.
I'm running version 1.0.6 of Firefox and have yet to come across any issues
with Westpac's internet banking. Which aspect of it in particular does it
have problems with?
-db-
[edit]
>>
>>well, IE is old dog of a browser. it has not had a decent revamp in 3
>>years. it is nowhere near as secure as firefox. IE is also way behind
>>in terms of web standards. hell, it can't even do cascading stylesheets
>>properly. do a google on "peekaboo bug" for an example.
>
>
> Exactly
>
> IE is shit, and if Microsoft weren't involved in NineMSN they'd
> probably allow other browsers to view NineMSN Video
>
> I love the Microsoft release that showed that Firefox didn't work
> properply. They created a site that they said was to standards. They
> said Firefox didn't display it properly, and IE did. Sure it looked
> better in IE, but it displayed correctly under Firefox. And adding one
> small 7 character string would have allowed Firefox to display it the
> same way.
>
> So there attempt to say Firefox doesn't adhere to the standards proved
> to be wrong, or just a blatant lie to try and fool people who aren't
> great with CSS.
>
>
i think we're in agreement on that.
>
>>no, they most certainly do not. for example. i can use most of the
>>westpac site for my banking but not all features - for that, i'm obliged
>>to use IE.
>
>
> The only things that shouldn't work are ActiveX. ActiveX is so
> incredibly insecure that you'll never want to use ActiveX. If Westpac
> use ActiveX, I'd be worried.
agreed.
>
>
>>maybe it is, but CUB have done a poor job of convincing me why I should
>>download vividas software. no explantion at all. compare that to
>>ripcurl.com which actually explains why they use vividas.
>>
>>>
>>>>they have limited their audience and that's bad design - pure and simple.
>>>
>>>
>>>No it's not. People like you complaining about it, creates exposure.
>>
>>exposure aint no good if it doesn't work.
>
>
> But the name "Carlton Draught" still gets mentioned. That's the most
> important. They create ads like these to make people talk about them
> and mention the name, not to necessarily view the ad.
>
>
to paraphrase oscar wilde. "the only thing worse than be talked about is
not being talked about"
>
>>if i get a warning message i heed it. i will check out the software &
>>only install it when i do some research & find it is safe to do so.
>>anybody who is stupid enough to click the "yes" button every time they
>>are asked to download some software will get what they deserve.
>
>
> I've never once had a spyware or virus problem in the last 10 years.
> Just seeing Vividas should tell you that it's fine.
>
why should it? vivadas may well be perfectly safe to use, but a lot of
people do not know that. it certainly does not have a high profile yet.
>
>
>>actually that site does not validate as html. go check for yourself if
>>you want:
>>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigad.com.au
>
>
> But those errors are the bullshit errors, nothing major.
>
really? that may be acceptable for a personal home page, but it
certainly is not for a professional site. if a web designer delivers a
site that does not validate, i would not pay them until they've done the
job properly. pure and simple.
>
>
>>>But you just proved that your claim "I know a lot about computers" is
>>>pure crap
>>
>>what a load of toss! i never made any such claim of expertise.
>
>
> 2 years ago you did. Yes I have a good memory and remember.
>
>
>> all i'm asking is that CUB give an alternative media version or explain to users
>>why we should use an unproven format.
>
>
> It's proven itself.
i'm not debating the merits of the format. vividas quite probably does
offer superior quality. it may have proven itself to you perhaps, but
it still has a long way to go to gain widespread public acceptance.
until it does gain more acceptance, websites will have to explain why it
is being used.
>
>
>>CUB need to ask themselves whether the website is promoting beer or
>>vividas. i assume it is the beer. but, if that question needs to asked
>>then it seems to me they have failed to promote the beer adequately by
>>blurring the message.
>
>
> The beer is being promoted even more by people complaining about the
> format.
"hell! db is whinging about the video format on a carlton draught ad.
i'd better grab a coldie!" i don't think so. not many people would
give a toss about others compaining about the format. the impact would
be far greater if people actually *saw* the add.
i still think they've only managed to blur their message. check out rip
curl.com, they actually explain why i should download vividas player.
bigad.com.au doesn't give any such explanation.
Brissie
>"hell! db is whinging about the video format on a carlton draught ad.
>i'd better grab a coldie!" i don't think so.
Not because of that, but because they are gedtting exposure in this
thread. And anyway most people won't buy that brand of beer just
because they liked the ad either.
Exposure does wonders, which is why companies pay massive money for
naming rights so events can be called "Telstra Cup", etc. because of
the exposure. Carlton are getting the exposure in this thread for
free.
> not many people would give a toss about others compaining about the format. the impact would
>be far greater if people actually *saw* the add.
Not many people are influenced by advertising either.
I've never bought a product because I liked the ad.
But a small number are which they create ads for. They are getting
exposure in this thread.
-db-
"To access Balance Sheet you will need to be using a Microsoft Internet
Explorer version 5 browser or above, and a Windows based operating system.
Select proceed if you would like to upgrade your browser"
*upgrade* to IE from firefox 1.06? hah!
dewatf
>Heck 12-18 months ago there was even stories in the newspaper and on
>the TV news, about this ground-breaking technology which will
>revolutionise the way media is distributed on the Net(the reporters
>words not mine) and how it was an Australian company that did it.
I see reporters reguritating press releases say so, so it must be
true.
If the best sofware always suceeds then explain the sucess of
Microsoft.
Vividas might get somewhere if they can persuade a major content
provider to use their code. They are unlikely to suceed in the market
of ordinary websites though, not when Flash, Real Media , Quicktime
Windows Media are established and the vast majority of users never
download any programmes or plugins anyway.
Shrugs, there is no way I was running that or clicking on any popup to
install something on my computer (I killed the popup with the task
manager to be sure) till I knew exactly what it and the plugin were.
Even if it was a real ad, there would have nothing to stop someone
getting a copy of it and posting it on website with a trojan.
Still it's not like Carlton care. The more obscure the process the
better it works; it's viral marketing.
dewatf.
Brissie
wrote:
>If the best sofware always suceeds then explain the sucess of
>Microsoft.
Marketing and illegal practices, which is why they are fined every
year and have been so for more than 15 years.
Because people believe what adverts say
Digital Research's GEM shitted all over Windows. Windows did not come
close. But for some unfathomable reason Windows won the GUI wars. That
reason was because marketing and people told them to use Windows. Just
like now you're not using Vividas because people are telling you to
use the inferior formats instead.
>Vividas might get somewhere if they can persuade a major content
>provider to use their code. They are unlikely to suceed in the market
>of ordinary websites though, not when Flash, Real Media , Quicktime
>Windows Media are established and the vast majority of users never
>download any programmes or plugins anyway.
Actually most people do. Flash, etc. does not come with Firefox(no
idea about IE). If you want to view a site that uses Flash, Java, etc.
then you need to install the plug-in. I know IE doesn't come with
Java(earlier versions did but there was a copyright issue so it
doesn't now)
>Even if it was a real ad, there would have nothing to stop someone
>getting a copy of it and posting it on website with a trojan.
With the .viv extension?
Captain Murphy
>
> "To access Balance Sheet you will need to be using a Microsoft
> Internet Explorer version 5 browser or above, and a Windows based
> operating system.
> Select proceed if you would like to upgrade your browser"
>
> *upgrade* to IE from firefox 1.06? hah!
But how is that IE's fault that the site designer dictates you use IE?
Lay the blame where it's due. The website designers, not IE.
Brissie
IE doesn't adhere to the standards. They force many people to use IE.
It's IE's fault.
Luke Webber
That's very true. I've lost count of the number of bugs I've had to code
around just to support IE. I'd be far happier if I just had to support
Firefox rather than bloody IE.
Luke
Captain Murphy
IE only renders the code written by a human being. It does NOT create it.
So whether it adheres to standards or not is irrelevant if the site could be
written to work with all browsers.
It is SOLELY the fault of the site creator as to what browsers are supported
or not. Some banks use the same technology and they work fine with Firefox.
The ones that don't are doing so because they couldn't be stuffed making it
work.
Captain Murphy
> That's very true. I've lost count of the number of bugs I've had to
> code around just to support IE. I'd be far happier if I just had to
> support Firefox rather than bloody IE.
Then why does Firefox work fine on most bank sites that only support
IE if you fool the site into thinking Firefox is actually IE?
Anthony Horan
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:14:26 +1000, Anthony Horan
> <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:52:12 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>>
>>> Fact is if you're not using Vividas you're behind the times.
>>
>>ROFL!!
>>
>>A proprietary streaming format that clients have to PAY to use? Behind the
>>times my arse.
>
> Yes, same as manufacturers can now make VCRs without paying license
> fees. For every DVD they make they have to pay a license fee. Same as
> CDs, companies have to pay a royalty payment for every CD/DVD they
> produce.
But do the *artists* have to pay? No! I can have a CD or DVD manufactured
any time I like and all I pay for is the cost of manufacturing.
If I want to serve video, though, I can either do it using one of the
freely-available and widely-used formats, or I can fork out cash to Vividas
so they can piss off my end-users with security warnings.
> In the future they won't have to pay royalty fees for DVD
> Players/recorders or CDs/DVDs
Bollocks.
> Fact is when new technology comes out royalty payments are made. Old
> technology becomes free to use.
Also bollocks.
> Using your argument we won't be using DVD Players and still be using
> records and tapes instead of CDs.
Your ability to even vaguely comprehend my argument seems to be stunted by
your blind indifference to anything remotely involving common sense.
>>> I take it you took 4 years to upgrade to XP? Because XP wasn't
>>> standard?
>>
>>Well, I upgraded to XP on the day it was released.
>
> Well then you're a hypocrit
And you're an illiterate.
Anthony Horan
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:15:34 +1000, Anthony Horan
> <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Everyone? The only people I've seen calling it the "best" are Vividas and
>>you.
>
> Expand your reading material past comic books
Never read a comic book in my life. I despise the things.
But since you're obviously *so* well read, show me the evidence that
"everyone" knows about Vividas. Dare you.
Anthony Horan
>>Paying attention yet? I don't *want* to stream video. I want to be able to
>>download it.
>
> Well you can't. And they don't want you to. If you download it, you
> can pirate it. That's why they don't let you.
You fool. It's an ad. They WANT people to see it as MUCH AS POSSIBLE. This
is common.
> You can't download the NineMSN Videos either and I don't see you
> complaining about them.
I don't watch NineMSN videos, as they want me to use Internet Explorer,
which in my book means they can take their site and go fuck themselves.
> And people who own the video have the right to decide if they want it
> downloadable or not. Having downloaded video pirated all over the Web
> is a major problem, and one reason why companies don't sell TV shows
> over the Net.
Oh, thanks so much for the lesson, idiot.
Now, tell me why all the major film studios allow their Quicktime trailers
to be saved freely to hard disk in an unencrypted, unprotected format. Hmm?
> Here's an idea. Switch to broadband. You can get cheap broadband for
> $15 a month. And good speed broadband for $30 a month.
Here's a better idea - get a clue. I already HAVE broadband, and faster
broadband than you have access to at that.
Anthony Horan
>>As I said earlier, nobody here seemed to have heard of it except YOU. Or are
>>you trying to assert that you are "everyone". You're so arrogant in your own
>>little fantasy world, you probably did mean exactly that.
>
> Read the other posts. About 80% of people have.
That's because 80% of the other posts are from... YOU!
> There have been major articles written in computer magazines
Funny, I read them every month and have absolutely no recollection of seeing
anything about Vividas. Care to point me towards the relevant mags and
issues?
> Try watching anything streamed in full-screen with any other format.
> There will be some pauses. Not with this.
No pauses with Quicktime, and I'm running a humble Pentium III...
> And lots of people do want full-length movies. Downloading of movies &
> TV Shows now uses 40% of Internet bandwidth.
And if people had to pay for them, that figure would plummet.
>>No, nobody but you has.
>
> And the others
Terribly sorry to hear about your multiple-personality disorder. Hope you
get better soon.
>>It's a fucking TV commercial! I would think CUB would *want* people to
>>spread it around!
>
> Actually they don't. They still have copyright. Companies have sued
> before for unlawful distribution of commercials.
They have? Who? When? Where? In your fantasy world?
> Similarily 5 companies pulled their TV advertising during the L
> Word last year because the Catholic people banded together and vowed
> to boycott the companies until the ads stopped appearing during the
> show because the show is "extremely evil".
And I boycotted those companies, as anyone who subscribes to lunatic
Christian propaganda is not worth the time of day. I mean - gasp! - a show
about LESBIANS? With SEX SCENES between two WOMEN?? Oh the horror.
I notice the Christian zealots don't have a problem with violence, which is
typical for religious nutters. But I digress...
> Trust me. You put that Carlton ad on a site that they disprove of,
> you'll be sued. Because it could harm them as people may boycott the
> company due to their association with material they disagree with.
Who's putting anything on a site? I've downloaded a ton of movie trailers
from the Apple site, and so far I don't see any of them showing up on porn
sites.
Anthony Horan
>>> Where's the problem? Security?
>>
>> Duh. The applet wanted access to write to my hard disks. Alarm bells,
>> anyone?
>
> Dude, you're on the Internet, every application you use that's
> internet aware is writing to your hard disk with pretty much
> full permissions. No-one can keep track of every read or write
> to their hard disk that an application makes.
The difference being that given the right permissions, a Java applet can
DELETE files from my hard disk. A normal web site cannot.
>>> Nobody has ever died as a result of an Internet plug-in.
>>
>> No, but plenty of people have had their computers trashed and rendered
>> unusable by them.
>
> And people have had their systems trashed by using security software
> like ZoneAlarm and Norton Internet Security.
Neither of which I use, because they are utter shite.
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:24:55 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>>>Paying attention yet? I don't *want* to stream video. I want to be able to
>>>download it.
>>
>> Well you can't. And they don't want you to. If you download it, you
>> can pirate it. That's why they don't let you.
>
>You fool. It's an ad. They WANT people to see it as MUCH AS POSSIBLE
But they don't want it appearing in sources they disagree with.
That's why companies pull ads from shows when people threaten them
with a boycott
>Now, tell me why all the major film studios allow their Quicktime trailers
>to be saved freely to hard disk in an unencrypted, unprotected format. Hmm?
Not all of them do
Try and get The War Of The Worlds trailer
>Here's a better idea - get a clue. I already HAVE broadband, and faster
>broadband than you have access to at that.
You said that you had dial-up
And you don't know how fast my broadband is. It's certainly not
shitting ADSL.
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:25:26 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:15:34 +1000, Anthony Horan
>> <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Everyone? The only people I've seen calling it the "best" are Vividas and
>>>you.
>>
>> Expand your reading material past comic books
>
>Never read a comic book in my life. I despise the things.
>
>But since you're obviously *so* well read, show me the evidence that
>"everyone" knows about Vividas. Dare you.
Read magazines for the evidence
Brissie
<capt...@sealab.com> wrote:
>Brissie wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:08:20 +1000, "Captain Murphy"
>> <capt...@sealab.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> the balance sheet
>>>>
>>>> "To access Balance Sheet you will need to be using a Microsoft
>>>> Internet Explorer version 5 browser or above, and a Windows based
>>>> operating system.
>>>> Select proceed if you would like to upgrade your browser"
>>>>
>>>> *upgrade* to IE from firefox 1.06? hah!
>>>
>>> But how is that IE's fault that the site designer dictates you use
>>> IE?
>>>
>>> Lay the blame where it's due. The website designers, not IE.
>>
>> IE doesn't adhere to the standards. They force many people to use IE.
>> It's IE's fault.
>
>IE only renders the code written by a human being. It does NOT create it.
And if the people write to standards IE won't support it. Because it
doesn't support standards
>So whether it adheres to standards or not is irrelevant if the site could be
>written to work with all browsers.
So a designer is not only supposed to write in standards, but write in
IE code as well? If IE actually adhered to standards and displayed
standard code correctly then there wouldn't be a problem
>It is SOLELY the fault of the site creator as to what browsers are supported
>or not.
No it's IE fault.
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:29:03 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:14:26 +1000, Anthony Horan
>> <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:52:12 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fact is if you're not using Vividas you're behind the times.
>>>
>>>ROFL!!
>>>
>>>A proprietary streaming format that clients have to PAY to use? Behind the
>>>times my arse.
>>
>> Yes, same as manufacturers can now make VCRs without paying license
>> fees. For every DVD they make they have to pay a license fee. Same as
>> CDs, companies have to pay a royalty payment for every CD/DVD they
>> produce.
>
>But do the *artists* have to pay? No! I can have a CD or DVD manufactured
>any time I like and all I pay for is the cost of manufacturing.
The CD manufacturer pays and that is added to the cost. So you are
paying for it
And if you produce your own CDs, like the big record companies do,
then they are paying for the distribution
>> In the future they won't have to pay royalty fees for DVD
>> Players/recorders or CDs/DVDs
>
>Bollocks.
CDs after 2010 they won't
DVDs after 2019 they won't
>> Fact is when new technology comes out royalty payments are made. Old
>> technology becomes free to use.
>
>Also bollocks.
25 years
>Your ability to even vaguely comprehend my argument seems to be stunted by
>your blind indifference to anything remotely involving common sense.
No you're the one who said if royalty fees need to be made, then the
product shouldn't be used
Luke Webber
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:13:39 +1000, Captain Murphy wrote:
>>>>Where's the problem? Security?
>>>
>>>Duh. The applet wanted access to write to my hard disks. Alarm bells,
>>>anyone?
>>
>>Dude, you're on the Internet, every application you use that's
>>internet aware is writing to your hard disk with pretty much
>>full permissions. No-one can keep track of every read or write
>>to their hard disk that an application makes.
>
> The difference being that given the right permissions, a Java applet can
> DELETE files from my hard disk. A normal web site cannot.
No. If a Java applet deletes files, it's the fault of the Java VM you're
running. Unless the applet is signed, and you're fool enough to accept
it. OTOH, ActiveX controls can do anything they damned well like, and
you have no idea what they plan to do ahead of time.
Luke
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:43:09 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>>>As I said earlier, nobody here seemed to have heard of it except YOU. Or are
>>>you trying to assert that you are "everyone". You're so arrogant in your own
>>>little fantasy world, you probably did mean exactly that.
>>
>> Read the other posts. About 80% of people have.
>
>That's because 80% of the other posts are from... YOU!
>
>> There have been major articles written in computer magazines
>
>Funny, I read them every month and have absolutely no recollection of seeing
>anything about Vividas. Care to point me towards the relevant mags and
>issues?
You obviously read the games and kiddie computer magazines, and not
the proper ones
>
>> Try watching anything streamed in full-screen with any other format.
>> There will be some pauses. Not with this.
>
>No pauses with Quicktime, and I'm running a humble Pentium III...
There are pauses with Quicktime running full-screen when streaming.
>> And lots of people do want full-length movies. Downloading of movies &
>> TV Shows now uses 40% of Internet bandwidth.
>
>And if people had to pay for them, that figure would plummet.
Doubt it
>They have? Who? When? Where? In your fantasy world?
Coke
>And I boycotted those companies, as anyone who subscribes to lunatic
>Christian propaganda is not worth the time of day. I mean - gasp! - a show
>about LESBIANS? With SEX SCENES between two WOMEN?? Oh the horror.
See you boycotted them. So companies don't always want themselves
associated with everything
>Who's putting anything on a site? I've downloaded a ton of movie trailers
>from the Apple site, and so far I don't see any of them showing up on porn
>sites.
I didn't say porn sites, I said sites they disapprove of.
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:13:39 +1000, Captain Murphy wrote:
>
>>>> Where's the problem? Security?
>>>
>>> Duh. The applet wanted access to write to my hard disks. Alarm bells,
>>> anyone?
>>
>> Dude, you're on the Internet, every application you use that's
>> internet aware is writing to your hard disk with pretty much
>> full permissions. No-one can keep track of every read or write
>> to their hard disk that an application makes.
>
>The difference being that given the right permissions, a Java applet can
>DELETE files from my hard disk. A normal web site cannot.
Much harder for a Java applet to do that than an ActiveX applet
Captain Murphy
>> The difference being that given the right permissions, a Java applet
>> can DELETE files from my hard disk. A normal web site cannot.
>
> Much harder for a Java applet to do that than an ActiveX applet
Isn't it good then that ActiveX no longer runs on IE then.
Brissie
Yes it does
Luke Webber
No it isn't, because it still does. In fact, it would be /bad/ if M$
were to withdraw support for ActiveX after supporting it for so long.
What /would/ have been good is if they'd made ActiveX a secure
technology, operating in a sandbox, like Java applets.
Luke
Anthony Horan
> But they don't want it appearing in sources they disagree with.
>
> That's why companies pull ads from shows when people threaten them
> with a boycott
No, that's political correctness and reactionary thinking by people that
should know better. Trust me, CUB/Fosters have no problem with sex, porn or
anything else. They sell their beer to the sex industry, for fuck's sake.
>>Now, tell me why all the major film studios allow their Quicktime trailers
>>to be saved freely to hard disk in an unencrypted, unprotected format. Hmm?
>
> Not all of them do
>
> Try and get The War Of The Worlds trailer
Try? I don't need to. I have not one, but TWO trailers for it sitting here
on my hard disk:
waroftheworlds_m480.mov
waroftheworlds-tlr4_m480.mov
Both saved from the Quicktime player using "Save as source".
Sorry, but your idiocy is reaching new and stunning heights.
>>Here's a better idea - get a clue. I already HAVE broadband, and faster
>>broadband than you have access to at that.
>
> You said that you had dial-up
Show me where I did.
> And you don't know how fast my broadband is. It's certainly not
> shitting ADSL.
So you're on Optus cable. Good for you. Hope you're enjoying the shared
bandwidth. Me, I'm happy pulling down a clean 6Mbit/sec with a 512Kbit
upstream. No shitting going on here.
Anthony Horan
>>But since you're obviously *so* well read, show me the evidence that
>>"everyone" knows about Vividas. Dare you.
>
> Read magazines for the evidence
Still waiting for you to name a mag and an issue.
But you can't, can you? Because the magazines you're talking about only
exist inside your head.
Anthony Horan
> And if you produce your own CDs, like the big record companies do,
> then they are paying for the distribution
Huh? I have worked with independent artists for years, I've worked on every
aspect of a CD's production right up to the point of sale, and I can tell
you categorically that if you produce your own CDs, the only person who pays
for distribution of it is YOU. Unless you're lucky enough to get a
distribution contract.
>>> In the future they won't have to pay royalty fees for DVD
>>> Players/recorders or CDs/DVDs
>>
>>Bollocks.
>
> CDs after 2010 they won't
> DVDs after 2019 they won't
Your sources are?
>>> Fact is when new technology comes out royalty payments are made. Old
>>> technology becomes free to use.
>>
>>Also bollocks.
>
> 25 years
What drugs ARE you on? For fuck's sake! I know that Usenet's notoriously
loaded with trolls and kooks, but you actually seem to BELIEVE the shit you
spout.
>>Your ability to even vaguely comprehend my argument seems to be stunted by
>>your blind indifference to anything remotely involving common sense.
>
> No you're the one who said if royalty fees need to be made, then the
> product shouldn't be used
I said no such thing. But I'll forgive you for your lack of basic
comprehension of the English language.
Anthony Horan
>>Funny, I read them every month and have absolutely no recollection of seeing
>>anything about Vividas. Care to point me towards the relevant mags and
>>issues?
>
> You obviously read the games and kiddie computer magazines, and not
> the proper ones
No, I read Australian Personal Computer, PC World and occasionally Wired. No
kiddie stuff there. Bzzt. Another one of your idiocies bites the dust.
>>No pauses with Quicktime, and I'm running a humble Pentium III...
>
> There are pauses with Quicktime running full-screen when streaming.
Not on my broadband connection there isn't. Quicktime is designed to to
begin playback until it has enough data to start playback without
interruption.
But hey, sorry if your 'puter is a little slow. Guess it suits its owner.
>>They have? Who? When? Where? In your fantasy world?
>
> Coke
No thanks, but feel free to snort away. It might improve your thinking
process.
>>And I boycotted those companies, as anyone who subscribes to lunatic
>>Christian propaganda is not worth the time of day. I mean - gasp! - a show
>>about LESBIANS? With SEX SCENES between two WOMEN?? Oh the horror.
>
> See you boycotted them. So companies don't always want themselves
> associated with everything
Err, hello, is your brain turned on?
I boycotted them because they DIDN'T want to be associated with the show,
not because they did. I have no time for bigoted jesus cheerleaders out to
show the rest of us the "moral" way that "jeeezuz" would have wanted. If
your company tries to push the God angle on me (or any other religion for
that matter), I don't want anything to do with them. Period.
>>Who's putting anything on a site? I've downloaded a ton of movie trailers
>>from the Apple site, and so far I don't see any of them showing up on porn
>>sites.
>
> I didn't say porn sites, I said sites they disapprove of.
You said:
"Carlton probably won't because they sell beer, but a lot of
companies don't allow themselves to be advertised(even for free) on
adult sites. Because being associated with them can create a poor
view."
Remember? Or brain broken again?
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:16:31 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>> But they don't want it appearing in sources they disagree with.
>>
>> That's why companies pull ads from shows when people threaten them
>> with a boycott
>
>No, that's political correctness and reactionary thinking by people that
>should know better. Trust me, CUB/Fosters have no problem with sex, porn or
>anything else. They sell their beer to the sex industry, for fuck's sake.
>
>>>Now, tell me why all the major film studios allow their Quicktime trailers
>>>to be saved freely to hard disk in an unencrypted, unprotected format. Hmm?
>>
>> Not all of them do
>>
>> Try and get The War Of The Worlds trailer
>
>Try? I don't need to. I have not one, but TWO trailers for it sitting here
>on my hard disk:
>
>waroftheworlds_m480.mov
>
>waroftheworlds-tlr4_m480.mov
And you never got it from the official website
>Show me where I did.
3 posts up
>> And you don't know how fast my broadband is. It's certainly not
>> shitting ADSL.
>
>So you're on Optus cable. Good for you. Hope you're enjoying the shared
>bandwidth. Me, I'm happy pulling down a clean 6Mbit/sec with a 512Kbit upstream. No shitting going on here.
Optus cable is 10Mb/s down. Only 128kbs up, but I'm not a server so
don't need the extra up speed.
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:25:14 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>> And if you produce your own CDs, like the big record companies do,
>> then they are paying for the distribution
>
>Huh? I have worked with independent artists for years, I've worked on every
>aspect of a CD's production right up to the point of sale, and I can tell
>you categorically that if you produce your own CDs, the only person who pays
>for distribution of it is YOU. Unless you're lucky enough to get a
>distribution contract.
I didn't mean produce CDs as in press CDs. I mean produce CDs as in
making the actual CD
>>>> In the future they won't have to pay royalty fees for DVD
>>>> Players/recorders or CDs/DVDs
>>>
>>>Bollocks.
>>
>> CDs after 2010 they won't
>> DVDs after 2019 they won't
>
>Your sources are?
international law
Brissie
<anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:22:51 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>>>Funny, I read them every month and have absolutely no recollection of seeing
>>>anything about Vividas. Care to point me towards the relevant mags and
>>>issues?
>>
>> You obviously read the games and kiddie computer magazines, and not
>> the proper ones
>
>No, I read Australian Personal Computer, PC World and occasionally Wired.
Exactly
> Nokiddie stuff there. zzt. Another one of your idiocies bites the dust.
I didn't say little kiddie. I said kiddie mags. They're 15-18 yo
magazines. I'm talking actual adult computer magazines.
>>>No pauses with Quicktime, and I'm running a humble Pentium III...
>>
>> There are pauses with Quicktime running full-screen when streaming.
>
>Not on my broadband connection there isn't. Quicktime is designed to to
>begin playback until it has enough data to start playback without
>interruption.
EXACTLTY. So it's not streaming then if it's already downloaded.
Vividas starts straight away. It doesn't download any of the file
before it starts playing.
You just said it yourself. It's not streaming.
>I boycotted them because they DIDN'T want to be associated with the show,
Yes because they chose to associate themselves with Catholics.
>>>Who's putting anything on a site? I've downloaded a ton of movie trailers
>>>from the Apple site, and so far I don't see any of them showing up on porn
>>>sites.
>>
>> I didn't say porn sites, I said sites they disapprove of.
>
>You said:
>
>"Carlton probably won't because they sell beer, but a lot of
>companies don't allow themselves to be advertised(even for free) on
>adult sites. Because being associated with them can create a poor
>view."
>
>Remember? Or brain broken again?
That was the example you asked for. One example doesn't mean them all
Anthony Horan
>>> Try and get The War Of The Worlds trailer
>>
>>Try? I don't need to. I have not one, but TWO trailers for it sitting here
>>on my hard disk:
>>
>>waroftheworlds_m480.mov
>>
>>waroftheworlds-tlr4_m480.mov
>
> And you never got it from the official website
Didn't I? Really? Well fuck me, and I thought that bloody great big
DREAMWORKS logo on the page I downloaded the trailer from was a fake! And
who would have thought that Apple would get into piracy! Wow!!!
Jesus fucking christ on a stick, you are without doubt the most impossibly
stupid person I've encountered on Usenet. Ever. And believe me, that's
saying a lot.
>>Show me where I did.
>
> 3 posts up
Nope, can't see it. Try again.
>>So you're on Optus cable. Good for you. Hope you're enjoying the shared
>>bandwidth. Me, I'm happy pulling down a clean 6Mbit/sec with a 512Kbit upstream. No shitting going on here.
>
> Optus cable is 10Mb/s down.
On a good day, if everyone else in your street is asleep.
> Only 128kbs up, but I'm not a server so
> don't need the extra up speed.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.