On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 02:30 +0200, Rainer Duffner wrote:
> On 12.09.2009 at 23:49 Ron Blizzard wrote :
>
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:38 PM, fred smith
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Doggone those Apple folks. why would they be so stingy as to
> >> PREVENT people
> >> from using otherwise-compatible play
On 12.09.2009 at 23:49 Ron Blizzard wrote :
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:38 PM, fred smith
> wrote:
>
>> Doggone those Apple folks. why would they be so stingy as to
>> PREVENT people
>> from using otherwise-compatible players from seeing the trailer? Just
>> doesn't make sense in any way other
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 04:49:32PM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:38 PM, fred smith
> wrote:
>
> > Doggone those Apple folks. why would they be so stingy as to PREVENT people
> > from using otherwise-compatible players from seeing the trailer? Just
> > doesn't make sense i
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:38 PM, fred smith
wrote:
> Doggone those Apple folks. why would they be so stingy as to PREVENT people
> from using otherwise-compatible players from seeing the trailer? Just
> doesn't make sense in any way other than sheer meanness. I mean, what real
> business justific
fred smith wrote:
> So, they're not gaining anything other than ill will by
> blocking us from viewing.
Yes. An other example for such a behaviour is Amazon.com.
Amazon.com has changed their data API to require that all searches be
signed with a secret key, unique to each user. As a result my tell
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:43:21PM -0700, nate wrote:
> fred smith wrote:
>
> > Doggone those Apple folks. why would they be so stingy as to PREVENT people
> > from using otherwise-compatible players from seeing the trailer? Just
> > doesn't make sense in any way other than sheer meanness. I mean,
fred smith wrote:
> Doggone those Apple folks. why would they be so stingy as to PREVENT people
> from using otherwise-compatible players from seeing the trailer? Just
> doesn't make sense in any way other than sheer meanness. I mean, what real
> business justification could there be?
They don't
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 07:26:45PM +0200, Olaf Mueller wrote:
> fred smith wrote:
>
> > While I haven't tried that,
> ?
>
> > I don't think that's the problem I'm
> > having: I can copy and paste the URL of the .mov file into mplayer or
> > vlc from the commandline, and get the exact same sympto
Olaf Mueller wrote:
> fred smith wrote:
>
>
>> While I haven't tried that,
>>
> ?
>
>
>> I don't think that's the problem I'm
>> having: I can copy and paste the URL of the .mov file into mplayer or
>> vlc from the commandline, and get the exact same symptoms. I.E., there
>> is no bro
fred smith wrote:
> While I haven't tried that,
?
> I don't think that's the problem I'm
> having: I can copy and paste the URL of the .mov file into mplayer or
> vlc from the commandline, and get the exact same symptoms. I.E., there
> is no browser involved in that transaction but it fails the
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 06:26:16AM +0200, Olaf Mueller wrote:
> fred smith wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> > I've been able to view the movie trailers at apple.com/trailers for
> > years on my old Centos box (5.3). [...]
> > Is anyone else having trouble with that? or to ask another way, can
> > any of you
fred smith wrote:
Hello.
> I've been able to view the movie trailers at apple.com/trailers for
> years on my old Centos box (5.3). [...]
> Is anyone else having trouble with that? or to ask another way, can
> any of you still watch them?
Works here with 'User Agent Switcher' for Firefox. See for
I've been able to view the movie trailers at apple.com/trailers for years
on my old Centos box (5.3).
so in July I built a new box and also used Centos 5.3. I recall being able
to view them on the new box too, back in July.
now, none of them work on either the old or new box. Firefox by default
u
13 matches
Mail list logo
