artician, it's software that stabilized it. After Effects by Adobe, for example, will analyze the pixels and apply some 3d voodoo magic in order to remove jitter. It creates, in extreme cases such as this, a warping effect that is disconcerting. If this was attempting to be viral, I doubt they would go for the "double negative" or "reverse psychology" angle...

I just finished "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jarrod Diamond.

For school I'm reading "Reporting for the Media," "Essentials of Criminal Justice," "Classics of Western Philosophy," and "Ethics in Criminal Justice."

Also, I'm teaching myself InDesign from "Exploring Adobe InDesign CS5."

Hope to finish Plato's "The Republic" sometime between.

*backup=[...snipped...]

The gist of it is the hosts we currently allow provide iframes so they can serve videos without Flash because they use HTML5 instead (except if the user's browser is incapable of using anything but Flash).

Traditionally (meaning before HTML5 became accepted enough to be a widespread alternative to Flash), hosts that required you to use an iframe were just using Flash or sometimes even JavaScript. The fact is some (or maybe most) such hosts are still using those old methods.

The bottom line is regardless of host, *any* arbitrary code could be inserted into an iframe, including ads or malicious code. It wouldn't need to be something executed by the host directly; some hackers could infiltrate their system and silently inject bad code into their iframes. This would compromise any visitor who sees such an iframe in their browser everywhere on the Web.

It's not much at all an issue of liability I'm concerned about. I just don't want to play any part in helping people get screwed by baddies.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I don't really know of any hosts in particular, other than NPR I guess, that I'd want supported. Is the host required to have a Flash embed for it to work at all? I thought that for the few hosts you mentioned below were supported "Flash free".

I don't know the details of the security issues with iframes, but it seems that at worst VideoSift itself would be a conduit (or host) for malicious code - your own servers wouldn't be liable to attack from any embed, would they? In any case, it has to be something malicious used as an embed (knowingly or not), so at the very least, you probably want to limit iframe submission to, I don't know, silver stars and up?

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
The reason we've been so willing to accept the iframe hosts we accept now is they can readily be converted between iframe and Flash embeds given just a video ID.

We can consider accepting more iframes, maybe as part of VideoSift 5. Maybe make your recommendations there for new iframe hosts we should accept.

I, personally, am always hesitant to add iframes because they open a gateway onto videosift through which demons and goblins may spew forth.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Is there any chance of supporting more iframe hosts in the (near) future? I heard a great story about Igudesman & Joo tonight on NPR, and found a great video of them at the NPR studios performing, but it was iframe only (akaik).

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
There are more hosts than just YouTube that you can watch without Flash. In addition to YouTube and Vimeo, we support College Humor, Funny or Die, and Daily Motion.

I don't really know of any hosts in particular, other than NPR I guess, that I'd want supported. Is the host required to have a Flash embed for it to work at all? I thought that for the few hosts you mentioned below were supported "Flash free".

I don't know the details of the security issues with iframes, but it seems that at worst VideoSift itself would be a conduit (or host) for malicious code - your own servers wouldn't be liable to attack from any embed, would they? In any case, it has to be something malicious used as an embed (knowingly or not), so at the very least, you probably want to limit iframe submission to, I don't know, silver stars and up?

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
The reason we've been so willing to accept the iframe hosts we accept now is they can readily be converted between iframe and Flash embeds given just a video ID.

We can consider accepting more iframes, maybe as part of VideoSift 5. Maybe make your recommendations there for new iframe hosts we should accept.

I, personally, am always hesitant to add iframes because they open a gateway onto videosift through which demons and goblins may spew forth.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Is there any chance of supporting more iframe hosts in the (near) future? I heard a great story about Igudesman & Joo tonight on NPR, and found a great video of them at the NPR studios performing, but it was iframe only (akaik).

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
There are more hosts than just YouTube that you can watch without Flash. In addition to YouTube and Vimeo, we support College Humor, Funny or Die, and Daily Motion.

The reason we've been so willing to accept the iframe hosts we accept now is they can readily be converted between iframe and Flash embeds given just a video ID.

We can consider accepting more iframes, maybe as part of VideoSift 5. Maybe make your recommendations there for new iframe hosts we should accept.

I, personally, am always hesitant to add iframes because they open a gateway onto videosift through which demons and goblins may spew forth.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Is there any chance of supporting more iframe hosts in the (near) future? I heard a great story about Igudesman & Joo tonight on NPR, and found a great video of them at the NPR studios performing, but it was iframe only (akaik).

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
There are more hosts than just YouTube that you can watch without Flash. In addition to YouTube and Vimeo, we support College Humor, Funny or Die, and Daily Motion.

Is there any chance of supporting more iframe hosts in the (near) future? I heard a great story about Igudesman & Joo tonight on NPR, and found a great video of them at the NPR studios performing, but it was iframe only (akaik).

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
There are more hosts than just YouTube that you can watch without Flash. In addition to YouTube and Vimeo, we support College Humor, Funny or Die, and Daily Motion.

The full context of the video, instead of some lazily spliced footage (surprise: he is throwing a point out into the broader context of the discussion with the two guests):

How can one set their browser up to do this rather, how can one do this on a pc without adobe flash and be all like you? (for idiots)

I fired politi"facts" after this:

<div>

Until I can figure out how to embed it properly!

>> ^dvst8download:

Honest question about channel assignments; I suppose you can make an argument why this video isn't squarely intended for the "Sexuality" channel, but why would this have been removed from the "Viral" channel? This video is the definition of viral...in two days it's had over 1.4 million views! What am I missing, so I don't improperly assign channels in the future? The FAQ offers no channel definitions or clarification. Thanks.

>>This video has been removed from all channels (Parody, Femme, Sexuality, Comedy, Viral) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by xxovercastxx. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.
Adding video to channels (Comedy, Femme, Parody) - requested by xxovercastxx.



The channel descriptions are in the channels themselves. The title of the Viral channel is "Viral Ads" and describes allowed content as viral advertisements, not merely viral videos. (I know, it's kind of a poorly named channel. )

>> ^CaptainPlanet:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Rail against it, but Photoshop has helped fat, ugly, spotty models get work as glamourpusses for years now. These below-average models would never have found work in the industry without Photoshop giving casting directors, editors and photo retouchers the power to make anyone beautiful. And it's economically sound in these recession-hit days. Why pay big bucks for a beautiful model when you can take an ordinary-looking person and make them beautiful in post-production?

doesn't get it....

I shoulda ticked the sarcasm box, I guess. Sigh

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Rail against it, but Photoshop has helped fat, ugly, spotty models get work as glamourpusses for years now. These below-average models would never have found work in the industry without Photoshop giving casting directors, editors and photo retouchers the power to make anyone beautiful. And it's economically sound in these recession-hit days. Why pay big bucks for a beautiful model when you can take an ordinary-looking person and make them beautiful in post-production?


doesn't get it....

Your video, Fotoshop by Adobé, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.