welcome to the NEW blogstitution.com. I’ve moved away from a dark techie theme to more of a political-ish textured theme… and I took the opportunity to experiment with some new HTML5 font declarations and explore the new wordpress3.0 theme structure.
More tweaks are on the way… but things are coming along nicely. Enjoy!
While I usually discuss politics on this blog, I thought it would be worthwhile to switch gears and talk TECH. Many of you may not know but although I’m legally trained and politically motivated, I work in the field of in e-commerce at a grain & ethanol company here in Toledo. Recently I undertook a project to transform a flash (*.flv) video site into an iPod/iPhone-comaptible site that would work on both mobile devices and remain backwards compliant with flash plugins in older browsers… using iMovie. I’m happy to say I’ve found a solution that not only works… but works at file-sizes much lower than the “default” *.m4v files. Specifically, this is a solution for creating an iphone-friendly video using the h.264 video codec inside a mp4 “wrapper”… using iMovie (and one other program, as you will see).
This tutorial assumes some familiarity with the <video> spec released in html5 and offers a solution to html5-friendly video that can be exported out of itunes and is simultaneously backwards compliant with Adobe flash –while remaining iphone friendly.
Early in my testing, it was apparent that the default *.m4v files, although compatible both with html5 and flash, resulted in files well over 30 mb; and for our customers (mostly farmers out in rural areas) this was an unacceptable solution. We needed to keep our final videos around 8-10mb (as our current .flv files were) but still allow mobile streaming on an iphone. As I began testing, I learned that imovie-created mp4 files were compatible in html5 web-browsers but not with an ipod touch/iphone.
After a few hours of testing, I discovered a solution: If I tweaked the mp4 video settings and provided a more detailed codec declaration in my <video> tag… I could make the video compatible with both the desktop browser as well as the ipod browser.
Here is my codec solution for mp4 compatibility in both flash (for backwards compatibility) and html5 from itunes:
Quicktime Export > MP4 file format > H.264 codec > AAC-LC audio > AND!!! under the Video Options button, select “Baseline” as your profile option. Here are some screen-shots of the settings panels:
This is still only part of the solution: putting this file in a “vanilla” <video><source> tag would render the file un-playable on an iphone/ipod. In order for this file to work properly, one must specify the right codec in the <video> tag. Here is an example snippet that works with the itunes export:
<video id=”movie” width=”460″ height=”259″ poster=”image.jpg” controls autobuffer>
<source src=”movie.mp4″ type=’video/mp4; codecs=”avc1.58A01E, mp4a.40.2″‘>
</source></video>
Note the <source> tag; I have included both a “type” declaration as well as a codec declaration. If the <video> tag does not contain these fields, your mp4 file will not play on an ipod or iphone. I cannot emphasize this enough. [for more reading on html5 video and audio codec declarations, click here]
However, I still encountered one major issue: .mp4 movies created out of itunes do not “buffer” the same way .flv files do when loading inside of a flash player. Instead of the progressive loading we are all used to, the file would not even appear in the flash player until the entire clip had loaded in the browser’s memory. This was an unacceptable solution. After some research over at rakaz’z blog and macslocum I discovered that the mp4 has something called a “moov atom” feed that makes buffering in flash possible. In iTunes, this atom file is located at the “end” of the *.mp4 file… and flash cannot take advantage of the buffering capability unless this feed is the first piece of data downloaded by flash. Fortunately, Renaun Erickson over at Adobe has created a simply little AIR utility to fix this atom feed placement.I found a relatively painless solution to this problem: a program called “QTindexswapper”. [download link].
Once you have selected your iMovie mp4 file and click the “Process” button, you should see a new .mp4 file that will buffer correctly in a flash player.
I would be interested in other solutions to this one… especially ones that simplify the process. If you have any ideas, leave a comment.
———————————————
for more great reading on this topic, allow me to refer you to this post over at the Opera Blog.
I love thought experiments…
A friend poses the following: Imagine that there really were these fundamentalist Christian terror cells all over the United States, as the Department of Homeland Security imagines. Let’s say a group of five of these terrorists hijacked a plane, flew it to Mecca, and plowed it into the Kaaba.Now let’s say a group of well-meaning, well-funded Christians — Christians whose full-time job was missionary work — decided that the best way to promote healing would be to pressure the Saudi government to drop its prohibition against permitting non-Muslims into Mecca so that these well-meaning, well-funded Christian missionaries could build a $100 million dollar church and community center a stone’s throw from where the Kaaba used to be — you know, as a bridge-building gesture of interfaith understanding.
Read the rest at NRO: Ground Zero Thought Experiment – The Corner – National Review Online.
It seems it was only a year ago that newspapers across the country were sounding the bells, rejoicing in the fact that we “are all Keynesians now“. You could imagine my surprise, then, when I read a headline on CNBC.com positing “Would Lower Corporate Taxes Help Jumpstart US Economy?” Now, I know as well as anybody just how liberal most of the mainstream media is but even I caught myself thinking “Finally…. the media has realized that Keynesian economics doesn’t work.” Alas, I could not have been more wrong. The article was, in fact, nothing more than a litany of arguments against cutting corporate tax rates under the rubric of a devil’s-advocate question. In short, highly misleading.
Mia Lamar, the Author begins her “article” thusly:
The arguments for both are the same: tax cuts—whether for individuals or corporations—will kickstart economic growth and create jobs at a time when the recovery appears to be stalling.
Actually mia, this isn’t really an argument at all… but more of a conclusion (that tax cuts will jumpstart the economy) based on an argument (reasons why tax cuts will jumpstart the economy) you haven’t even acknowledged. This sloppiness in your introduction is not an encouraging sign… I must say…
You continue with your analysis:
Though many economists agree a higher rate makes the U.S. less competitive over the long term, they are mixed about whether cutting the corporate rate would have any immediate impact.
The reason, they say, is that cutting corporate taxes isn’t focused specifically on expanding operations or creating jobs.
“You could create more opportunity for job creation,” said John Canally, an economist for LPL Financial. “But (corporations) could take that money and invest overseas. You can’t tell them what to do.”
SEE… SEEE (I hear you saying) tax cuts won’t stimulate jobs because, gosh darn it, you can’t tell corporations what to do with their money. They “might” invest overseas and we just can’t take that risk now, can we? But then you had a light-bulb moment, didn’t you! WHAT IF… the government could tell corporations what to do with their money! Problem solved!
[T]ax incentives—like the payroll tax exemption enacted last March to encourage hiring—are textbook tax approaches to economic downturns, says Doug Shackelford, a tax professor at the University of North Carolina Kenan-Flagler Business School. ”These targeted jobs credits, that’s what supposed to work,” Shackelford said. “So if you told me you have one tax trick to play, I’d say we are playing the right trick right now.”
This “textbook approach” wouldn’t happen to be written by former Enron Advisor Paul Krugman, now , would it?! No, seriously though… providing one-time tax incentives (aka government coercing business to act in pre-determined ways through the pulling of financial strings) isn’t really working all that great in helping to actually create jobs now, is it? Mia, do you not even begin to doubt these self-proclaimed “experts” relying on “textbook” fixes when the reality of their results is so clearly in contradiction with their projections?!
Clearly you haven’t because in the very next paragraph… just moments after arguing that one-time tax credits DO INCENTIVIZE businesses to hire… you then reject the notion that LONG TERM incentives would do the same:
“The rest of the world has come down a lot, so now we are an outlier on the high side,” said Shackelford. Still, he added, “I think it’s a real leap to say that, oh well, because a nickel of my profits won’t be taxed I’m going to go out and hire…that’s really stretching it.”
Ya… just nickles and dimes… I mean… a 5% corporate tax rate cut really doesn’t provide most corporations more than a small handful of extra change, right!
*SIGH* Yes, ladies and Gentlemen… this was the argument Miz Lamar made: that a “nickel” of profit just would’t be enough to make a difference. After suggesting that a one-time credit would create jobs… she finds it suspect that 5% more income in perpetuity would do little for job creation. This is where Miz Lamar’s ability to comprehend the business world couldn’t be more clear: Businesses are not reactionary creatures… darting haphazardly from one tax credit to the next. On the contrary, they are organizations with 1,2,5, even 10 year plans… plans that will likely to be presently affected by the impact of future income gains.
One has only to look at the measly growth in the jobs sector to realize that the current administration’s economic policies are not solving our jobs problem. In fact, the multitude of new, untested regulations, laws and mandates are putting most corporate plans “on hold” until they know what the future will actually look like. Given the weak growth in the last few quarters, growth plans are on hold and survival instincts are taking over. The only way to reverse these instincts are to guarantee a more favorable economic climate in the future. Unless Obama’s tax and spend policies change… don’t hope for private sector job growth anytime soon.
via US Corporate Tax Rate: Would Lower Corporate Taxes Help Jumpstart US Economy? – CNBC.
The private sector has been hit particularly hard during this recession… and things don’t look like they will be getting much better any time soon. As the pool of unemployed grows… and the more desperate they become… the more salaries for new workers will also decline. Obama keeps talking about “shared responsibility” and the “sacrifices” we need to be willing to make for the next generation… and he may be right; perhaps we do need to make sacrafices to ensure the next generation is better off than we are. But amidst all these calls for those of us in the private sector to “sacrafice”… one segment of our society that isn’t doing much in the way of sacrifice are those with government connections… the “ruling class” as Angela Codivella so aptly put it. Here is the latest from USA Today:
At a time when workers’ pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees’ average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds…
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.
Twice the average compensation. Shocking, isn’t it? And what makes matters worse is that the public sector… which has been hurting like never before… is subsidizing the extravagance of public sector employees. It is one thing if someone EARNS more in the private sector because he or she creates greater value or sells a product someone else wants to buy… thereby gaining wealth by the voluntary exchange of goods and services. It is quite another thing when an employee of the state — who produces nothing more of value than their private sector counterparts — earn far more simply by virtue of their connections to political power and influence.
Perhaps it is best said another way: Government profits far more of the backs of the private sector than the private sector profits by means of the free market. The very liberals who lament “greedy” and “evil” corporations don’t even bat an eye when the political class profits by a 2-to-1 factor off the working class. If your worldview revolves around the idea that government is intrinsically good… than I suppose one wouldn’t find this to be some great injustice… but for the rest of us… those of us who see the waste, the inefficiencies, and the incompetence systematic of government activity… than this is truly an outrage.
via Federal workers earning double their private counterparts – USATODAY.com.
You should all read this article:
Does it not say something when the hometown paper of our nation’s capital cannot seem to find a reporter who can control his contempt for beliefs held by millions of ordinary Americans?
Oh, it says a LOT Mr. McGurn. It tells us just how out of touch mainstream journalism is with the American people. Or did you mean that question rhetorically?
Even european economists are beginning to see the light. This from CNBC:
The nascent US economic recovery would be halted in 2011 if Congress fails to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, analysts at Deutsche Bank said…
Deutsche said the drag on gross domestic product should they lapse could be as much as 1.5 percent, with the more likely impact at 1.1 percent.
The impact would be worse, the analysts said, if Congress fails to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was enacted in 1969 to make sure rich people pay taxes but was never indexed for inflation, and thus is now hitting middle-income workers.
“In a worst-case scenario, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and failing to fix the AMT could result in (1.5 percent) of fiscal drag in 2011 on top of the 1 percent fiscal drag we expect to occur as the Obama fiscal stimulus package unwinds,” Deutsche said in a note to clients. “If the recovery remains soft/tentative through early next year, this additional drag could be enough to push the economy to a stalling point.”
But those stupid Europeans… they don’t know what they are talking about… or, so says Secretary Treasury Timothy Geitner. In an interview with Jake Tapper, news, Geitner said that letting Bush’s tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans would, and I quote, “be the right thing to do”.
what the President’s proposing to do is to leave in place, to extend tax cuts that go to more than 95 percent of working Americans and to leave in place tax cuts that are very important to incent businesses to hire new pe — new employees and to invest in expanding output. We think that’s a — the — it’s a very strong package. We think it’s the right package. We think it’s fair. We think it’s responsible. Now, we also think it’s responsible to let the tax cuts expire that just go to 2 percent to 3 percent of Americans, the highest earning Americans. We think that’s the responsible thing to do because we need to make sure we can show the world that they’re willing as a country now to start to make some progress bringing down our long — our long-term deficits. TAPPER: Don’t you think it will slow economic growth? GEITHNER: No. Just letting those tax cuts that only go to 2 percent to 3 percent of Americans, the highest earning Americans in the country expire. I do not believe it will have a negative effect on growth.
But even while Geitner was explaining the administration’s economic policy, his logic starts to break down. If Geitner is admitting that tax cuts for couples making under 250,000 would stimulate the economy… why wouldn’t tax cuts for people making over 250,000 also stimulate the economy? And if it would have a stimulative effect… why wouldn’t the Obama administration be in favor of it? Well, the answer is hidden in plain view in Geitner’s response to the question: Obama’s economic policies are much more concerned about fairness than about growth. The reason Obama’s economic policies have failed to bring about a definitive end to the recession is because they have always been designed to remedy the perceived inequity of American capitalism rather than to incentivize wealth creation. Instead of letting the market transfer wealth from rich to poor by encouraging the rich to buy goods produced by small businesses… the Administration thinks that tax cuts for small business — paid for by higher taxes on the rich — will solve the country’s economic woes. However, the rich — who already pay a huge percentage of all taxes — are not spending because their belts are being ever tightened by liberal economic policies. It doesn’t matter how many tax cuts you give to small businesses; if no one is buying their products, they won’t have enough income to hire those workers.
The unfortunate consequence of this policy is that Obama’s huge transfer of wealth — either future wealth in the form of debt payments or higher taxes on high earners — has failed to actually benefit the poor in any meaningful way. Obama’s huge spending projects have not increased demand for the cars unions produce… encouraged investment in business the poor work in… or increased spending by the upper class. Instead, his debt agenda has created a permanent under-class… dependent on government handouts (e.g. extending “unemployment benefits”… the new welfare) … and has forced us into a position where massive tax revenue will be required… not to pay for anything the poor need… but to pay a autotelic debt burden that that has not achieved any meaningful benefit for the middle class.
What we are seeing is a failure of Liberal policies… a failure of Keynesian economics… a failure of New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman’s entire worldview. Lets hope we change directions this November.
via Letting Bush Tax Cuts Die Would Kill Recovery: Analysts – CNBC.
