Media Player 12 Very Hash Picture Quality

[Gene E. Bloch]

I don't have a similarly cute story, darn it, but I wish I did. When I
started using Usenet in 1984 I didn't have an email address, so I had
to make something up. I didn't get my own email address until 1991,
and by that time it had become crystal clear to me that Usenet is
Usenet and email is email, and (almost) ne'er the twain shall meet.

See you under the bridge. I'll bring drinks, you bring sandwiches.

Done!

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Sorry for message in the post, actually, what I was trying to say should
have been the opposite, when you flame and don't have a valid email
address...
But, since I didn't see the original post and don't know it's attitude, I
should not judge and apologize for the flame on my part.
I agree with you on not using a valid email address and understand the
reasons although I hadn't taken the time to look at my own email address.
Dave

If I ever made an error myself, I probably would have sympathy for your
error.

So of course I have sympathy

Besides that, I got to tell my little story about trolls in Sweden.

 

[Tony]

If Media Player 12 a good enough for other people then it's good enough for
you.

When playing DIVX AVI Movie (Films) files in Windows 7's Media Player 12
& Media Canter I get Very Hash Picture Quality
as if the sharpness & contrast was turned up far to high.
BUT I don't have this in other Players e.g. Media Player Classic ...VLC
player ....
on the same system or when playing other types of Video file..

I recently installed the K-Lite Codec Mega Pack but this effect was there
before.

I've been through the Video Settings in my ATI Control Panel
& I have the latest Drivers for my Radeon HD 5870.

Essentially I need to turn down the Sharpness & overall picture strength
but can't find any way ???
@@@Mouse@@@

--
The Grandmaster of the CyberFROG

Come get your ticket to CyberFROG city

Nay, Art thou decideth playeth ye simpleton games. *Some* of us know proper
manners

Very few. I used to take calls from *rank* noobs but got fired the first day
on the job for potty mouth,

Hamster isn't a newsreader it's a mistake!

El-Gonzo Jackson FROGS both me and Chuckcar

Master Juba was a black man imitating a white man imitating a black man

Using my technical prowess and computer abilities to answer questions beyond
the realm of understandability

Regards Tony... Making usenet better for everyone everyday

 

[Dave]

If I ever made an error myself, I probably would have sympathy for your
error.

So of course I have sympathy

Besides that, I got to tell my little story about trolls in Sweden.

Actually, I thought you were trying to get sympathy by telling a Saab story.
:-D
Dave

 

[Dave]

As far as I'm concerned, there are *two* reasons why I don't use my
real e-mail address in newsgroups:

1. It can be harvested by spammers (that's probably the reason you
meant).

2. I don't want to get e-mail replies to my posted messages. If you
want to reply to me, reply in the newsgroup.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I hit the "Reply" button instead of "Reply
Group" then the message will come to your email address. Or does it rely on
the address you have listed and if it's a dud then the message goes into
limbo?
Dave

 

[Nil]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I hit the "Reply" button instead
of "Reply Group" then the message will come to your email address.
Or does it rely on the address you have listed and if it's a dud
then the message goes into limbo?

I assume you're asking about Windows Live Mail, since that's what you
composed that post with, I'm sure it follows the conventional behavior,
so when you Reply by email, it will use the address (good or not) from
the From: header field, unless the original poster has specified a
different address in the Reply To: field.

If they use a bogus or munged address, your message won't be delivered
and you might received a non-delivery notice or error message telling
you so.

 

[Ken Blake]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I hit the "Reply" button instead of "Reply
Group" then the message will come to your email address. Or does it rely on
the address you have listed and if it's a dud then the message goes into
limbo?

It will be sent to the return address that I have configured my e-mail
client (Agent) to use. In my case, as you can see from the above,
that's [email protected].

As you might guess, that's not my real e-mail address, and it
presumably is an address that doesn't exist. So the result will be
that you will get an error message to that effect.

Feel free to try it, and reply to [email protected].

 

[Char Jackson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I hit the "Reply" button instead of "Reply
Group" then the message will come to your email address. Or does it rely on
the address you have listed and if it's a dud then the message goes into
limbo?
Dave

On a sort-of-related note, the domain you've chosen is valid, which
probably wasn't your intention. Unknown.com sounds made up, but it's
real.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Actually, I thought you were trying to get sympathy by telling a Saab story.
:-D
Dave

Puns like that make me cry

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On a sort-of-related note, the domain you've chosen is valid, which
probably wasn't your intention. Unknown.com sounds made up, but it's
real.

As you know and as you do, but Ken Blake does not do and might not know,
the correct way to make an invalid domain is to let the top level domain
(the part of the address after the last dot, such as com, net, or uk) be
the string "invalid" (no quotes, of course), such as what I use,
[email protected].

If one does that, it doesn't matter what the other parts of the address
are, the address is guaranteed to be invalid, and will not impinge by
accident or otherwise on a valid domain.

You could even hide a correct domain name that way, for instance, if Ken
Blake used [email protected] instead of
[email protected], where for the sake of illustration I am
pretending that his correct address is [email protected] (which, by the
way, is a *possible* legitimate address, as is
[email protected]).

 

[Char Jackson]

As you know and as you do, but Ken Blake does not do and might not know,
the correct way to make an invalid domain is to let the top level domain
(the part of the address after the last dot, such as com, net, or uk) be
the string "invalid" (no quotes, of course), such as what I use,
[email protected].

If one does that, it doesn't matter what the other parts of the address
are, the address is guaranteed to be invalid, and will not impinge by
accident or otherwise on a valid domain.

You could even hide a correct domain name that way, for instance, if Ken
Blake used [email protected] instead of
[email protected], where for the sake of illustration I am
pretending that his correct address is [email protected] (which, by the
way, is a *possible* legitimate address, as is
[email protected]).

I was making an example of Dave, but you made an equally valid example
of Ken. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

Actually, there are a couple of TLD's (besides .invalid) that were
created just for this purpose, but I don't remember them now.

 

[Ken Blake]

As you know and as you do, but Ken Blake does not do and might not know,
the correct way to make an invalid domain is to let the top level domain
(the part of the address after the last dot, such as com, net, or uk) be
the string "invalid" (no quotes, of course), such as what I use,
[email protected].

Granted that that's a good way to do it, but I don't agree that it's
the only "correct" way. Any invalid domain name is just as good.

The only argument for your point of view that I can think of is that a
domain name like "this.is.invalid.com" might be invalid today, but
despite how unlikely it might be, someone could actually create such a
domain at some time in the future. And the top-level domain "invalid"
is not just an arbitrary invalid name, but one that has actually been
set up for that purpose.

So using a top-level domain of "invalid" will guarantee that the
domain is invalid, while using one like "this.is.invalid.com" doesn't
provide the same level of guarantee. But for all intents and purposes,
the two will almost certainly turn out to be equally good.

However, if you know something about it that I don't, I'll give you
opportunity to tell me why you think your way is better than mine, and
to try to convince me. I'd like to read why you feel the way about it
that you do.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Granted that that's a good way to do it, but I don't agree that it's
the only "correct" way. Any invalid domain name is just as good.

The only argument for your point of view that I can think of is that a
domain name like "this.is.invalid.com" might be invalid today, but
despite how unlikely it might be, someone could actually create such a
domain at some time in the future. And the top-level domain "invalid"
is not just an arbitrary invalid name, but one that has actually been
set up for that purpose.

So using a top-level domain of "invalid" will guarantee that the
domain is invalid, while using one like "this.is.invalid.com" doesn't
provide the same level of guarantee. But for all intents and purposes,
the two will almost certainly turn out to be equally good.

However, if you know something about it that I don't, I'll give you
opportunity to tell me why you think your way is better than mine, and
to try to convince me. I'd like to read why you feel the way about it
that you do.

I think you provided the desired answer yourself

I quote:
"So using a top-level domain of "invalid" will guarantee that the
domain is invalid, while using one like "this.is.invalid.com" doesn't
provide the same level of guarantee."

I didn't know of the other TLDs mentioned by Char Jackson. Nice to know
about that; if only someone could remember them

 

[Ken Blake]

I think you provided the desired answer yourself

I quote:
"So using a top-level domain of "invalid" will guarantee that the
domain is invalid, while using one like "this.is.invalid.com" doesn't
provide the same level of guarantee."

No, not the same level, but so close as to make no real difference.

 

[Char Jackson]

I think you provided the desired answer yourself

I quote:
"So using a top-level domain of "invalid" will guarantee that the
domain is invalid, while using one like "this.is.invalid.com" doesn't
provide the same level of guarantee."

I didn't know of the other TLDs mentioned by Char Jackson. Nice to know
about that; if only someone could remember them

I think I was thinking about RFC 2606:
<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2606.html>
which lists these invalid domains.

<quote>
....four domain names are reserved as listed and described below.

.test
.example
.invalid
.localhost

".test" is recommended for use in testing of current or new DNS
related code.

".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as examples.

".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
glance are invalid.

The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in
host DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the
loop back IP address and is reserved for such use. Any other use
would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.

3. Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names

The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) also currently has
the following second level domain names reserved which can be used
as examples.

example.com
example.net
example.org

</quote>

In addition to those, [email protected] used to be suggested as a good
fake address to use, but apparently the privacy.net domain has been
sold and the new owners are no longer promoting this use of their
domain.

 

[Dave]

On a sort-of-related note, the domain you've chosen is valid, which
probably wasn't your intention. Unknown.com sounds made up, but it's
real.

Thanks for the tip, I changed it to incorporate yours and Gene's
suggestions.
Maybe I'll stop getting some of the spam I get now. :-D

 

[Dave]

It will be sent to the return address that I have configured my e-mail
client (Agent) to use. In my case, as you can see from the above,
that's [email protected].

As you might guess, that's not my real e-mail address, and it
presumably is an address that doesn't exist. So the result will be
that you will get an error message to that effect.

Feel free to try it, and reply to [email protected].

I sent a message with "test" in it via the reply button and this reply via
the reply group.

 

[Char Jackson]

Thanks for the tip, I changed it to incorporate yours and Gene's
suggestions.
Maybe I'll stop getting some of the spam I get now. :-D

The .invalid is more or less supposed to be at the end of the address,
not in the middle...

I don't know if .unk is a valid domain, (too lazy to check), but if
it's not, it probably could be in the future.

 

[Roy Smith]

Thanks for the tip, I changed it to incorporate yours and Gene's
suggestions.
Maybe I'll stop getting some of the spam I get now. :-D

Sorry but if spammer's have already harvested your email address, then
it's too late. In a sense it's like closing the barn door after the
horse got out.


--

Roy Smith
Windows 7 Professional
Thunderbird 3.1.3
Sunday, September 12, 2010 5:21:58 AM

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

No, not the same level, but so close as to make no real difference.

No. I have seen a number of posts on Usenet telling various posters that
their fake-seeming domains were actually valid domains.

Don't ask - I haven't kept a record of them