How to Loop FLV in Flash with AS2 and AS3

Loop embedded FLV Video with Actionscript 2 or ActionScript 3

Category: Flash
Written by: David Zhu on August 11, 2011 22:53

If you have a FLV video embedded within your flash document, you may have noticed that by just selecting the FLV object and setting “auto rewind” and “auto play” in the parameters to “true” will not make it loop.


But have no fear, there's always a way to loop FLV clips in Flash with ActionScript!


Looping the FLV Clip


First, specify the instance name

  1. Click on the FLV video that's on the stage.

  2. In the “Properties” configuration, look for the <Instance Name> text field, and type “flvClip

Prepare for the ActionScript

  1. In the Timeline, select the frame that the FLV is sitting on.

  2. Open up the Actions editor (ActionScript Panel).

  3. Place the following ActionScript:


If you are using

ActionScript 2 (AS2)


var myFlash:Object = new Object;
myFlash.complete = function(){;
flvClip.addEventListener("complete", myFlash);


of if you are using 

ActionScript 3 (AS3)


flvClip.addEventListener(VideoEvent.COMPLETE, videoFinished);
function videoFinished(event:Event){;



That's all there is to it.


When you go view the exported SWF, the FLV clip will keep looping!


Read Full Article

Adobe Fireworks Review

A review of the humble but powerful web graphics tool

Category: Graphics
Written by: David Zhu on December 12, 2010 03:38

Adobe Fireworks seems to be lost in a thick cloud, muffled by big bosses like Photoshop, Illustrator, and all those other guys. In fact, most people haven't even heard of Fireworks, let alone what it's meant to be used for. However, this humble piece of elegant software developed by Adobe (previously Macromedia), is a very powerful tool that is definitely worth reviewing.


Fireworks was originally developed by Macromedia. After Adobe purchased the company in 2005, it has since been maintained and upgraded by Adobe.


So back to the question, what exactly is Fireworks used for? Fireworks is specifically developed for web designers. It's aimed to help web designers make layouts, graphics, and mockups with ease.

User Simplicity


One of the biggest differences I noticed in Fireworks is how easy it is to navigate and control the things I was working with. It's almost like a stripped down version of Photoshop, that has a straight forward user environment. In Photoshop, I feel like some of the easiest tasks were made more difficult than it really had to be. For example, changing the color of a box that I drew would require going through multiple dialogue boxes and playing with awkward sliders to get my desired color. In Fireworks, all I need to do is select the object, click on the color swatch, and then change the color to my desired choice. Fireworks makes the most common actions a web designer would need extremely easy, so you wouldn't have to waste time playing around to get a simple effect.


Powerful Stuff


But don't get me wrong, simple doesn't have to compromise for strength. Fireworks is extremely powerful, and can accomplish most of what Photoshop accomplishes. Maybe it can't do the enterprise, heavy duty, signature Photoshop tasks, but hey, how often do you really need that?


Website, meet Mr. Fireworks


Fireworks has many features that bring the website so much more closer to the graphics editor. You can export... (cont)

Read Full Article

Expensive Google Keywords... Profitable?

How Adsense Keywords are Priced

Category: General
Written by: David Zhu on December 05, 2010 03:40

Ever wondered how Google Adsense calculates the amount to pay you through your ad campain? At first I thought that Google pays a steady amount per click, and that every click is worth the same. However, that's not the case. The value per click differs from keyword to keyword, so some clicks are worth more than others.


So you might be thinking, “Well, which keywords are the expensive?” Not so fast, before you ask that question, keep in mind that expensive doesn't always equal profit. Here' why.


I stumbled upon this page


The first thing that caught my eye was the keyword, “selling structured settlements”, that is worth $64.81 per click. Wow! One click gets $64.81... we got a deal going here! However, look again, how many clicks do you get per day?




And that's probably rounded to the highest tenths place... Google estimates that you can get about $0.00 a day with that keyword. Yeah, that's nothing. Do we still have that deal? The truth is no one really cares about “selling structured settlements.” If no one cares, then what good will it do to click the ad? If no one clicks on the ad, how is it possible to earn money?


So the question arises, which keyword can I get the most income out of? Well, standing at the top of the charts is the keyword, “insurance.” It costs $17.41 per click, and gets about 49,893.5 clicks per day. That's a total of $868,645.81 of money spent only on the keyword “insurance” per day. That's cooler than structured settlements.


“hotels” comes in second for most profitable, with only a $3.52 cost per click, but wait a second, it gets 200,636 clicks a day. That's a total of $706,238.75 spent per day. No wonder why it's runner up.


So enough of me babbling, have a look at that list and discover some of the most profitable keywords. Take those keywords, and maybe you can develop a site related to that content. People... (cont)

Read Full Article

Facebook wants to trademark the word "Face"

The U.S. Patent and Trademark office approves the plan

Category: Internet News
Written by: David Zhu on November 25, 2010 03:03

The U.S. Patent and Trademark office gave permission for Facebook to trademark the word “face” on Tuesday (11/23/10). Facebook now has to write a “Statement of Use” in order for the process of trademark to be complete.


If this plan is carried through, Facebook will pretty much have the right to sue anyone that names their own web product with the word “face” in it. Previously, the trademark “face” was held by, which is an older social networking site that began in 2000 from the United Kingdom. However, in 2005, Facebook bought the trademark applications from Faceparty, in order to take complete control over their naming and branding.


It's interesting how much Facebook cares about the name, because they even attempted to sue TeachBook for having the word “book” in their name. They also forced Placebook to change its name to TripTrace.


Facebook's trademark efforts are almost complete, and all they need to write is their Statement of Use. I can understand where they are headed, and even though it might sound a bit ridiculous to trademark such a common word like “face”, I can sympathize with their motives of not wanting to be taken advantage of by other companies. What do you think, has Facebook gone too far?


Read Full Article

Why Google Instant is Useless

Google Instant isn't very good to me

Category: General
Written by: David Zhu on November 22, 2010 02:16

In case you haven't figured out, Google has a new feature known as “Google Instant.” What it does is perform search queries “on the fly” as you type. Google's campaign page for Instant is found here:


So is this really the break-through in search engine searching? I'm going to get straight to the point and say... no.


Here's why.


If you know how to search properly, Google Instant just gets in your way


So what does searching properly mean? According to Google, they claim that,


“Before Google Instant, the typical searcher took more than 9 seconds to enter a search term, and we saw many examples of searches that took 30-90 seconds to type.”


When was the last time you searched for something that took over a minute to type? Unless you do not know where the keys are on the keyboard, a search in Google usually takes about 2-6 seconds. In 90 seconds I can probably type up a whole paragraph of an essay, and most likely you can too.


If you know how to search in Google, you can probably find 80% of what you are looking for on the first try. Sure, you might need to edit a few keywords here and there, but if the answer does exist on the internet somewhere, I wouldn't find a situation where it took more than 5 tries to find something.


So where does the Instant feature come into play? I don't know about you, but I still find myself getting the same results with the same time it took me to find it. I know what I want to search, and unless you are randomly searching for random things, Google Instant is pretty much useless.


I understand the theory behind Instant, and what the Google developers were thinking when they created this. They didn't want people to “search blind”, so they decided to let users visually see their searches as they type. But I don't find that useful, and most people don't search that way. For example, if I wanted to... (cont)

Read Full Article