vid-skim 0.0.1

data/template/parsers/readme.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+see http://wiki.github.com/propublica/vid-skim/writing-a-parser for how to write your own parser. 

data/template/videos/example.json

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+{  
+  "youtube_id":"mXalr9UuNwo",
+  "title": "Ron Boline Interview",
+  "duration": "1800",
+  "default": "Transcript",
+  "divisions": {
+    "Transcript": {
+      "color": "#316734",
+      "hover": "#244027",
+      "entries": [
+        {
+          "title": "Purchases",
+          "range": ["00:00:00", "00:01:16"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>What kinds of things did Triple Canopy do to get the equipment that it needed?</b></p><p><b>Boline:</b> Well, we had the minimal equipment when we deployed. We had essentially about two duffel bags, if you will, sized -- we had two duffel bags worth of equipment apiece approximately. A lot of the equipment that was required for our contact was procured or acquired in Baghdad.</p><p><b>What kinds of equipment did you need to acquire in Baghdad?</b></p><p>We purchased vehicles and we purchased weapons off the black market. We purchased ammunition. We purchased a significant amount of Cuban cigars and liquor, which were traded for U.S. military equipment in Baghdad and the surrounding area.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Vehicles",
+          "range": ["00:01:16", "00:03:26"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>You mentioned that vehicles were purchased actually in Baghdad?</b></p><p>Under the terms of our call order, Triple Canopy acquired as contractor-purchased equipment on behalf of the U.S. government 56 what we call \"soft\" vehicles, which are non-armored vehicles. They were locally purchased in Baghdad.</p><p>A lot of high-end sedans are common in Baghdad, like BMW 740s, Mercedes 600 series and 500 series sedans. We purchased those types of vehicles and we purchased a few utilitarian trucks and stuff like that.</p><p>There was a specific automobile dealership that we dealt with when we first started purchasing vehicles over there. We got titles with each vehicle. When the whole thing was over I think we were missing titles on probably 25, 24, 25 vehicles, which I thought indicated they were stolen vehicles.</p><p><b>Do you know how Triple Canopy managed to acquire vehicles that didn't have titles?</b></p><p>It's a cash economy in Iraq. There is no electronic funds transfer. There is no -- when you're dealing with locals at this time in 2004, so we paid cash.</p><p>My initial concern, which I relayed to Mr. Nicholson, is that these vehicles are a lot more expensive than what we were purchasing for. We were getting $60-$70,000 vehicles for $25-30,000. As long as we had the title we were good with that. When the titles stopped coming in the requirement to be contract compliant and purchase the vehicles as specified by the contract superseded the need to have a title. So the vehicles were purchased anyway.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Weapons",
+          "range": ["00:03:26", "00:05:45"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>You talked about the vehicles. You also mentioned that there were some weapons purchased from the black market. What did you mean by that?</b></p><p>Triple Canopy purchased over 900 AK-47 rifles on the black market, several machine guns, PKM machine guns. RPK long barrel AK-47s, several Dragunov sniper rifles. These weapons were purchased through connections that we had in Baghdad, local connections from --</p><p>Well, there is no legal way to purchase weapons over there. So you're either supporting organized crime or you're supporting the insurgency. Organized crime is not allowed to operate over there without paying some sort of -- without it being under the -- the insurgency knows about these activities and I believe there is a tax paid to allow them to operate.</p><p>Additionally, to weapons purchased from the insurgents or the black market, Triple Canopy received a letter from Mr. Chris Vauxhall of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which allowed Triple Canopy to acquire captured enemy weapons at U.S. Army Corps collection points.</p><p>Tony Nicholson directed Triple Canopy to acquire these weapons whenever possible, to make regular stops at these collection points, and to acquire these weapons, and bring them back.</p><p>If they were functional they were to be used by our personnel; if they were nonfunctional, his guidance was, as long as it's got a serial number, we can tell the government we purchased it and turn that in at the end of the contract when this contract is reconciled. So they were acquired for free and the intention was to use them as contractor-purchased equipment.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+            "title": "Official Response to Weapons Collection",
+            "range": ["00:05:45", "00:06:53"], 
+            "transcript": "<p><b>Did you raise any concerns with Tony Nicholson about using those collection point collected weapons as contractor-purchased equipment?</b></p><p>I did not initially, and the reason was when we first went over there it was a mad scramble to get the equipment that we needed to be operational. We went over there with no weapons, with very little equipment beyond personal gear such as body armor. So initially the big push was to get weapons so that we could protect ourselves and we could protect our customers, Department of State diplomats.</p><p>Then once that amount was exceeded -- generally youhave one weapon per man and 10 percent sparing is the standard logistic lowdown for weapons. Once that was exceeded I began to look at it a little closer, because I tracked all expenditures for Triple Canopy's operations in Iraq every penny the first year.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Weapons Cost",
+          "range": ["00:06:53", "00:07:36"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><em>(continued ...)</em></p><p>Once the amount that seemed to be prudent was exceeded, I questioned why we were continuing to purchase weapons.</p><p>Because it was a significant cash outlay for those that were actually purchased, approximately $250 per AK; pistols, we probably had 15-20 pistols. They are a lot more expensive because they're a lot easier to conceal. They're $600 apiece. PKR machine guns depending on the condition are $800 to $1,200 apiece. The Dragunov sniper rifles are $600. Long barrel AKs, approximately $450, $500."
+        },  
+
+        {
+          "title": "Funding the Insurgency",
+          "range": ["00:07:36", "00:08:31"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>The insurgency you mentioned, those are the people that the United States are fighting over there in Iraq; correct?</b></p><p>That's correct.</p><p><b>The dollars that Triple Canopy recieved from the United States government, was that part of the money that it used to purchase these weapons and cars you talked about?</b></p><p>Absolutely. Triple Canopy essentially took out a bunch of loans to finance their business, which is not uncommon. Those loans were repaid with U.S. government tax dollars, fee-for-service. We were providing a security service, the government paid us a fee. So essentially tax dollars were used to buy insurgent weapons.</p><p><b>Which funded the insurgency?</b></p><p>That's correct.</p><p><b>Objection. Argumentative</b></p><p>Yes, that is correct.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Barter System",
+          "range": ["00:08:31", "00:09:50"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>Now, you also mentioned something about Cuban cigars and liquor that was purchased for trade. Would you explain what you meant, what that was about?</b><p><p>There was a very strong guidance from Tony Nicholson that U.S. soldiers were not to be paid cash for the equipment that they were giving us. And so what was arranged was a barter system, where If somebody allowed us to have this equipment -- which was surplus, which was not being --</p><p>A lot of these units were getting ready to rotate back to the states. They had more gear than they were going to carry back and there was just an unbelievable amount of war material over there. So rather than having to account for it or store it or ship it back to the states, the guys responsible for this equipment were more than happy to give it away, in exchange for that they would be provided with a bottie of liquor or a box of  Cuban cigars as a trade or a favor.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Barter System",
+          "range": ["00:09:50", "00:11:07"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>What kinds of equipment did Triple canopy  obtain through this barter system?</b></p> <p>Essentially everything, including AT4 rockets, which were deemed unusable by the U.S. military. We  acquired them because they were in fact still serviceable.  We had six AT4 rockets at our headquarters.</p>  <p>We acquired over one and a half-million  dollars worth of medical supplies. We had an outstanding  medical suite. Part of our staffing was physician's  assistants and most of these people were former Special  Operations medics.</p> <p> So what we had was essentially a trauma suite,  a two-bed trauma suite with everything that a modem medical facility has to take care of guys that get shot or injured from glass damage. Heavy-duty trauma stuff.  We had medicines, we had equipment. We were outfitted better than most field units that did not have an actual  CASH unit, a medical unit.</p>"
+        },
+
+        {
+          "title": "Barter System",
+          "range": ["00:11:07", "00:12:54"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><em>(cont ...)</em></p><p>We got the literally thousands of boxes of food. One of the things that we did over there was we wanted to be prepared for any type of siege situation. Where we were staying in the Green Zone in a house there, a 14,700 square foot house - I had to take the measurements once for project I was working on.</p>   <p>But at any rate, one of the first priorities  for us was to secure enough water and food to withstand up  to a two-month siege. So we had a significant amount of   U.S. Army supplied food, primarily T-rations. A T-ration  is a big aluminum tray with a foil top; Three T-rations  together will feed 40 guys one meal. We had hundreds of  cases of those. </p> <p>We had dozens of pallets of bottled water. We  had - I think we already covered medical supplies. We  outfitted over 200 guys with trauma kits, bandages,  medicines, things that they need for personal first aid.  Each vehicle was supplied with a trauma kit to take care  of the customer in the event that he was injured.  </p> <p> We got a 5,000 gallon fuel truck. We got a  tractor. We got -- </p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "The Black Market Connection",
+          "range": ["00:12:54", "00:14:32"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>But the majority of the weapons that Triple Canopy got through the black market were Soviet make?</b> </p> <p>Yes. Although there were some Browning High Powers. There were a couple of Smith & Wesson revolvers, a couple of Walther PPKs. We were getting a wide variety of stuff at first. And then there were -- a couple of things happened.</p> <p>We put in a request, an export license and an end-user certificate for the Department of State. Unfortunately, the Department of state takes many, many months to grant these approvals. And in the meantime we had to have an operational capability, which meant we had to have weapons So we did not get authorization to purchase high-quality U.S. made weapons (where are Glocks made? Germany?) High-quality U.S. and European weapons until maybe May or June. And in the meantime our contract stipulated that we had to have a full operational capability. We started the first one 15 February, the next one 15 March, the next one 15 April. </p> <p>So we had to have full operational capability in order to be contract compliant on those dates. So we purchased the weapons required for that on the black market. The whole mind set at the time was whatever it takes to get the job done we're going to do it.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Supporting the Insurgency",
+          "range": ["00:14:32", "00:14:57"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>Did you discuss it with anyone else at Triple Canopy besides Tony Nicholson?</b> </p><p>It was a general subject of conversation among senior folks, that you know, we're spending a lot of money on these rifles, millions of dollars here. Where do you think that money is going to? Who are we supporting in doing that? We're supporting people who are trying to kill Americans is the logical conclusion.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Unusable Rockets",
+          "range": ["00:14:57", "00:16:35"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>So I understand the sources of Triple Canopy's  armaments -- and I'm specifically only am talking about weapons here -- some were purchased from the blackmarket some were gotten through collection points of captured weapons manned by the Army, and Triple Canopy also had an  export license and end user certificate from the Department of State, Whereby it could acquire U.S. and  European weapons.</b> </p> <p>That's correct.</p> <p><b>Were there other sources of weapons that Triple canopy had in Iraq?</b></p> <p>They got a few U.S. Army weapons that were specifically those AT4 rockets that were considered, not serviceable anymore by the Army. So when they are, given that designation of not serviceable, they are taken off the record books as expended, well, they weren't actually expended.</p> <p>A typical example would be a dust seal on the end of the rocket was broken. It is highly likely that dust would get in there and contaminate the rocket's guidance and launch propulsion mechanism. And so it is unsafe to use at that time by U.S. Army standards, which  are pretty high.</p> <p>So they survey the weapon, say this is no longer usable and it is taken off the books. It still works and we took them. We had them. You know; in addition to the AKs we had a  significant number of RPGs also, which I had not mentioned yet.</p>"
+
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "The Legal Question",
+          "range": ["00:16:35", "00:18:46"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>What was the source of those weapons, sir, the systems of acquisition that we've been discussing?</b></p> <p>Of the AT4 rockets?</p> <p><b>RPGs.</b></p> <p>Oh, RPGs we bought on the black market. </p><p><b>And the AT4s were ones you had gotten from the Army as non-serviceable?</b></p> <p>That's correct </p><p><b>So if I understand you correctly, there are basically four sources; the black market collection points, unserviceable ones from soldiers, and purchases  through the State Department using the export license and end-user certificate?</b></p> <p>Well, it's not through the State Department, it's just an authorization. The actual contract is between the company which has the authorization and the manufacturer here in the States. In our case that was Colt Manufacturing for M4s and Glock for our 9mm pistols. And we also had some Armorlite AR10s for precision fire, essentially sniper weapons.</p> <p> <b>But the purchases that you made through the State Department export licenses and the end-use certificate from Colt those are legitimate purchases?</b></p> <p>Say that again. please.</p><p><b>The purchases that you made through the export license-and the end-use certificate, from Colt are all lawful purchases?</b></p> <p>Yes.<p>  <p><b>Was there anything illegal about the acquisition of weapons deemed unserviceable by the U.S Army?</b></p>  <p>Well, I believe it is illegal to hold U.S Army Department of Defense weapons. I mean, unless you're contract specifically states, that you are authorized to be issued US. military weapons it is highly illegal for a civilian to own a government weapon or to have possession of one.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Lack of Oversight",
+          "range": ["00:18:46", "00:20:17"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>Did the U.S. government know about the black market AKs that Triple Canopy possessed?</b> </p> <p>I don't think so. At this time you have to put things in context. There was virtually zero oversight on any of these security companies In Iraq at that time. There were no questions asked about -- nobody ever said where Is your export license and end-user certificate; and compared to the date that those documents were received and the date when they had weapons that were supposed to be operationally capable. And there was pretty much a blind eye turned to all of that. </p> <p><b>Do you know whether the State of Defense, or any other U.S. entity ever took an inventory of Triple Canopy's weapons?</b> </p> <p>No. In fact, the government was not concerned with the inventory a company has. The primary concern the government has is are we getting the service we're paying for. In this particular case they really don't care that happens. They just want the service.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Tracking the Weapons",
+          "range": ["00:20:17", "00:22:13"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>Well first of all, who ends up buying the weapons back from Triple Canopy?</b></p> <p>They are not bought back from Triple Canopy They are turned over to the government because they are government items. The company, Triple Canopy, purchased them on behalf of the government.</p> <p><b>I understand. So effectively what happens is Triple Canopy purchases the items, not to possess it but simply to use it during the course of its work in Iraq and then the idea is it will turn it back into the government at the conclusion because it's the government's weapon? </b></p><p> That's correct. </p> <p><b>And in some cases AKs that were purchased on the black market were turned back over to the government as contractor purchased weapons?</b> </p> <p>Yes. </p> <p> <b>And those had actually been purchased?</b></p> <p> Yes.</p> <p><b>And'the same with all the weapons you got from Colt? </b></p><p>Yes.</p> <p><b>So the only category of weapons we're talking about that got turned back over to the government, that were not actually purchased by Triple Canopy, were some of the ones you got from the collection points? </b> </p><p>Yes. </p> <p><b>And the ones you turned back over to the government that Triple Canopy had not paid for, were those primarily non-functioning ones? </b></p><p> Some were functional and some were not. Again, the key point being a serial number. That's how weapons are tracked, a serial number that is etched into the receiver. The main component of a firearm. </p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Tracking the Weapons",
+          "range": ["00:22:13", "00:24:24"], 
+          "transcript": " <p><b>I hope you understand how this would happen then. If Triple Canopy had acquired the firearm at one of the collection points, and then turned it back over to the government wouldn't the government have a that that particular serial number had not been purchased?</b></p> <p> No. Because when these weapons were collected from the collection points, when they were acquired from the collection points they did not go out by serial number. They just said, yeah, take them. There was no paperwork associated with that. </p> <p>We typically would show up on the letter of authorization saying, hey look, we can have them, give them to us and depending on the mood. of the particular guard there, you could either get them or they could tell you no. So it was pretty haphazard. </p> <p><b>And did you previously testify that with regard to the weapons received from the collection points, you got about 200 AKs and some cats and dogs?</b> </p> <p>Yes </p> <p><b>Of those weapons, of those 200, how many were turned back into the government as contractor-purchase weapons?</b> </p> <p>I do not know. </p> <p><b>Do you have an estimate?</b> </p> <p>I would estimate, since they were essentially unserviceable or in poor condition probably everyone they could. </p> <p><b>By everyone they could, is that all 200 or some percentage less than that? I would bet you money it was all of them, however, I do not have direct knowledge of that. </b> </p><p><b>When you say you don't have direct knowledge, you don't have the direct knowledge of whether these weapons were serviceable? </b></p> <p>No. I don't know if they were serviceable and I don't know if they were actually depicted as a contractor-purchased equipment. They were acquired with the Intent to do that and that was specific direction by Tony Nicholson.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Tracking the Medical Supplies",
+          "range": ["00:24:24", "00:24:56"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>Mr. Boline, did you previously testify that you are not aware of any medical supplies that were acquired through trade that were ultimately returned to the government as contractor-purchased equipment?</b></p> <p>No, I don't believe that this contract was structured such that medical equipment would be in the category of government-furnished equipment Therefore, the contractor does not have to turn that back in. </p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Tracking the Vehicles",
+          "range": ["00:24:56", "00:26:25"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>Are you aware of any vehicles that were acquired through trade that was turned into the government as contractor-purchased equipment?</b> </p><p>Absolutely. Yes.</p> <p><b>How many?</b></p> <p>I believe there were 56 soft vehicles, nonarmored vehicles. I believe there were 36 hard vehldes, or armored vehicles, and they were all purchased on behalf of the government. </p><p><b>They were all purchased on behalf of the government?</b></p> <p>Yes.</p> <p><b>So Triple canopy actually bought these items?</b> </p>That's correct. <p><b>And then turned them back. into the government?</b> </p> <p>Yes. </p><p><b>I must not have been clear on my question What I'm concerned with is any vehicles that Triple Canopy did not purchase that it attempted to turn back into the government as contractor-purchased equipment.</b></p> <p>No. All the vehicles we purchased there was a receipt for them. In country we purchased the soft vehicles locally. The guys at corporate purchased the hard cars, or armored vehicles. And they were flown in country or driven in from Ahmad. And so there was to my knowledge, all of those vehicles were paid for and they were definitely considered government property. </p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Turning the Equipment Back In",
+          "range": ["00:26:25", "00:27:17"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>Are you aware of any effective than Triple Canopy - do you have personal knowledge of any equipment that Triple Canopy got for free that It turned back into the government as contractor-purchased equipment?</b></p> <p>The weapons at the collection point were acquired with the Intent of turning them into the government as contractor purchased equipment. When I left Iraq those contracts were still in effect. So the custody chain of those weapons remains with the contractor until the end of the contract. As those contracts rollover eventually the end. And at that point the government says, okay, where is all the stuff that we bought? That point had not been reached by the time I left Iraq.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Other Sites",
+          "range": ["00:27:17", "00:28:35"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>With regard to the trade for equipment, was most of that with U.S. Army personnel? </b></p><p></p>Yes. <p>And some Marines thrown in, I take it? I don't know. You see, what I have spoken to today is just my knowledge of Baghdad stuff. This happened at another level In all 11 of the sites that we serviced. So guys would get stuff and trade for stuff, and that sort of system was Instituted everywhere, all the way north to Annanl and Irbil, all the way south to Basrah.</p> <p><b>Is there anything illegal about that, to your knowledge?</b></p> <p>Absolutely, it's U.S. taxpayer purchased equipment and supplies. And it wasn't purchased by the Department of Defense to give to contractors. It was purchased to support U.S. troops.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "We're Going to do This",
+          "range": ["00:28:35", "00:30:00"], 
+          "transcript": "<p><b>Did you have discussions with Tony Nicholson about that?</b></p> <p>Well, we did a couple of times. And again, his direction was, we're going to get what we need to get to make this operation successful. His words are, \"We're going to set ourselves up for success\" and that was a constant theme. We're going to set ourselves up for success.</p> <p><b>What did you say when he said that to you?</b> </p><p>Well, It was a constant saying. So I don't have specific - I mean, can I get the question more defined?</p> <p><b>How did you react when he explained that the reason for this bartering was to set yourself up for success?</b> </p><p>The intent was to get what we needed to do the job. The whole thing was mission focused - let's get this done.</p> <p>Me personally, I had a lot of stuff to do, running all the different facets of the business end. So I was not particularly concerned with what they were doing to acquire this stuff. I noted it and said, wow, that is pretty impressive. And you know, advised Tony that some aspects of that were pretty questionable. And he essentially - excuse my language - said \"**** it. We're going to do this. We're going to set ourselves up for success.\"</p>"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "Annotations": {
+      "color": "#E5AE5C",
+      "hover": "#99743d",
+      "entries": [
+        {
+          "title": "Purchases",
+          "range": ["00:00:00", "00:01:16"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>After the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the U.S. military quickly discovered it did not have enough troops to protect key sites and top officials. The U.S. rushed to hire private security companies to fill the gap. Like many other newly-formed companies, Triple Canopy scrambled to find ways to supply its employees with food, vehicles and weapons.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Vehicles",
+          "range": ["00:01:15", "00:03:26"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>After the war, Baghdad was an all-cash economy. The Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-backed occupation authority, handed out duffel bags with hundreds of thousands of dollars to private security firms to buy supplies. Vehicles, especially armored cars, were in high demand. Boline testified that Tony Nicholson, who remains a Triple Canopy senior manager, ordered supplies purchased with cash and sometimes in barter with soldiers. Triple Canopy said it had investigated Boline's accusations and found nothing to support them.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Weapons",
+          "range": ["00:03:26", "00:05:45"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>As violence soared in 2003, U.S. officials in Iraq demanded that private security firms begin operations within days of winning a contract. And yet back home, federal agencies including the State Dept. refused to provide weapons export licenses to many firms, including Triple Canopy. Triple Canopy acknowledges that it bought weapons from dealers in Iraq, but says that it took precautions to make sure that money did not flow into the hands of insurgents, such as using Iraqi buyers approved by the U.S. military.</p>"
+        },
+
+        {
+          "title": "Official Response to Weapons Collection",
+          "range": ["00:05:45", "00:06:53"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>Boline testified that he told Tony Nicholson, a senior Triple Canopy manager, about his concerns in the \"mad scramble\" to acquire weapons and equipment in 2004. Lee Van Arsdale, Triple Canopy's CEO until he recently retired, said that Boline had not made his concerns known until 2007</p>."
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Weapons Cost",
+          "range": ["00:06:53", "00:07:36"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>AK47s were popular weapons for private security firms since it was easier to find ammunition for the guns in Iraq and locally hired security guards were familiar with the weapon's operation.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Funding the Insurgency",
+          "range": ["00:07:36", "00:08:31"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>Boline helped arm and equip Triple Canopy security guards in Iraq in 2004. In his deposition, he said that the American taxpayer money used to buy weapons flowed to insurgents--though he offered no proof. Triple Canopy said it took precautions to prevent money from falling into the wrong hands, but also had no proof that its strategies succeeded.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Barter System",
+          "range": ["00:08:31", "00:12:54"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>Boline testified that the firm swapped alcoholic beverages and Cuban cigars with soldiers in return for food, rockets, medical equipment and other supplies. Triple Canopy said that it investigated Boline's charges, and found nothing to support them. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction recommended charges be filed in the case, but the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York declined to prosecute.</p>"
+        },
+
+
+        {
+          "title": "The Black Market Connection",
+          "range": ["00:12:54", "00:14:32"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>Triple Canopy said that it took approximately six months for the firm to clear a maze of federal agencies to win approval to export weapons licenses. State Dept. officials acknowledge that the agency was slow to approve export licenses, but remedied the problem in late 2004.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Supporting the Insurgency",
+          "range": ["00:14:32", "00:14:57"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>Boline testified that Tony Nicholson, a senior Triple Canopy manager, and other top company officers were told that the money paid for weapons could wind up in insurgent hands. Triple Canopy said that it used trusted local buyers to prevent such action.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Unusable Rockets",
+          "range": ["00:14:57", "00:16:35"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>Boline testified that the firm obtained A4 rockets from the military which were decommissioned, but could still be fired. The company said it could not find any evidence that its employees obtained such weapons.</p>"
+        },
+
+        {
+          "title": "Tracking the Weapons",
+          "range": ["00:22:13", "00:24:24"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>The Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-backed occupation government, issued letters authorizing Triple Canopy and other security companies to obtain weapons seized by the U.S. military during the war in Iraq. The weapons were typically in poor shape and had to be refurbished. The companies were not charged for the weapons.</p>"
+        },
+
+        {
+          "title": "Tracking the Vehicles",
+          "range": ["00:24:56", "00:26:25"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>Triple Canopy bought vehicles as part of their contract with the U.S. government. Such contractor-purchased equipment belongs to the U.S. government and must be returned upon completion of the contract. </p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Turning the Equipment Back In",
+          "range": ["00:26:25", "00:27:17"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>Boline testified that in accounting for weapons with contracting officials, Triple Canopy attempted to substitute weapons obtained for free from the caches with weapons purchased by the government. In this way, Triple Canopy would be able to retain the high-quality government-financed weapons while giving the government the lower quality weapons it had obtained for free. Boline acknowledges that he was not present when the contract ended to see whether such a swap actually occurred. Triple Canopy denies such an exchange happened.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "Other Sites",
+          "range": ["00:27:17", "00:28:35"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>Boline charges that Triple Canopy swapped goods like liquor and Cuban cigars for military supplies. Triple Canopy said it has investigated the charge and found no evidence that such bartering took place.</p>"
+        },
+        {
+          "title": "We're Going to Do This",
+          "range": ["00:28:35", "00:30:01"], 
+          "transcript": "<p>Boline charges that Tony Nicholson, a senior Triple Canopy official, urged employees to swap goods like liquor and Cuban cigars for U.S. military supplies. Triple Canopy said it has investigated the charge and found no evidence that such bartering took place.</p>"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+
+  }
+}

data/vid-skim.gemspec

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+Gem::Specification.new do |s|
+  s.name      = 'vid-skim'
+  s.version   = '0.0.1'         # Keep version in sync with vid-skim.rb
+  s.date      = '2009-09-25'
+
+  s.homepage    = "http://propublica.org"
+  s.summary     = "Annotate videos with transcripts and editors' notes"
+  s.description = <<-EOS
+    Transcripts and commentary for long boring videos on YouTube!  
+  EOS
+  
+  s.authors           = ['Jeff Larson']
+  s.email             = 'jeff.larson@propublica.org'
+  s.rubyforge_project = 'vid-skim'
+  
+  s.require_paths     = ['lib']
+  s.executables       = ['vidskim']
+    
+  s.has_rdoc          = true
+  s.extra_rdoc_files  = ['README']
+  s.rdoc_options      << '--title'    << 'VidSkim' <<
+                         '--exclude'  << 'spec' <<
+                         '--main'     << 'README' <<
+                         '--all'
+  
+  s.add_dependency 'json',          ['>= 1.1.7']
+  s.add_dependency 'edl',           ['>= 0.1.0']
+
+  if s.respond_to?(:add_development_dependency)
+    s.add_development_dependency 'rspec', ['>= 1.2.8']
+    s.add_development_dependency 'selenium-client', ['>= 1.2.17']
+  end
+  
+  s.files = %w(
+    template/html/images/next-hover.jpg
+    template/html/images/next.jpg
+    template/html/images/prev-hover.jpg
+    template/html/images/prev.jpg
+    template/html/javascripts/vid_skim.js
+    template/html/stylesheets/vid_skim.css
+    template/videos/example.json
+    template/parsers/readme.txt
+    lib/vid_skim/command.rb
+    lib/vid_skim/transcript.rb
+    lib/vid_skim/files.rb
+    lib/vid_skim/parser.rb
+    lib/vid_skim/compiler.rb
+    lib/vid_skim/inflector.rb
+    lib/vid_skim.rb
+    parsers/json_parser.rb
+    parsers/edl_parser.rb
+    vid-skim.gemspec
+    views/template.html.erb
+  )
+end

data/views/template.html.erb

@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html>
+<head>
+
+<title><%= @transcript.title %></title>
+		<meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
+	<script src="http://www.google.com/jsapi" type="text/javascript"></script>
+  <script type="text/javascript">
+    google.load("swfobject", "2.1");
+    google.load("jquery", "1");  
+    
+  </script>
+  <script src="javascripts/vid_skim.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
+  <link href="stylesheets/vid_skim.css" media="screen" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
+</head>
+<body>
+
+
+<div id="vid-skim">
+  <div class="vid-tabs">
+
+      <%# This means that divisions can only be one word, no special chars, grrr %>
+    <% @transcript.divisions.each_pair do |x, d| %><div><a href="#" class="tab-<%=d.name%>"><%= d.name %></a></div><% end %>
+
+  </div>
+  
+  <div class="viewer clearfix">
+
+  	<div class="timeline">
+  	  <div class="scrubber"></div>
+  	  <div class="position"></div>    
+    </div>
+    <div class="vid-nav">
+      <%["Next", "Previous"].each do |i| %>
+        <a href="" class="<%= i.downcase %>"><%= i%></a>
+      <%end%>
+    </div>
+    
+
+    <div class="player_container">
+      <div id="vid-skim-player">
+        You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
+      </div>
+    </div>
+    <div class="trans">
+      <div class="extra"></div>
+    </div>
+    
+  </div>
+  <div class="rail">
+    <% @transcript.divisions.each_pair do |x, d|%>
+    <div class="<%= Inflector.parameterize(x, '') %>">
+      <div><strong><%= x %></strong></div>
+      <% d.unique_entries_by_title.each do |e| %>
+          <div><a class="index <%= Inflector.parameterize(e.title, '') %>" href="#<%= e.range.to_seconds(:low) %>" class="index"><%= e.title %></a></div>
+      <% end %>
+    </div>
+    <%end%>
+  </div>
+</div>
+
+
+
+<script type="text/javascript">
+data = <%= @transcript.to_json %>
+
+
+
+  var params = { allowScriptAccess: "always" };
+  var atts = { id: "ytplayer" };
+  swfobject.embedSWF("http://www.youtube.com/v/<%= @transcript.youtube_id %>?enablejsapi=1&playerapiid=myytplayer", 
+                     "vid-skim-player", "375", "305", "8", null, null, params, atts);
+  
+  
+$.preloadImages(
+'images/prev.jpg',
+'images/next.jpg',
+'images/prev-hover.jpg',
+'images/next-hover.jpg'
+);
+    
+
+  var trans = new Transcript('#vid-skim .timeline', '#vid-skim .trans', '#vid-skim .extra', '#vid-skim .vid-nav','#vid-skim .vid-tabs', '#vid-skim .rail', '#vid-skim .viewer', window.location);
+  trans.setData(data, "<%= @transcript.default %>")
+
+  
+  
+                     
+  function onYouTubePlayerReady(playerId) {
+  
+    var ytplayer = document.getElementById('ytplayer');    
+    trans.setPlayer(ytplayer);
+    trans.seek(trans.hashSeconds);
+    trans.setBounds(<%= @transcript.duration %>);
+    setInterval(updateytplayerInfo, 250);  
+    trans.initted = true;
+  }
+  
+  
+  function updateytplayerInfo() {
+    trans.draw(trans.player.getCurrentTime());
+  }
+
+
+</script>
+
+</body>
+</html>
+

metadata

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+--- !ruby/object:Gem::Specification 
+name: vid-skim
+version: !ruby/object:Gem::Version 
+  version: 0.0.1
+platform: ruby
+authors: 
+- Jeff Larson
+autorequire: 
+bindir: bin
+cert_chain: []
+
+date: 2009-09-25 00:00:00 -04:00
+default_executable: 
+dependencies: 
+- !ruby/object:Gem::Dependency 
+  name: json
+  type: :runtime
+  version_requirement: 
+  version_requirements: !ruby/object:Gem::Requirement 
+    requirements: 
+    - - ">="
+      - !ruby/object:Gem::Version 
+        version: 1.1.7
+    version: 
+- !ruby/object:Gem::Dependency 
+  name: edl
+  type: :runtime
+  version_requirement: 
+  version_requirements: !ruby/object:Gem::Requirement 
+    requirements: 
+    - - ">="
+      - !ruby/object:Gem::Version 
+        version: 0.1.0
+    version: 
+- !ruby/object:Gem::Dependency 
+  name: rspec
+  type: :development
+  version_requirement: 
+  version_requirements: !ruby/object:Gem::Requirement 
+    requirements: 
+    - - ">="
+      - !ruby/object:Gem::Version 
+        version: 1.2.8
+    version: 
+- !ruby/object:Gem::Dependency 
+  name: selenium-client
+  type: :development
+  version_requirement: 
+  version_requirements: !ruby/object:Gem::Requirement 
+    requirements: 
+    - - ">="
+      - !ruby/object:Gem::Version 
+        version: 1.2.17
+    version: 
+description: "    Transcripts and commentary for long boring videos on YouTube!  \n"
+email: jeff.larson@propublica.org
+executables: 
+- vidskim
+extensions: []
+
+extra_rdoc_files: 
+- README
+files: 
+- template/html/images/next-hover.jpg
+- template/html/images/next.jpg
+- template/html/images/prev-hover.jpg
+- template/html/images/prev.jpg
+- template/html/javascripts/vid_skim.js
+- template/html/stylesheets/vid_skim.css
+- template/videos/example.json
+- template/parsers/readme.txt
+- lib/vid_skim/command.rb
+- lib/vid_skim/transcript.rb
+- lib/vid_skim/files.rb
+- lib/vid_skim/parser.rb
+- lib/vid_skim/compiler.rb
+- lib/vid_skim/inflector.rb
+- lib/vid_skim.rb
+- parsers/json_parser.rb
+- parsers/edl_parser.rb
+- vid-skim.gemspec
+- views/template.html.erb
+- README
+has_rdoc: true
+homepage: http://propublica.org
+licenses: []
+
+post_install_message: 
+rdoc_options: 
+- --title
+- VidSkim
+- --exclude
+- spec
+- --main
+- README
+- --all
+require_paths: 
+- lib
+required_ruby_version: !ruby/object:Gem::Requirement 
+  requirements: 
+  - - ">="
+    - !ruby/object:Gem::Version 
+      version: "0"
+  version: 
+required_rubygems_version: !ruby/object:Gem::Requirement 
+  requirements: 
+  - - ">="
+    - !ruby/object:Gem::Version 
+      version: "0"
+  version: 
+requirements: []
+
+rubyforge_project: vid-skim
+rubygems_version: 1.3.4
+signing_key: 
+specification_version: 3
+summary: Annotate videos with transcripts and editors' notes
+test_files: []
+