Only if the widgets you use require interaction.. like a calculator. None of the konfab widgets I use do. We've written a lot of our own. They're mostly status widgets. One widget shows status from Big Brother (server monitoring) for example.
Which means you can continue to use Konfabulator for your needs, and both Apple and Arlo Rose are happy.
And to be fair, I don't think it's technically correct to accuse Apple of ripping off "Konspose" (what an original name), considering that got introduced into Konfabulator less than two weeks ago.
Nonsense. There are things Konfabulator does today that Dashboard won't do at all, such as displaying content on the desktop while you're working. Konfabulator can continue to have a long and healthy life if the developers keep pushing its feature set ahead of Dashboard's.
Just like Watson is DEAD.
Amazing how Watson remained alive long enough for the author to sell it to Sun, eh?
Just like MS gave up on IE for Mac when Apple started bundling Safari.
Oh, puleeeze. Microsoft wasn't doing any work with Mac IE even before Safari came out -- hell, it was Microsoft's penchance for sitting on its ass that prompted Apple to develop Safari in the first place, remember? And let's not forget the truckload of third-party web browsers currently available for the Mac, none of which are "dying" just because Safari's available. Some of them even use the same Webkip API Safari does, fer crissakes.
Bottom line: Your notion that Konfabulator is "dead" because Apple announced Dashboard today (and won't release it until sometime next year) is premature and unsupported by history. Quit nailing your palm to your forehead, the neighbors are complaining.
You've got to be kidding. Jarvis distorts Moore's points worse than Moore allegedly does. The fact that he cites Hutchins' now-discredited "critique" of the movie simply tells you how far off his POV is.
Whatever happened to the notion of personal responsibility? It's not always someone else's fault, quit trying to blame someone else, and maybe try looking in at yourself for a moment.
Yes, let's all be inspired by George W. Bush's bold grasp of personal responsibility for the continuing fuckup in Iraq, and the Abu Garade prison scandal, and the capture of Osama Bin Laden, and the last three years of recession. I've lost count of how many times Bush has inspired us all by standing up, puffing out his chest, and saying "Blame someone else!"
This is a must-see. I usually approach Moore's work with a sceptical eye and try to read between the lines, but on this occasion I was impressed by how factual he was. The only criticism I will make is that Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people was deserving of at least some mention, but Moore totally ignores this.
I don't think that was necessary for Moore to make his point. The Iraq war was sold on the grounds that Saddam was a threat to the US, a claim which has now been proven false. The notion that Iraq needed to be "liberated" because Saddam was an asshole was something the Bushies came up with after the WMDs weren't found. Moore was IMO not trying to paint pre-war Iraq as a utopia, but just to show it as just a country of folks doing their own thing, like a lot of other countries in the world.
Moore claims that the US Secret Service's Uniformed Division protects only the Saudi Embassy, no others. That's just plain false.
Moore doesn't claim this. He asks the Secret Service agent if other embassies get protection similar to what the Saudis get, and the agent says, "Not really, it's just the Saudis."
Maybe the agent is misinformed, but that's not Moore lying, is it?
Don't forget "Are those WMDs still potent, or have they expired?"
Chemical and biological WMDs only have a "shelf life" of 3-5 years, under ideal storage conditions. The WMDs Saddam had in 1990 wouldn't do him any good in 2003.
How about the complete lack of credibility of anything that ever comes out of Michael Moore's mouth? How about his track record of spinning his stories harder than Fox News?
And you know this because Rush Limbaugh told you so, right?
Moore has been rightly dinged for stretching the truth in the past, but Fahrenheit 9/11 is a much tighter ship. He doesn't need to distort things when his own subjects will hang themselves with their own words, right there on the screen.
Didn't he say or imply that bin Laden family members left the US while all flights were grounded and without interviews, when in fact they left after flights resumed and they were made available for interviews, with some interviewed and some not?
No. he says (and shows the departure records to support it) that the Saudis were given priority queueing to be the first ones allowed to leave the country when the FAA finally began resuming flights, on 9/13/01.
Didn't he make a big deal of Bush et al getting hair/makeup care before public appearances, making them appear vain and shallow?
No, he simply showed that footage to fill some time during the opening credits. Moore certainly never makes any mention about it in the movie, and you could replace those scenes with frolicking puppies and not alter the movie's points one iota.
We could go on, but the fact is Moore is vociferous and entertaining, but not terribly talented nor concerned with the truth.
Sorry, but [i]Hoop Dreams[/i] promotes the opinion that playing professional basketball is a worthwhile goal for people to aspire to. Why wasn't there a look at the benefits of playing pro basketball vs. becoming a successful entrepreneur, or scientist, or teacher?
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country.
on
Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
And yet, no one has yet to find a single cinematic documentary that didn't espouse a particular view.
But do you know who authorized that? It wasn't Bush. It was Richard Clarke, the same man who Moore has praised for his comments about Bush's handling of 9/11 and Iraq. Clarke has publicly taken sole responsibility for the flight.
However, in the film, Moore tried to portray Bush as being responsible for it.
The bigger issue is why anyone would authorize the release of the Bin Ladens at all. Shifting the responsibility from Bush to Clarke (assuming Clarke wasn't "nudged" to approve their release) doesn't disavow the cluster-f*ckup of the move.
Having seen the film, the part that disgusted me the most what when Moore kept making a big deal about Bush's connections to the bin Laden family and making it seem as if that meant that Bush was connected to Osama. Osama was disowned by his family a long time ago.
I didn't get that impression at all. It was Moore explaining why the Bin Ladens were treated with kid gloves in the aftermath of 9/11, not an attempt to draw a sinister scheme by Moore and Osama.
* The list of the "coalition of the willing" mentioned only tiny, irrelvant countries, and skipped over really important ones
I suspect this was done more for comedic effect than anything else. As you yourself admit, the United States is doing 90%+ of the fighting in Iraq; Moore is simply reminding us of this.
* The story of the man who mentioned to guys in a gym that he considered Bush a terrorist and found himself speaking to the FBI the following day rang false.
It might ring false to you, but I've read a few articles on this guy, and his story is the same as the way Moore presents it -- make anti-Bush comments in public, get CIA on your doorstep. Short of hooking up the guy to a lie detector and grilling him, how can you accuse him of lying just because you didn't get an honest vibe?
* A man's name was blacked out on one of Bush's army papers. The implication was that this was covering up something evil. But it doesn't appear that the relationship between this man and Bush was a secret, and the paper doesn't imply that they did anything sinister except skip out on their service.
See the movie again. Moore's point is not that Bath was dangerous and his name needed to be covered -- his name was uncovered without incident in the pre-9/11 version of the document Moore got from the government -- but that, after 9/11, the White House was actively burying all links between Bush and the Saudis.
The other nasty bits of the relationship between this guy and Bush, like the cozy foreign investments, are irrelevant to this document.
Given that the movie does make a point over the heavy ties between the Sauds and the US, I think this is a relevant topic.
* The bin Laden family claims to have cut off contact with Osama, which makes the Bush family's cozy relationship with the Saudis far less relevant than Moore implies. His refutation in the movie consisted only of a single wedding of Osama's son, and doesn't even state that Osama was in attendance: Osama has many sons if I recall correctly, and being on the run he might not go to the wedding of each one.
Again, go see the movie and pay attention. The point was that Osama had a son who was getting married, Osama was there (see the video), and at least one of Osama's own brothers were there, despite the whole "black sheep" claims from the Bin Laden family. You can also find examples of numerous other active ties between Osama and the Bin Laden clan in House of Bush, House of Saud, so Moore isn't talking out of his ass here.
* His before-the-war footage of Iraq showed happy, smiling children on playgrounds. It skips the grinding poverty, caused by Saddam's refusal to comply with international orders and his skimming of oil profits. It skips the horrific crimes of which his sons stood accused. It skips the thousands of Kurds, dead from the sort of weapons from which Bush claimed we were protecting ourselves. The weapons do not appear to have existed, and the US should not be in the habit of invading every country whose policies we don't like, but to imply that all was sweetness and light in Iraq before we showed up is dishonest.
I think Moore's point here was simply that pre-war Iraq was not a menace to the United States, despite Bush's attempt to paint it as such. There was no need to talk about Iraq's internal problems; Bush has already done that for the last 3.5 years anyway. And showing happy Iraqis living their regular lives was IMO a necessary counterbalance to all the evil-Iraqi-imminent-threat bullshit we've been getting from the White House. Those bombs we dropped didn't fall only on Saddam's head, y'know.
The film is designed to preach to the converted, not to make a case to the neutral or the opposition.
I think it does make a case for the undecided. And the whole point of all documentaries is to convince the viewer to a particular POV, so Moore is hardly doing anything unort
Actually, I consider every single news flash regarding SCO more importan than a movie that you believe will make a fundamental impact on the future of how politics are played out in America, because I believe Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11 is little more than a heavily biased satire with truth buried so deep beneath the surface of the film that it is impossible to know what to trust and what to discard as satire.
See the movie. I have, and Moore lists (just about) every single source he uses up front. Newspaper articles, dates, firsthand accounts from relevant experts... you can't say Moore is distorting what so-and-so says when so-and-so is saying it right into the camera.
Moore is definitely biased, but at least he admits his bias, and gives you his supporting evidence up front. Which is more than the Bush Administration has done vis-a-vis Iraq.
What's funny is Lucas has crammed that into the Prequels. Of course, most viewers have been asleep so they didn't notice the parallels between modern events and a Senator in a galaxy far far away with grand ambitions manufacturing a war to get himself made absolute dictator.
Oh, they noticed it, but the combination of Jar-Jar Binks and Tyke Anakin going "Yippee!" proved such a shock to viewers that their higher-level reasoning neurons (which drew said parallels) got fried in the process.
That's a silly argument, since you're assuming "great game" is a Windows game first and foremost. It makes as much (little) sense as saying, "Name one great Mac game that came out in the past six months that works on your Windows PC?"
If you're running 10.3, there's a control panel that allows you to map keyboard functions systemwide. I think you should be able to map the Function keys to invoke APplescripts fairly easily with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone want to wager Dell won't get more than a thousand submissions for this offer?
How about a hundred?
Three?
Bueller?
Only if the widgets you use require interaction.. like a calculator. None of the konfab widgets I use do. We've written a lot of our own. They're mostly status widgets. One widget shows status from Big Brother (server monitoring) for example.
Which means you can continue to use Konfabulator for your needs, and both Apple and Arlo Rose are happy.
And to be fair, I don't think it's technically correct to accuse Apple of ripping off "Konspose" (what an original name), considering that got introduced into Konfabulator less than two weeks ago.
Konfabulator is DEAD.
Nonsense. There are things Konfabulator does today that Dashboard won't do at all, such as displaying content on the desktop while you're working. Konfabulator can continue to have a long and healthy life if the developers keep pushing its feature set ahead of Dashboard's.
Just like Watson is DEAD.
Amazing how Watson remained alive long enough for the author to sell it to Sun, eh?
Just like MS gave up on IE for Mac when Apple started bundling Safari.
Oh, puleeeze. Microsoft wasn't doing any work with Mac IE even before Safari came out -- hell, it was Microsoft's penchance for sitting on its ass that prompted Apple to develop Safari in the first place, remember? And let's not forget the truckload of third-party web browsers currently available for the Mac, none of which are "dying" just because Safari's available. Some of them even use the same Webkip API Safari does, fer crissakes.
Bottom line: Your notion that Konfabulator is "dead" because Apple announced Dashboard today (and won't release it until sometime next year) is premature and unsupported by history. Quit nailing your palm to your forehead, the neighbors are complaining.
You've got to be kidding. Jarvis distorts Moore's points worse than Moore allegedly does. The fact that he cites Hutchins' now-discredited "critique" of the movie simply tells you how far off his POV is.
I had my WTF moment when the first airplane hit.
When the second plane hit, I knew it was no freakin' accident, and it was time to haul ass.
Apparently I'm smarter than George W. Bush.
Whatever happened to the notion of personal responsibility? It's not always someone else's fault, quit trying to blame someone else, and maybe try looking in at yourself for a moment.
Yes, let's all be inspired by George W. Bush's bold grasp of personal responsibility for the continuing fuckup in Iraq, and the Abu Garade prison scandal, and the capture of Osama Bin Laden, and the last three years of recession. I've lost count of how many times Bush has inspired us all by standing up, puffing out his chest, and saying "Blame someone else!"
This is a must-see. I usually approach Moore's work with a sceptical eye and try to read between the lines, but on this occasion I was impressed by how factual he was. The only criticism I will make is that Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people was deserving of at least some mention, but Moore totally ignores this.
I don't think that was necessary for Moore to make his point. The Iraq war was sold on the grounds that Saddam was a threat to the US, a claim which has now been proven false. The notion that Iraq needed to be "liberated" because Saddam was an asshole was something the Bushies came up with after the WMDs weren't found. Moore was IMO not trying to paint pre-war Iraq as a utopia, but just to show it as just a country of folks doing their own thing, like a lot of other countries in the world.
As I've said before in this topic, name one documentary that didn't endorse a particular point of view.
The only place where documentaries are 100% factual and objective is in the dictionary.
Moore claims that the US Secret Service's Uniformed Division protects only the Saudi Embassy, no others. That's just plain false.
Moore doesn't claim this. He asks the Secret Service agent if other embassies get protection similar to what the Saudis get, and the agent says, "Not really, it's just the Saudis."
Maybe the agent is misinformed, but that's not Moore lying, is it?
Don't forget "Are those WMDs still potent, or have they expired?"
Chemical and biological WMDs only have a "shelf life" of 3-5 years, under ideal storage conditions. The WMDs Saddam had in 1990 wouldn't do him any good in 2003.
Only because you edited my footage, as evident by my tie that changes from scene to scene. :-)
How about the complete lack of credibility of anything that ever comes out of Michael Moore's mouth?
How about his track record of spinning his stories harder than Fox News?
And you know this because Rush Limbaugh told you so, right?
Moore has been rightly dinged for stretching the truth in the past, but Fahrenheit 9/11 is a much tighter ship. He doesn't need to distort things when his own subjects will hang themselves with their own words, right there on the screen.
Didn't he say or imply that bin Laden family members left the US while all flights were grounded and without interviews, when in fact they left after flights resumed and they were made available for interviews, with some interviewed and some not?
No. he says (and shows the departure records to support it) that the Saudis were given priority queueing to be the first ones allowed to leave the country when the FAA finally began resuming flights, on 9/13/01.
Didn't he make a big deal of Bush et al getting hair/makeup care before public appearances, making them appear vain and shallow?
No, he simply showed that footage to fill some time during the opening credits. Moore certainly never makes any mention about it in the movie, and you could replace those scenes with frolicking puppies and not alter the movie's points one iota.
We could go on, but the fact is Moore is vociferous and entertaining, but not terribly talented nor concerned with the truth.
You're one to talk...
Sorry, but [i]Hoop Dreams[/i] promotes the opinion that playing professional basketball is a worthwhile goal for people to aspire to. Why wasn't there a look at the benefits of playing pro basketball vs. becoming a successful entrepreneur, or scientist, or teacher?
And yet, no one has yet to find a single cinematic documentary that didn't espouse a particular view.
But do you know who authorized that? It wasn't Bush. It was Richard Clarke, the same man who Moore has praised for his comments about Bush's handling of 9/11 and Iraq. Clarke has publicly taken sole responsibility for the flight.
However, in the film, Moore tried to portray Bush as being responsible for it.
The bigger issue is why anyone would authorize the release of the Bin Ladens at all. Shifting the responsibility from Bush to Clarke (assuming Clarke wasn't "nudged" to approve their release) doesn't disavow the cluster-f*ckup of the move.
Having seen the film, the part that disgusted me the most what when Moore kept making a big deal about Bush's connections to the bin Laden family and making it seem as if that meant that Bush was connected to Osama. Osama was disowned by his family a long time ago.
I didn't get that impression at all. It was Moore explaining why the Bin Ladens were treated with kid gloves in the aftermath of 9/11, not an attempt to draw a sinister scheme by Moore and Osama.
Hitchins gets bitchslapped.
* The list of the "coalition of the willing" mentioned only tiny, irrelvant countries, and skipped over really important ones
I suspect this was done more for comedic effect than anything else. As you yourself admit, the United States is doing 90%+ of the fighting in Iraq; Moore is simply reminding us of this.
* The story of the man who mentioned to guys in a gym that he considered Bush a terrorist and found himself speaking to the FBI the following day rang false.
It might ring false to you, but I've read a few articles on this guy, and his story is the same as the way Moore presents it -- make anti-Bush comments in public, get CIA on your doorstep. Short of hooking up the guy to a lie detector and grilling him, how can you accuse him of lying just because you didn't get an honest vibe?
* A man's name was blacked out on one of Bush's army papers. The implication was that this was covering up something evil. But it doesn't appear that the relationship between this man and Bush was a secret, and the paper doesn't imply that they did anything sinister except skip out on their service.
See the movie again. Moore's point is not that Bath was dangerous and his name needed to be covered -- his name was uncovered without incident in the pre-9/11 version of the document Moore got from the government -- but that, after 9/11, the White House was actively burying all links between Bush and the Saudis.
The other nasty bits of the relationship between this guy and Bush, like the cozy foreign investments, are irrelevant to this document.
Given that the movie does make a point over the heavy ties between the Sauds and the US, I think this is a relevant topic.
* The bin Laden family claims to have cut off contact with Osama, which makes the Bush family's cozy relationship with the Saudis far less relevant than Moore implies. His refutation in the movie consisted only of a single wedding of Osama's son, and doesn't even state that Osama was in attendance: Osama has many sons if I recall correctly, and being on the run he might not go to the wedding of each one.
Again, go see the movie and pay attention. The point was that Osama had a son who was getting married, Osama was there (see the video), and at least one of Osama's own brothers were there, despite the whole "black sheep" claims from the Bin Laden family. You can also find examples of numerous other active ties between Osama and the Bin Laden clan in House of Bush, House of Saud, so Moore isn't talking out of his ass here.
* His before-the-war footage of Iraq showed happy, smiling children on playgrounds. It skips the grinding poverty, caused by Saddam's refusal to comply with international orders and his skimming of oil profits. It skips the horrific crimes of which his sons stood accused. It skips the thousands of Kurds, dead from the sort of weapons from which Bush claimed we were protecting ourselves. The weapons do not appear to have existed, and the US should not be in the habit of invading every country whose policies we don't like, but to imply that all was sweetness and light in Iraq before we showed up is dishonest.
I think Moore's point here was simply that pre-war Iraq was not a menace to the United States, despite Bush's attempt to paint it as such. There was no need to talk about Iraq's internal problems; Bush has already done that for the last 3.5 years anyway. And showing happy Iraqis living their regular lives was IMO a necessary counterbalance to all the evil-Iraqi-imminent-threat bullshit we've been getting from the White House. Those bombs we dropped didn't fall only on Saddam's head, y'know.
The film is designed to preach to the converted, not to make a case to the neutral or the opposition.
I think it does make a case for the undecided. And the whole point of all documentaries is to convince the viewer to a particular POV, so Moore is hardly doing anything unort
Actually, I consider every single news flash regarding SCO more importan than a movie that you believe will make a fundamental impact on the future of how politics are played out in America, because I believe Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11 is little more than a heavily biased satire with truth buried so deep beneath the surface of the film that it is impossible to know what to trust and what to discard as satire.
See the movie. I have, and Moore lists (just about) every single source he uses up front. Newspaper articles, dates, firsthand accounts from relevant experts... you can't say Moore is distorting what so-and-so says when so-and-so is saying it right into the camera.
Moore is definitely biased, but at least he admits his bias, and gives you his supporting evidence up front. Which is more than the Bush Administration has done vis-a-vis Iraq.
I don't quite get the connection..as if iTunes will be a better experience on a mac or something?
No, it's the realization that your entire computing experience will be better with a Mac, not just the music stuff.
The analogy falls down after the Dominion handed the Klingons a major whuppin', though ;).
Uhhhh... have you been watching the news out of Iraq lately? Klingon Bush's behind is still getting whupped on a daily basis...
What's funny is Lucas has crammed that into the Prequels. Of course, most viewers have been asleep so they didn't notice the parallels between modern events and a Senator in a galaxy far far away with grand ambitions manufacturing a war to get himself made absolute dictator.
Oh, they noticed it, but the combination of Jar-Jar Binks and Tyke Anakin going "Yippee!" proved such a shock to viewers that their higher-level reasoning neurons (which drew said parallels) got fried in the process.
That's a silly argument, since you're assuming "great game" is a Windows game first and foremost. It makes as much (little) sense as saying, "Name one great Mac game that came out in the past six months that works on your Windows PC?"
Son, let me tell you about this thing called "Copyright law"...
If you're running 10.3, there's a control panel that allows you to map keyboard functions systemwide. I think you should be able to map the Function keys to invoke APplescripts fairly easily with that.