Whoever you are, it's amazing you can operate a computer. The story you've posted doesn't respond in any way to the statement I challenged. Where is the quote from Eisner? Quoting Michael Moore's agent as making the claim that Eisner said something has zero credibility to anyone who's being intellectually honest.
Every quote about the tax breaks seems to trace back to Moore or his agent. It seems that they have repeated it enough that many people assume it to be true -- so much so that the person to whom I originally responded claimed that Michael Eisner of Disney said it.
Every online debate has to eventually mention Nazis, so I'll comply with the rule by mentioning that the Third Reich's propaganda chief believed that a lie repeated long enough was accepted as truth.:-)
I don't know whether the woman still works at North Country Bank and Trust or not, but the name of the woman who is shown in the film is Jan Jacobson. I read an interview with her in which she accused Moore of being repeatedly deceptive about the process and explaining how the actual process works for normal customers. I don't have a link, but you can call the bank and ask her about it if she still works there.
Does it just make you comfortable to see a bunch of pages of footnotes? An author can have tons of references and footnotes, yet still be just as misleading. I've working both as a journalist and a political consultant, so I've seen it done (both well and poorly) many times.
You're right that the publicity has been great for Moore and will generate crowds that would have smaller otherwise. The only thing I will add is to note the irony of the fact that campaign finance reform might end up derailing advertising for this movie after the end of July. Such rules have been a bedrock issue for most liberal groups for years, which makes it funny when they now howl in protest when the new rules they've pushed start to bite one of their own. Such hypocrisy abounds in politics. This just happens to be one example.
I don't know Eisner's specific reasons for not wanting to distribute the film, but none of what you're saying is responsive to what I questioned. The poster to which I responded claimed that Eisner had been quoted as saying that he was afraid of losing tax breaks. I find it unlikely that was the reason, but even if it WERE true, I'd like to see where Eisner has been quoted saying anything similar.
As for the other things, a company the size of Disney has to decide what it can get away with in the face of public opinion. Disney's various outlets have routinely distributed content which either the left OR the right don't like, but it seems pretty clear to me that the company decided this one was TOO controversial to handle. I don't see it as being especially noteworthy. There was never any real question about whether the film was going to be released, but rather whether Disney's name would be connected to it and on what financial terms it would be released to Disney to Harvey and Co.
I haven't seen this particular film (and don't have any interest in it, based on what I think of Moore). I already oppose both George Bush and the war in Iraq, so I don't see a lot of value in it, to be honest.
However, I'll give one example in Bowling which I think demonstrates Moore's dishonesty. Do you remember the scene in which he goes to a bank in Michigan to make a point that a bank was handing out rifles at the bank? The whole scene was staged, and Moore misled the bank about what he was doing when he filmed the scene. Moore had complied with the bank's requirements to receive a free rifle a couple of month's prior to that and the bank participated in staging what is seen on film because Moore presented himself as someone praising the program. He makes the viewer believe that he (or anyone) can just walk into a bank and fill out a few pieces of paper and be handed a gun in the bank lobby. In reality, actual customers go to a gun dealer after an FBI background check is done to receive their weapons. If you'll recall, Moore asks the woman he's been dealing with whether she doesn't think it's dangerous to hand out guns in a bank (or words that that effect). He clearly wants people to believe this is the way the bank's program operates.
You can reasonably argue about whether or not a bank is smart to participate in such a program, but the scene is quite clearly deceptive. There are numerous other scenes in the movie with problems. I think his tendency to mislead viewers (and subjects) undercuts his credibility, because it makes me wonder what ELSE he's leaving out.
I have no problem with being biased, because a documentary MUST come from a point of view. As an ex-journalist (and as someone who is making a short film right now to enter into film festivals), I know that every film (fiction or non-fiction) has a bias, BUT criticising deception isn't the same thing as complaining about bias.
Someone made a specific accusation which I believe to be demonstrably wrong. I asked where this alleged fact came from. So your response is to attack me for pointing out the fact that someone made an allegation which seems to be completely mistaken? That's truly bizarre.
Hint: It's pretty stupid to assume you know someone's political position. I'm not a conservative.
The poster to which I replied made the following claim: "Michael Eisner is quoted in the press as saying that he didn't want to risk having certain tax benefit revoked...." I challenged the truth of that statement. None of the replies to me so far have even remotely supported the poster's original statement, and none of the links you provided have any link from Eisner saying any such thing, so what you're saying is not responsive to what I said.
You should really learn to read what someone is saying before making a fool of yourself. I certainly understand why you would post as an AC. I'm not spinning things to the right, mainly because I'm NOT a conservative. I'm a libertarian. I'm opposed to both Bush AND Moore. I'm opposed to the Iraq war, so I would tend to agree with some of Moore's statements about Bush. However, that doesn't change the fact that the man has a track record of lying and misleading, both in his films and other public statements, and those track record undercuts whatever he says.
I've followed this story quite closely, and I have NEVER seen any person from Disney say such a thing. So please provide a link or direct quote with a source for it. I do not believe this is accurate, but if it is, I'd like to know it.
You SEEM to be parroting the party line of the Michael Moore crowd on this issue. I tend to think it's more of an effort by Disney not to be involved in something that was going to be highly controversial and potentially spawn new calls from conservative to boycott the company. Think about it. If he had wanted to KILL the film, he could have. Disney owned the piece. It could have been stuck in a vault for no one to see. He simply didn't want Disney involved in the distrubution, for legitimate business reasons.
Just for the record, I don't like the Bush administration, but I also don't like Michael Moore's tendency to play fast and loose with the facts, either. This seems to be a case in which his supporters are alleging something with no basis in fact, just as Moore has shown a repeated tendency to do in his films. Even if you agree with Moore's conclusions about things, his arguments are greatly weakened by his willingness to lie and mislead his audience about details.
Given the amount of R&D that the Army does in Huntsville and the fact that this contractor is based there, I'm betting that it's going to be there. Also, if you read the company's press release, they specifically credited U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) for helping get the funding. With his involvement, do you think it would be anywhere except Alabama?
Of course, since I'm in Birmingham, I'm certainly hoping it's here in the state. Since Windows is so dominant here, this might triple the amount of Mac processing power in Alabama.:-)
I might consider the sun to be the moon, but that doesn't make it so.
Take a look at a dictionary definition and see if it's reasonable to call recycling your own words plagiarism. It MIGHT be reasonable to outlaw reusing your own words from one assignment in another assignment (although it sounds as though the poster was simply using something he wrote in another context for an assignment, not turning in the same work twice), but it's NOT plagiarism.
Take a look at the definition and see if you see anything to support that interpretation. Yes, I'm aware that different dictionaries give slightly different interpretations to words, but I don't know of ANY reputable dictionary that would support the definition you mention.
==========
plagiarism
n 1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own
I think what the previous poster was referring to is the fact that the headline on this story is worded very poorly, to put it mildly. It would be correct to refer to this as a $500 million project, but this is NOT a $500 million router. People criticize traditional media and editors, but there are plenty of times around here when we need someone with at least BASIC professional copy editing skills.
My father had BellSouth DSL, and they've started blocking Port 25 for outgoing mail. This means that he couldn't send mail through the third-party mail server that he's been using for years. I don't want to have to change his settings (and he doesn't want to give people a new address) every time he has to change ISPs, so he pays a bit of money to use NetIdentity.com for his mail.
Since BellSouth wouldn't use some sort of reasonable measure of WHO was abusing the service instead of treating everyone as a spammer, we switched him to another DSL carrier. I think it's unreasonable to expect everyone to have to use ONLY the mail server of the ISP.
BTW, BellSouth said they WOULD open Port 25 if my father would pay double the money for a "business-class" DSL account, which shows me that it's more of a marketing distinction on their part than a distinction with a truly technical justification.
Please, please, please retire this worn-out piece of disinformation. As part of a much larger agreement nearly six years ago, MS paid millions of dollars for some preferred stock (which means non-voting stock) in Apple. When Apple's stock went up after the company started doing well, MS sold the stock a LONG time ago for a nice little profit. MS does NOT own any piece of Apple and NEVER had any ownership influence through ability to vote stock. (I won't go into the details of why the deal happened, but it was a combination of Apple wanting MS's public endorsement and MS wanting to settle some patent infringement claims that Apple was pursuing.)
If you were happy with the product and the price you paid when you bought the iBook, then quit worrying about today and just accept that the timing happened the way it did. Take their $49 rebate and have a decent dinner with somebody.
There will ALWAYS be "better deals" after you buy. You can only worry about what things were like when you bought. If your reseller won't happen to help you as a courtesy, there's nothing you can do other than irritate yourself further with anger or worry. It's your choice whether you enjoy your new iBook or complain about something beyond your control.
Apple didn't buy a company that developed FCP, but rather bought an unfinished product called Key Grip from Macromedia. Here is a brief history of how the product came to be.
==========
http://www.creativecow.net/forum/read_post.php?p os tid=108142367318278&forumid=126
Kathlyn and I remember when FCP was being developed on WindowsNT (at Macromedia and was known as Key Grip) and Media 100 had signed on with the Key Grip team to make it their front-end of choice for M100's soon-to-be Windows system. (It was Q3-1996 at the time.) At the Macromedia World Developers Conference in September 1996, we were guests of John Molinari (founder of Media 100) and he introduced us to Bud Colligan of Macromedia, Lauren Herr of Truevision (later Pinnacle), Peter Hoddie of the Quicktime team and many members of the Key Grip team.
Later on in October of 1996, I was asked to appear on a TV show as one of the panelists discussing digital video. The other panelists were Randy Ubillos (lead engineer of both Premiere and Key Grip (FCP)), Steve Whitney (then of M100 but later of Puffin Designs and then Pinnacle), and one of the key people from MicroNet (who then were key drive manufacturers in this marketspace).
I also quite well remember when Apple bought Key Grip and later rechristened it Final Cut Pro. I remember the chagrin it gave Avid and how that also intensified when Apple announced that they were dropping the six-slot PCI architecture of the old 9500/9600 design base.
I worked for Avid for 18 months under contract as a consultant to help reposition the marketing message of Avid after they made the ill-fated "We're going to be PC-only" at NAB and set their predominantly Mac-only user base on fire.
Apple did NOT develop FCP as an answer to Avid's announcement -- it was quite the opposite, really. Avid saw the writing on the wall and determined that they stood a better chance on the Windows-side of the aisle -- a move that would later prove a lapse in judgment and would require "a repositioning of the reposition.";o)
You are absolutely correct. Whover thinks your comment is flamebait doesn't understand simple logic. Unfortunately, the guys at Downhill Battle are just punks who believe in vandalizing other people's property instead of finding real solutions. I certainly wouldn't want to count them among MY allies.
I can't speak to the issue of USB video cameras, but my Canon DV camcorder works fine as a camera for iSight. I just plugged it in and it worked with no configuration. I don't see how that keeps iChat from working with anything except iSight.
No, Apple does NOT charge for security patches and bug fixes. (Of course some people argue that OS X 10.0 should have been a beta, so paying for 10.1 was sort of like paying for bug fixes.)
Patches and point upgrades are free, but the numbering system is different from what you might be used to. For instance, Jaguar was called 10.2 and the next major update a year later (called Panther) was called 10.3. (That jump was similar to going from Win 2k to XP, just for comparison purposes.) However, we're up to 10.3.3 right now, and those updates (along with patches to various other Apple software) are freely available through the built-in software update system. It is simple, painless and effective -- and free.
If you think that more people program applications than use the GUI, you REALLY need to meet some new people. They're called users.
And if you want to use Mac OS X on a new Mac, buy an eMac for $799. Or buy a used one on eBay. Either way, there are plenty of ways to use a Mac without spending $2,000.
When is the last time ANYONE stood up and said, "I am saying these words, but they were written by my speechwriter"? That's not the way it works. And there is nothing wrong with that.
They're there for the same reason any other incompetent person is. Someone hired them for the jobs, but the person (or people) with the hiring/firing power either don't realize the person is incompetent or else don't want to confront the situation. That's true whether the incompetent person is a CEO or CIO or clerk.
Since I've already commented in this thread, I can't give you the extra mod point that you deserve, but that is an excellent explanation of the process.
Having most Slashdot people comment about the process of PR makes as little sense as having PR people read and comment about source code.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Whoever you are, it's amazing you can operate a computer. The story you've posted doesn't respond in any way to the statement I challenged. Where is the quote from Eisner? Quoting Michael Moore's agent as making the claim that Eisner said something has zero credibility to anyone who's being intellectually honest.
Every quote about the tax breaks seems to trace back to Moore or his agent. It seems that they have repeated it enough that many people assume it to be true -- so much so that the person to whom I originally responded claimed that Michael Eisner of Disney said it.
:-)
Every online debate has to eventually mention Nazis, so I'll comply with the rule by mentioning that the Third Reich's propaganda chief believed that a lie repeated long enough was accepted as truth.
I don't know whether the woman still works at North Country Bank and Trust or not, but the name of the woman who is shown in the film is Jan Jacobson. I read an interview with her in which she accused Moore of being repeatedly deceptive about the process and explaining how the actual process works for normal customers. I don't have a link, but you can call the bank and ask her about it if she still works there.
Does it just make you comfortable to see a bunch of pages of footnotes? An author can have tons of references and footnotes, yet still be just as misleading. I've working both as a journalist and a political consultant, so I've seen it done (both well and poorly) many times.
You're right that the publicity has been great for Moore and will generate crowds that would have smaller otherwise. The only thing I will add is to note the irony of the fact that campaign finance reform might end up derailing advertising for this movie after the end of July. Such rules have been a bedrock issue for most liberal groups for years, which makes it funny when they now howl in protest when the new rules they've pushed start to bite one of their own. Such hypocrisy abounds in politics. This just happens to be one example.
I don't know Eisner's specific reasons for not wanting to distribute the film, but none of what you're saying is responsive to what I questioned. The poster to which I responded claimed that Eisner had been quoted as saying that he was afraid of losing tax breaks. I find it unlikely that was the reason, but even if it WERE true, I'd like to see where Eisner has been quoted saying anything similar.
As for the other things, a company the size of Disney has to decide what it can get away with in the face of public opinion. Disney's various outlets have routinely distributed content which either the left OR the right don't like, but it seems pretty clear to me that the company decided this one was TOO controversial to handle. I don't see it as being especially noteworthy. There was never any real question about whether the film was going to be released, but rather whether Disney's name would be connected to it and on what financial terms it would be released to Disney to Harvey and Co.
I haven't seen this particular film (and don't have any interest in it, based on what I think of Moore). I already oppose both George Bush and the war in Iraq, so I don't see a lot of value in it, to be honest.
However, I'll give one example in Bowling which I think demonstrates Moore's dishonesty. Do you remember the scene in which he goes to a bank in Michigan to make a point that a bank was handing out rifles at the bank? The whole scene was staged, and Moore misled the bank about what he was doing when he filmed the scene. Moore had complied with the bank's requirements to receive a free rifle a couple of month's prior to that and the bank participated in staging what is seen on film because Moore presented himself as someone praising the program. He makes the viewer believe that he (or anyone) can just walk into a bank and fill out a few pieces of paper and be handed a gun in the bank lobby. In reality, actual customers go to a gun dealer after an FBI background check is done to receive their weapons. If you'll recall, Moore asks the woman he's been dealing with whether she doesn't think it's dangerous to hand out guns in a bank (or words that that effect). He clearly wants people to believe this is the way the bank's program operates.
You can reasonably argue about whether or not a bank is smart to participate in such a program, but the scene is quite clearly deceptive. There are numerous other scenes in the movie with problems. I think his tendency to mislead viewers (and subjects) undercuts his credibility, because it makes me wonder what ELSE he's leaving out.
I have no problem with being biased, because a documentary MUST come from a point of view. As an ex-journalist (and as someone who is making a short film right now to enter into film festivals), I know that every film (fiction or non-fiction) has a bias, BUT criticising deception isn't the same thing as complaining about bias.
Someone made a specific accusation which I believe to be demonstrably wrong. I asked where this alleged fact came from. So your response is to attack me for pointing out the fact that someone made an allegation which seems to be completely mistaken? That's truly bizarre.
Hint: It's pretty stupid to assume you know someone's political position. I'm not a conservative.
The poster to which I replied made the following claim: "Michael Eisner is quoted in the press as saying that he didn't want to risk having certain tax benefit revoked...." I challenged the truth of that statement. None of the replies to me so far have even remotely supported the poster's original statement, and none of the links you provided have any link from Eisner saying any such thing, so what you're saying is not responsive to what I said.
You should really learn to read what someone is saying before making a fool of yourself. I certainly understand why you would post as an AC. I'm not spinning things to the right, mainly because I'm NOT a conservative. I'm a libertarian. I'm opposed to both Bush AND Moore. I'm opposed to the Iraq war, so I would tend to agree with some of Moore's statements about Bush. However, that doesn't change the fact that the man has a track record of lying and misleading, both in his films and other public statements, and those track record undercuts whatever he says.
I've followed this story quite closely, and I have NEVER seen any person from Disney say such a thing. So please provide a link or direct quote with a source for it. I do not believe this is accurate, but if it is, I'd like to know it.
You SEEM to be parroting the party line of the Michael Moore crowd on this issue. I tend to think it's more of an effort by Disney not to be involved in something that was going to be highly controversial and potentially spawn new calls from conservative to boycott the company. Think about it. If he had wanted to KILL the film, he could have. Disney owned the piece. It could have been stuck in a vault for no one to see. He simply didn't want Disney involved in the distrubution, for legitimate business reasons.
Just for the record, I don't like the Bush administration, but I also don't like Michael Moore's tendency to play fast and loose with the facts, either. This seems to be a case in which his supporters are alleging something with no basis in fact, just as Moore has shown a repeated tendency to do in his films. Even if you agree with Moore's conclusions about things, his arguments are greatly weakened by his willingness to lie and mislead his audience about details.
Given the amount of R&D that the Army does in Huntsville and the fact that this contractor is based there, I'm betting that it's going to be there. Also, if you read the company's press release, they specifically credited U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) for helping get the funding. With his involvement, do you think it would be anywhere except Alabama?
:-)
Of course, since I'm in Birmingham, I'm certainly hoping it's here in the state. Since Windows is so dominant here, this might triple the amount of Mac processing power in Alabama.
I might consider the sun to be the moon, but that doesn't make it so.
Take a look at a dictionary definition and see if it's reasonable to call recycling your own words plagiarism. It MIGHT be reasonable to outlaw reusing your own words from one assignment in another assignment (although it sounds as though the poster was simply using something he wrote in another context for an assignment, not turning in the same work twice), but it's NOT plagiarism.
Take a look at the definition and see if you see anything to support that interpretation. Yes, I'm aware that different dictionaries give slightly different interpretations to words, but I don't know of ANY reputable dictionary that would support the definition you mention.
==========
plagiarism
n 1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own
I think what the previous poster was referring to is the fact that the headline on this story is worded very poorly, to put it mildly. It would be correct to refer to this as a $500 million project, but this is NOT a $500 million router. People criticize traditional media and editors, but there are plenty of times around here when we need someone with at least BASIC professional copy editing skills.
My father had BellSouth DSL, and they've started blocking Port 25 for outgoing mail. This means that he couldn't send mail through the third-party mail server that he's been using for years. I don't want to have to change his settings (and he doesn't want to give people a new address) every time he has to change ISPs, so he pays a bit of money to use NetIdentity.com for his mail.
Since BellSouth wouldn't use some sort of reasonable measure of WHO was abusing the service instead of treating everyone as a spammer, we switched him to another DSL carrier. I think it's unreasonable to expect everyone to have to use ONLY the mail server of the ISP.
BTW, BellSouth said they WOULD open Port 25 if my father would pay double the money for a "business-class" DSL account, which shows me that it's more of a marketing distinction on their part than a distinction with a truly technical justification.
Please, please, please retire this worn-out piece of disinformation. As part of a much larger agreement nearly six years ago, MS paid millions of dollars for some preferred stock (which means non-voting stock) in Apple. When Apple's stock went up after the company started doing well, MS sold the stock a LONG time ago for a nice little profit. MS does NOT own any piece of Apple and NEVER had any ownership influence through ability to vote stock. (I won't go into the details of why the deal happened, but it was a combination of Apple wanting MS's public endorsement and MS wanting to settle some patent infringement claims that Apple was pursuing.)
If you were happy with the product and the price you paid when you bought the iBook, then quit worrying about today and just accept that the timing happened the way it did. Take their $49 rebate and have a decent dinner with somebody.
There will ALWAYS be "better deals" after you buy. You can only worry about what things were like when you bought. If your reseller won't happen to help you as a courtesy, there's nothing you can do other than irritate yourself further with anger or worry. It's your choice whether you enjoy your new iBook or complain about something beyond your control.
Apple didn't buy a company that developed FCP, but rather bought an unfinished product called Key Grip from Macromedia. Here is a brief history of how the product came to be.
p os tid=108142367318278&forumid=126
;o)
==========
http://www.creativecow.net/forum/read_post.php?
Kathlyn and I remember when FCP was being developed on WindowsNT (at Macromedia and was known as Key Grip) and Media 100 had signed on with the Key Grip team to make it their front-end of choice for M100's soon-to-be Windows system. (It was Q3-1996 at the time.) At the Macromedia World Developers Conference in September 1996, we were guests of John Molinari (founder of Media 100) and he introduced us to Bud Colligan of Macromedia, Lauren Herr of Truevision (later Pinnacle), Peter Hoddie of the Quicktime team and many members of the Key Grip team.
Later on in October of 1996, I was asked to appear on a TV show as one of the panelists discussing digital video. The other panelists were Randy Ubillos (lead engineer of both Premiere and Key Grip (FCP)), Steve Whitney (then of M100 but later of Puffin Designs and then Pinnacle), and one of the key people from MicroNet (who then were key drive manufacturers in this marketspace).
I also quite well remember when Apple bought Key Grip and later rechristened it Final Cut Pro. I remember the chagrin it gave Avid and how that also intensified when Apple announced that they were dropping the six-slot PCI architecture of the old 9500/9600 design base.
I worked for Avid for 18 months under contract as a consultant to help reposition the marketing message of Avid after they made the ill-fated "We're going to be PC-only" at NAB and set their predominantly Mac-only user base on fire.
Apple did NOT develop FCP as an answer to Avid's announcement -- it was quite the opposite, really. Avid saw the writing on the wall and determined that they stood a better chance on the Windows-side of the aisle -- a move that would later prove a lapse in judgment and would require "a repositioning of the reposition."
Just to set the record straight,
Ron Lindeboom
creativecow.net
You are absolutely correct. Whover thinks your comment is flamebait doesn't understand simple logic. Unfortunately, the guys at Downhill Battle are just punks who believe in vandalizing other people's property instead of finding real solutions. I certainly wouldn't want to count them among MY allies.
I can't speak to the issue of USB video cameras, but my Canon DV camcorder works fine as a camera for iSight. I just plugged it in and it worked with no configuration. I don't see how that keeps iChat from working with anything except iSight.
No, Apple does NOT charge for security patches and bug fixes. (Of course some people argue that OS X 10.0 should have been a beta, so paying for 10.1 was sort of like paying for bug fixes.)
Patches and point upgrades are free, but the numbering system is different from what you might be used to. For instance, Jaguar was called 10.2 and the next major update a year later (called Panther) was called 10.3. (That jump was similar to going from Win 2k to XP, just for comparison purposes.) However, we're up to 10.3.3 right now, and those updates (along with patches to various other Apple software) are freely available through the built-in software update system. It is simple, painless and effective -- and free.
If you think that more people program applications than use the GUI, you REALLY need to meet some new people. They're called users.
And if you want to use Mac OS X on a new Mac, buy an eMac for $799. Or buy a used one on eBay. Either way, there are plenty of ways to use a Mac without spending $2,000.
When is the last time ANYONE stood up and said, "I am saying these words, but they were written by my speechwriter"? That's not the way it works. And there is nothing wrong with that.
They're there for the same reason any other incompetent person is. Someone hired them for the jobs, but the person (or people) with the hiring/firing power either don't realize the person is incompetent or else don't want to confront the situation. That's true whether the incompetent person is a CEO or CIO or clerk.
Since I've already commented in this thread, I can't give you the extra mod point that you deserve, but that is an excellent explanation of the process.
:-)
Having most Slashdot people comment about the process of PR makes as little sense as having PR people read and comment about source code.