“I figured I’d try to download a vide or two for my flight to SF next week. First step, finding some content. Excellent, an old Star Trek episode. Click, purchase, download and install player (which first installed some new version of .NET without asking). Load player, it connects and then nothing. No download. No nothing. It shows but nothing happens. Fifteen minutes of nothing. I click troubleshoot. It tells me it’s checking stuff like DRM. Everything checks out. Message pops up. You have used all licenses for this file. If you want to watch it on this PC, you need to purchase it again. OK. We’re done,” Michael Gartenberg blogs for JupiterResearch.
Gartenberg writes, “Time to un-install this thing and hope it didn’t screw up my PC in the process. $1.99 wiser. I’ll say it again, we understand DRM is necessary to make the content available but it must be DRM that works and NEVER locks a customer out of their content. If Zune doesn’t support Plays for Sure, it’s no wonder. I could see where MSFT would want to use technology that actually worked.”
Full article here.
Microsoft: jacks of all trades, masters of none. Unless you consider schlock distribution to be a trade.
Related articles:
CNET Alpha Blog: absolutely do not try Amazon Unbox – September 09, 2006
Analysts: Amazon’s ‘Unbox’ to be ‘Unsuccessful’ vs. Apple – September 08, 2006
Cringely: Apple, Amazon, and what Steve Jobs has up his sleeve for next Tuesday – September 08, 2006
Amazon.com launches ‘Amazon Unbox’ DVD-quality video download service with TV shows and movies – September 07, 2006
Democrats parade around the widows, widowers, and children of Americans murdered September 11 for political propaganda only to find out the Clinton-Gore administration could have prevented the attacks and didn’t. Ooops!
You liberals have stepped into a big pile of shit now. All your frantic efforts to prevent the airing of “The Path to 9/11” have raised the interest of the America public and made the film the topic of discussion everywhere. The cat’s out of the bag. Additionally, the debate is not just about who could have prevented 9/11 and didn’t, it is also about Democratic efforts to censor and suppress the media.
Wasn’t “Fahrenheit 9/11” your shot at “setting the record straight”? Why not have another broadcast company air “Fahrenheit 9/11”? Or are you fearful that “Fahrenheit 9/11” will is regarded as pure political propaganda and “The Path to 9/11” will be viewed as factual and informative investigative reporting?
Looks like the Democrats aren’t so tolerant of other people after all. Also, it is apparent that Democrats fear open debate. Why should America trust the future of our nation to weak-willed Democrats who fear thoughts more than bombs, are worried about disgrace more than debate, and terrified of shame more than truth?
The Marines motto, “Looking for a Few Good Men.”
The Democrat motto, “Raising as many pompous, obtuse, hypocritical lackeys as possible.”
“Freakin Unbelieveable” is exactly what I can’t help thinking as I’ve read all this junk above.
Look, you boneheads; this docu-drama does a disservice to the country. It covers the most rending moment of our history, and yet neverthlless is historically innacurate. It’s not only the 9/11 commisioners saying it, or just the people who were actually there saying it, or even conservative and liberal commentators alike saying it – now we have some of the most prominient historians in the nations saying it. Here is their collective take on it:
http://openlettertoabc.blogspot.com/
“Dear Robert Iger:
We write as professional historians, who are deeply concerned by the continuing reports about ABC’s scheduled broadcast of “The Path to 9/11.” These reports document that this drama contains numerous flagrant falsehoods about critical events in recent American history. The key participants and eyewitnesses to these events state that the script distorts and even fabricates evidence into order to mislead viewers about the responsibility of numerous American officials for allegedly ignoring the terrorist threat before 2000.
The claim by the show’s producers, broadcaster, and defenders, that these falsehoods are permissible because the show is merely a dramatization, is disingenuous and dangerous given their assertions that the show is also based on authoritative historical evidence. Whatever ABC’s motivations might be, broadcasting these falsehoods, connected to the most traumatic historical event of our times, would be a gross disservice to the public. A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the falsification of history, except to expose it. We strongly urge you to halt the show’s broadcast and prevent misinforming Americans about their history.
Sincerely,
Arthur Schlesinger
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Lizbeth Cohen, Harvard University,
Nicholas Salvatore, Cornell University;
Ted Widmer, Washington College;
Rick Perlstein, Independent Scholar;
David Blight, Yale University;
Eric Alterman, City University of New York;
Beverly Gage, Yale University.”
And the list of names is still in formation.
As this show and the info it’s based on is now acknowledged bullshit, and it’s creators are presumably not dumb, that means it’s only purpose for being is to rend us even further. If anyone claiming to be a conservative thinks there is some greater good being served by showing a what amounts to propaganda hit-piece, it can only be because they are not really conservative, or patriotic – they are syncophants; DESPERATE to escape, in any possible way, the ‘bad press’ the present administration (to whom they have pledged allegiance) has earned.
Well, to hell with that and to hell with you. My pledge is to my country, and anything that harms my country – truly harms it – should be eliminated. That includes this fantasy rewrite of history as we clearly know it.
If your love of Bush needs to be satisfied, find an 8×10 of him and his flight suit during the Mission Accomplished speech, take it into your bedrooms, and pleasure yourselves.
Dont forget the Kleenex. Idiots.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool grin” style=”border:0;” />
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/origin-of-pt911/
” Path to 9/11 Produced By Evangelical Activists Who Sought To ‘Transform Hollywood’
Path to 9/11 graphicThe Path to 9/11 is a movie rife with historical inaccuracies that blames President Clinton while heaping praise on President Bush. The docudrama was written by avowed conservative Cyrus Nowrasteh, who once spoke on a panel entitled: “Rebels With A Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift.” But the ideological slant behind this movie goes far deeper than Nowrasteh. Research conducted by a reader at Democratic Underground has revealed that the Path to 9/11 was the result of a project hatched out by a small group of evangelical activists who sought to “transform Hollywood from the inside out.” Here is what we know:
* Cunningham Linked To YWAM. David Cunningham was contracted by ABC to direct Path to 9/11. Cunningham is the son of Loren and Darlene Cunningham, the founders of Youth With a Mission (YWAM), a Christian evangelical group that actively tries to get “youth into short-term mission work and to give them opportunities to reach out in Jesus’ name.”
* YWAM Sponsored the Film Institute To Change Hollywood. YWAM created an “auxillary” group called the Film Institute, which was explicitly aimed at achieving a “Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Television industry.”
* Film Institute Began the “Untitled History Project.” The Film Institute’s first project was simply referred to as the “Untitled History Project” (UHP). In July 2005, Fox News reported that filming had begun on an ABC miniseries about 9/11 that ABC officials and producers were referring to it as the “Untitled History Project.” A production company entitled “UHP Productions,” which was co-founded with Disney began filming Path to 9/11 in late 2005.
* UHP Became Path to 9/11. UHP Productions has only produced one movie. Harvey Keitel, who stars as FBI special agent John O’Neill in the movie, said that when he received the original script, “it said ABC History Project.””
Seems pretty clear – this was never intended to be a factual history of what led to 9/11. It was created as hit piece by a bunch of losers looking to transform Hollywood to their way of thinking.
Burn it!
Odyssey67:
Using the rationalization that other like-minded people agree with your bigoted, narrow-minded, and prejudiced opinion does not justify your original belief that censorship, political coercion, and uninhibited demagoguery are necessary to preserve freedom, democracy, and an independent media.
To paraphrase, “We the signatories below believe that we must destroy the independent press in order to save it, censor freedom of speech in order to preserve democracy, enforce political coercion to encourage citizens’ participation in public debate, and suppress public discourse to develop an informed citizenry.”
Not in my country.
you’re cute, Freakin. Nice use of the high school debate-team tactic ‘When all else fails, obfuscate’. Specifically, when your opponent takes a stronger position, claim those characteristics for yourself (or, conversely, accuse your opponent of the transgressions you are actually committing), in order to win over whatever portion of the audience that isn’t paying attention. Otherwise known in the military as ‘laying smoke’.
Well, since I don’t give a rat’s ass if your a conservative – I’M a conservative – your squeels of ‘bigotry’ and ‘prejudice’ are easily dismissed. So too your charge of ‘narrow-mindedness’, since my position regarding this TV show is supported by the widest range of people in general, as well as the ones most knowlegable about the circumstances it purports to be ‘educating’ the public about. There’s nothing narrow about what I’m saying. Further, it’s simple to see that the tactics of ‘demogogary’ and ‘political coercion’ are being employed by the creators and defenders of this production. For example, from Oxford’s:
demagogue |ˈdeməˌgäg| noun – a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
Rational argument is based on facts, first and foremost – indeed no position can hope to be “rational” unless the facts back it up. It is now extremely clear, from historians and eyewitnesses alike, that the facts don’t jibe with what’s in this docudrama. Yet you defend it anyway, and seek support for it. Therefore, sir, it is you who are the demagogue.
As for censorship and the rest, it is a well-established constitutional princicpal that along with free speech comes the responsibility to use it without harming the public. I am free to speak so long as what I say is not needlessly harmful to the public (that is to say, of no benefit whatsoever, as opposed to say chemotherapy, which is harmful but must be endured to save the patient). In other words, I can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater, unless there really IS a fire.
That provides a logical inference for this 9/11 drama; which uses false facts (yelling fire when there is none) for no other purpose than to bolster a failing presidency (stampeding people in a certain direction they wouldn”t otherwise go – in this case, the voting booth I suppose). There is no right for that.
Free speech, in the political or public sense, is for pushing an opinion or policy that can be inferred from the facts, the purpose being to develop improved opinions or policies among all of us, and thus within our government which represents us. However, if you knowingly mislead or lie about what those facts are, while you may get away with it, you actually have no inherent right to do so. In fact, you can be arrested for it. Lible & slander laws are long-standing bulwarks against this, and an example of how this is a decided point in our legal system. The reason is that WITHOUT such laws, an “informed citizenry” is the last thing you get – instead, via false information, the public becomes ignorant, vulnerable to – yes – demogogary. And of course the people being lied about are harmed as well (reputations, primarily).
In other words, free speech is a great power – the greatest we have in this country, and in the world. Yet as the wise Ben Parker (Peter’s uncle) once said “With great power, comes great responsiblity.”
Releasing this TV show, with any pretense that it is ‘historical’ or ‘factually accurate’ is irresponsible. It misleads the public in a very obvious way, about an event that is garaunteed to sway them emotionally. Thus showing it serves no greater public good. It only serves those who have something to gain from the lie, and the ensuing emotional manipulation. And on that basis, it is entirely valid to – as the poster above said – “burn it”. If ABC wants to put in huge disclaimers, at the start and before and after after each commerical break, that ‘this film is a work of opinion, not fact, and thus should not be interpreted as histrically accurate’ … then fine – show it. Otherwise, it should be shit-canned.
One last thing Freakin; this isn’t “your country” alone. It belongs to everyone who’s been born or naturalized here. Your irrational desires to see Bush redeemed don’t trump the rights of all the rest of us; namely the right to know the full story when we’re instead being trucked a load of manure. And if the producers of this dreck can’t persuaded to use the big, obvious disclaimers, then the long-term preservation of the rights of all of us are served to have it yanked from the air.
I didn’t volunteer for military service in this country to protect anything less. and if you think any of us did (maybe even you too) then you are an extremely mislead individual. Maybe you read to much false history …
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smile” style=”border:0;” />
Politics-obsessed, no-life-having BORES.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
…………
Macs rule!!!!baba booey!!!!baba booey!!!!
and I guess I’m not alone
Bill Bennet – Sec of Ed under Reagan:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CNN-Bennett-ABC.mov
Chris Wallace – FOX News:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Fox-and-Friends-Wallace-ABC.mov
Thomas Nicoletti – exFBI agent in charge of accuracy on “Path to 9/11”:
http://clips.mediamatters.org/static/video/countdown-20060908.mov
P.J O’Rourke – Weekly Standard columnist:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/HBO-Maher-ABC-911.mov
Richard Ben-Veniste – he might not be conservative, but he was a member of the 9/11 commission:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-ABC-Be.mov
they all hate this show, and all b/c of it’s inaccuracies. This is probably the wrong place for this debate in the first place, but it seems like the debate is over anyway.
Unpatriotic conservative:
Aren’t you happy that no one has decided to censor you?
Most of my lame-brained opponents incorrectly think that I support the distribution and promulgation of lies, deceit, and inaccuracies because I want “The Path to 9/11” aired by ABC. Idiots and morons.
To preserve the freedom of the press, an open democracy, and an informed citizenry requires that public discourse and public debate not be controlled by the government. When political powers have the authority to “protect” its citizens from ideas, we will have no freedoms left to preserve.
“…but it seems like the debate is over anyway.” Even more than 200 years later the depth and breadth of Amendments 1 through 10 are debated, argued, and disputed. How can you be that ignorant of history and human nature?
YAWN:
You can’t stop us! Long live the resistance.
You political flaks need to get a clue.
The world is not divided into left & right and any idiot that thinks their side has a franchise on the truth is well… an idiot.
As MDN keeps letting this crap flow & I can stop reading.
MDN is losing my interest:
Bye-bye, adios, see ya! Don’t let the door smack ya where the Good Lord cracked ya.