| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
European Commission Reaches Decision To Fine Microsoft, Report Says | |
|
||
| Time: 14:27 EST/19:27 GMT | News Source: CRN | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
The European Commission has reportedly reached a decision that Microsoft broke anticompetitive law and will face stiff fines, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday. Microsoft would not comment on the report but maintained that negotiations with the European Commission are still ongoing. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:27:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 61 (24.92.223.138) at 1/27/2004 2:34:54 PM |
|
... Pathetic....
Rather than coming up with a solution to fix the problem they come up with merely a punishment which does absolutely nothing to remedy the situation. Good job EU! |
| #2 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 1/27/2004 3:27:28 PM |
|
Where's WMP?
It's in mini mode on my task bar playing Bach. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/27/2004 5:22:49 PM |
|
ClosedStandards - They have already found incontroversible proof of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Related Activities.
And if that's not enough to convince you, well than it's all Clinton's fault! |
| #4 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 1/27/2004 8:12:41 PM |
|
#9 " They have already found incontroversible proof of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Related Activities."
What the hell does that mean? They found a notebook with a few scribbles and sketches of how they would like to bomb the US of A? But the whole world heard undeniable proof from the current US Administration that Iraq has WMD and we are all in danger! To date not a single WMD has been found. What happened to all that proof? Maybe Saddam was just really really good at hiding it all so well, even though he didn't manager to hide himself quite as well! #11 Every single politician lies through their teeth, it doesn't matter whether they are Republican or a Democrat! It's whether or not you choose to believe those lies or not. But, to get back to the US of A. It is an extremely corrupt organization dedicated to capitalism. |
| #5 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 1/27/2004 8:45:34 PM |
|
GD it Parker! Stop confusing everyone with facts. Just because WesClark and Clinton said the same things as Bush. Just because Kay agrees with him too doesn't mean we shouldn't let our closed liberal minds throw out those facts and replace them with hate and envy that Bush has accomplished the unthinkable (Prescription drug benefit, a comprehensive Education program, partial-birth murder ban, removing a present-day less-inclined Hitler, and the list goes on and on).
WMD? Of course he had them. Do I give a rats butt if they are still there? No. Was Saddam the head of a mercilous regime? Yes. Did I thank God the day we caught him? Yes. And who deserves the credit for removing what the world didn't have the balls to remove? Bush. See you at the polls! ----- almost forgot... the Microsoft/EU case... EU bad. MSFT good. |
| #6 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 1/27/2004 9:15:39 PM |
|
#13 "http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/16666.htm"
"WMD programs, if not weapons", maybe we should call them PPMD (Possible Programs of Mass Destruction) as no weapons have been found, yet the US Administration had so much proof before the war!! "Kay insists the failure to find WMD stocks suggests not a conspiracy to go to war but yet another huge intelligence failure." The point is that the US Administration had apparent undeniable proof of WMD and suddenly they can't find any, let's leave this editorial and Kay's beliefs of whether Iraq has WMD alone. Otherwise we might as well go into all of his other beliefs! Your second link has more of Mr Kay's beliefs in it: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040126-105857-3644r.htm "David Kay, who resigned Friday as the lead weapons inspector in postwar Iraq, said over the weekend that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent threat" to the United States, but he is "personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction."". "Lets try the EU again:" I didn't say that the EU wasn't corrupt, that's human nature for you, which doesn't excuse it one bit, you just need to be aware of it, I just think that you shouldn't point fingers given how corrupt the US of A is. #16 "Do I give a rats butt if they are still there? No." Obviously you don't care if the US Administration lied to you in that case. You probably think that the USA went into Iraq to "liberate" it's people from that evil dictator. I'm not suprised that a lot of people would be confused about this, the US Administration did change it's mind on WHY it was going to Iraq quite a few times.. WMD... crap they have none... Saddam Hussein is involved with Al Queda... crap he's not!... umm, umm, we're going to liberate the people from that evil dictator... phew! we actually have proof about this one! "Did I thank God the day we caught him? Yes." Why do you thank God? Did God help in catching him? In which case why didn't God help catch Osama? Maybe he figured that he didn't need to help catch Osama given he has to be hooked up to a dialysis machine! |
| #7 By 9589 (66.57.156.92) at 1/27/2004 10:17:53 PM |
|
So long as the EU fines Airbus in equal meeaure to Microsoft then its fair. Afterall, this was a company that has come to dominate the commercial aircraft industry from the government subsidies of England and France without which the company would not exist. Airbus didn't start from nothing like Microsoft and because of legions of customers become what it is today.
Oh! and by the way, this is just one of the many many companies in the so-called EU that was built from government subsidies specifically to compete with United States firms. Lastly, Monti "Python" has lost the last several of his so-called anti-competitive suits on appeal. We can only hope that this case goes the same way. By the way, closedstandards, how many people would have been put in the shredder by Saddam or his henchmen since March 2003 had we not intervened (what's your preference head or feet first)? How many children would have been raped, tortured and killed in Saddams children's prisons in the last 11 months had we not intervened? How far along would Ghaddifi's nuclear program have gotten and now will be dismantled if we had not gone to war with his neighbor Saddam? How many Taliban, al Quaida, Hezbollah, etc. would still be terrorizing had they not gone to Allah in Iraq at our hands since our liberation of Iraq? How many tin-hatted dictators, of which two-thirds of the UN is made up, did not do some torturous muderous deed because they knew the United States just might step on them like the vermin they are if they weren't careful? How many French, German, and Russians would have continued enriching themselves by helping this heinous dictatorship in Iraq had we not intervened? I could go on, but I doubt you give a crap. And don't tell us that you care about US servicemen being killed in Iraq. We have been dying at the rate of 400 a year on average for the last 10 years in training for war and you and people like you could give a sh*t. It is only that their deaths may give you and your politicians some kind of edge in the upcoming election that they are mentioned at all. You hate Bush and wish him replaced and the country and the people of the rest of the world be damned. We got have your number closedstandards. |
| #8 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 1/27/2004 10:45:52 PM |
| could we all just please ignore closedstandards. he's only inciting. he holds none of the positions he pushes. |
| #9 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 1/28/2004 12:00:09 AM |
|
#21, #22 Thanks for the link Parker, hope you don't mind if I use it.
WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/iraqintell/home.htm Key Findings and Summary of Recomendations http://wmd.ceip.matrixgroup.net/Iraq3GuideFind_SummRec.pdf You can also find the full report there, but let's have a look at a few of the key findings shall we. Remember that the original reason for starting war was due to all the undisputed evidence that the US of A had showing that Iraq had WMD which they could use at any time against the US of A! "Iraq ’s WMD programs represented a long-term threat that could not be ignored. They did not, however, pose an immediate threat United States,to the region,or to global security." "With respect to nuclear and chemical weapons,the extent of the threat was largely knowable at the time. Iraq ’s nuclear program had been dismantled and there was no convincing evidence of its reconstitution. Regarding chemical weapons,UNSCOM discovered that Iraqi nerve agents had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991. Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox,and UN inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq ’s large-scale chemical weapon production capabilities." "The uncertainties were much greater with regard to biological weapons. However,the real threat lay in what could be achieved in the future rather than in what had been produced in the past or existed in the present." "It is unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed,hidden,or sent out of the country the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons, dozens of Scud missiles and facilities engaged in the ongoing production of chemical and biological weapons that officials claimed without the United States detecting some sign of this activity before,during,or after the major combat period of the war." "There was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam ’s government and Al Qaeda." "There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to Al Qaeda and much evidence to counter it." "Considering all the costs and benefits,there were at least two options clearly preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed or completed,or imposing a tougher program of “coercive inspections ”backed by a specially designed international force." "In the Iraqi case, the world ’s three best intelligence services proved unable to provide the accurate information necessary for acting in the absence of imminent threat." And on and on it goes... what a bunch of liars the US Administration turned out to be! Who would have guessed? And you continue to swallow their lies and deceits! This post was edited by chris_kabuki on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 at 00:03. |
| #10 By 9589 (66.57.156.92) at 1/28/2004 6:08:01 AM |
|
#23 You liberals keep putting words in the President's mouth regarding "imminent threat." This is what our President said at the 2003 State of the Union Address:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." Note, he didn't say that their was an imminent threat. He stated that he didn't want Saddam's regime to turn into one. And, now, it is isn't. By the way, since closedstandards couldn't answer my questions, why don't you give them a shot? |
| #11 By 12071 (203.217.69.1) at 1/28/2004 8:49:11 AM |
|
#24 "You liberals keep putting words in the President's mouth"
Who are these liberals that you speak of? I think the bigger issue is the number of people completely and utterly BLIND to the lies that the US Administration has been feeding them! "By the way, since closedstandards couldn't answer my questions, why don't you give them a shot?" Took a while to find these and I think we can both agree that those questions can't be answered without guessing hence what's the point. But this has nothing to do with the fact that the original reason for going to war was NOT to get rid of Saddam but to rid Iraq of their WMD which they could use at any stage against the US of A! So you can keep on giving me as much information about how evil Saddam was, I completely agree with you, and many many people are much better off with him gone now. But guess what? None of that changes the fact that liberating Iraq was the last reason given by the US Administration for invading Iraq! The original reason was WMD... and the world is still waiting for these to show up! I once again must thank parker for the link, it seems he can be useful after all =) http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/iraqintell/adminquoteshtml.htm In January 2003, Bush Jnr did in fact say what you quoted above. Let's see what was said by the US Administration prior to that shall we? September 2002, Bush Jnr: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year." Where are all these expanded and improved facilities? September 2002, Rumsfeld: "In Washington on September 26, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "bulletproof" evidence of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda." I guess "bulletproof" has a slightly different meaning given there is NO such evidence! October 2002, Bush Jnr: "In defiance of pledges to the UN it has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons. It is rebuilding the facilities used to make those weapons." It's just a pity that all these stockpiles simply vanished! |
| #12 By 12071 (203.217.69.1) at 1/28/2004 8:49:57 AM |
|
I'll leave the rest of the quotes for you to have a quick browse through in your own time, maybe it might make you stop and think about just how many lies the US Administration told. However there are some quotes made after that speech which are worth noting:
March 2003, Bush Jnr: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Not only lethal but also invisible! March 2003, Wolfowitz: "The president has made very clear that the reason why we are in Iraq is to find weapons of mass destruction. The fact that we haven't found them in seven or eight days doesn't faze me one little bit. Very clearly, we need to find this stuff or people are going to be asking questions." March 2003, Rumsfeld: "If you think – let me take that, both pieces – the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." That was just brilliant! I applaud this effort! We know where the WMD are... it's just taking us a very very very long time to find them... but it's not our fault, the directions to the WMD were a bit vague, we only know that they are east, west, south and north somewhat... maybe. May 2003, Bush Jnr: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories… They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." Guess they lost them as soon as they found them huh! And on and on it goes! |
| #13 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 1/28/2004 9:21:51 AM |
|
kabuki,
Wahoo! For once we agree on something. Not only lethal but also invisible! Lmao! |
| #14 By 9589 (66.57.156.92) at 1/28/2004 10:48:43 AM |
|
Yeah, I am sure your REAL sorry that Saddam is gone. Yeah, right! Too bad it took away another campaign issue, eh?
It is your opinion that you were lied to by this administration. Yet, you mention nothing about the Clinton administration. Clinton believed, based on the intelligence that he was given, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And, so did Kerry, Dean, and Clark in various statements they made prior to the war. Oh! Also, the UN, NATO, the separate European nations and most of the nations of the Middle East. When has intelligence been accurate? Did intelligence prove the intentions of the French regarding whether they would ally with us during the Revolutionary war? Intelligence during our Civil War was done largely by civilian companies for hire like the Pinkertons. The North's version was so bad that no one including Lincoln realized that the South was in such a shambles that the war could have been brought to a conclusion at least a year earlier than it did. Of course, FDR's intelligence was just peachy! Following your line of thought he must be blamed for Pearl Harbor and our subsequent entry into WWII. And, of course, let's not forget that little fracus that JFK embarrassed us with - no not Vietnam - the Bay of Pigs. JFK's intelligence led him to believe that Cuba would rise up and vanquish Castro if he could just get it started. Talk about your quagmire - Castro is still there 40+ years later! And don't get me started about Counter Intelligence. The Venona Project for decades informed our presidents of infiltration by communists to some of the highest offices in their administrations - they hardly paid any mind. A naval officer in the late 60's sold our naval codes to the Soviets. Then, the USS Pueblo was captured by the North Koreans (and is still in their hands). The upshot was that with the codes and now the hardware in the Communists' hands they were able to read our most secret naval messages up until about 1985. The bottom line is that our intelligence underestimated the threat of al Quaida and possibly overestimated the threat of Saddam in regard to WMDs. The intelligence notwithstanding if Clinton had acted to various terrorists acts during his administration in a more decisive manner al Quaida probably would have never attempted 9/11. Meanwhile, North Korea blackmailed his administration and now they are at least a regional threat presently and if left unchecked will become a much graver threat to the world. We can safely say by our recent actions that will not happen by the hands of Iraqis. I'd rather be safe than sorry. Why don't you see it that way? Is your politics getting in the way? |
| #15 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 1/29/2004 5:38:24 PM |
|
you guys actually make me think even less of liberals
see you at the polls. Better start buying your buses now. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:27:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
