ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

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

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Chinese schools ditch Microsoft Office

Time: 10:59 EST/15:59 GMT | News Source: Silicon | Posted By: Robert Stein

A Chinese-made office suite will replace Microsoft Office in Shanghai schools following a raid by anti-piracy officials and a demand to pay licence fees. Chinese-made software suite Kingsoft WPS Office 2003 will replace Microsoft Office applications in Shanghai public schools from the beginning of September, according to Shanghai's education officials.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 26 through 50 of 337
Prev | Last | Next

The time now is 7:40:31 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#26 By 415 (199.8.71.121) at 8/26/2003 7:04:14 PM

Cake or Death?

#27 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 8/26/2003 9:03:46 PM

AWBrian - "Were you aware that cities that have passed laws that allow conceal and carry have proven statistics that show drops in violence? And those that HAD conceal and carry laws that were overturned had an increase in violence?"

I don't know if you could honestly say there are "proven statistics". There are certainly stats which show lower violence trends, but there are no stats which can conclusively show reasons for the trends.

Lott tries to make that case in his book, but his statistics have widely been discredited. The problem is that he attempts to make these causual conclusions without factoring out the other variables. Yes, violence has gone down... but then economic growth went up, incarceration of prisoners has gone up, police on the streets has gone up, societal changes have occured. Those are just a few of many factors.

Check out this, the latest crime report from the BJS:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv02.pdf

Crime still went down from 2001 to 2002 as a national average. Especially property crimes. Which throws economic factors for a loop as 2002 wasn't a particular good year for jobs.

However, in the South and West the number of murders actually increased. These are the parts of the country which have more open gun laws, as well as more strict repeat offender incarceration laws. So what's that mean? I don't know. It's possible that 2002 was a fluke. We need more data to try to identify trends.

Here's another interesting one:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/regionjuvtab.htm

It shows a marked increase in Teen Gun Homicide rates across the nation from 1982, peaking in 1993 and then declining after that. Now what does that mean? One thing which might play in as a factor is that after 1980, there was an increase in the purchase of guns in homes as a result of NRA promotions. This could have led to teens having easier access to those guns.

But then what changed in around 1993 to improve this? Perhaps more attention paid to the problem? Fewer guns in homes? Greater availability of gun safes and trigger locks? Education on removing firing mechanism and storing it seperately? Or was it concealed carry? I don't know if we can say any one reason for certain.

Anyway, basic point. I think the claims made by the NRA don't stand up when put under question. Similarly I don't know that the claims made by the gun control people stand up. There's just so many factors involved.

I do know this... crime rates are lower in western Europe, Japan, Australia and such than they are in the US. I wish I knew why, and I do suspect that our gun culture contributes to this.

And for the record, I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to guns. My family has guns, we hunt occasionally but mostly just target shoot. But nobody is a member of the NRA because we can't stand their extremism.

#28 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 8/26/2003 9:12:42 PM

BobSmith - "Isn't it possible that there could be opposing definitions, which might make your statement false?"

Interesting point. I just bought Blackhawk Down special edition with the 3 cds and was watching some of the commentary and history specials on the event. One of the soldiers described Somalia as what happens when a population has unfettered access to guns. They were all basically shocked at the fact that everybody, women and children included, walked around with an AK-47 around their shoulder. And they were not afraid to use them.

One could argue, in many ways Somalia was a very Free Country. People could do basically anything they wanted as long as they had more might than the other guys.

One would also then argue that they don't want to live in a Free Country.

In the US we still have laws which are there to restrict what you can and cannot do. Even our primary freedoms of Speech, Assembly and Religion are restricted to some degree. Primarily those restrictions are there to prevent you from harming other people.

I think RMD's point of whatshisname claiming we weren't free because we can't hold meetings in the Oval Office without permission is correct and whatshisname does misses the point of what Freedom means.

#29 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 8/26/2003 10:34:53 PM

I've always been amazed how guns are picked on, yet they kill 10X (???) fewer people than drunk drivers. Yet, Americans wouldnt think of getting rid of booze (I assure you I'm not saying we should). So, why pick on guns. At the end of the day, both issues (murder by gun, and manslaughter by drunk driving) is a matter of personal responsibility. The less the law restricts, THE BETTER. I dont want a gun, but I sure like to have the right to own one.

#30 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 8/26/2003 11:09:14 PM

#46 One of the reasons given is because it is far easier and quicker to kill multiple people with a gun - which is why you find a lot more people opposed to semi and auto guns than normal guns. How many drink drivers have gone out and killed 10+ or 30+ people as a result of alcohol in comparison?

#31 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 8/27/2003 1:13:53 AM

chris_kabuki - wasnt the captain of the exxon valdez drunk? No deaths, but DAMN! And if you add in the other alcohol-related crimes (lots of rapes, injuries short of death, etc)... then alcohol-related crime is much more probable than any chance of a gun crime. I personally never feel that I'm in danger of being shot, but I'm often alarmed when I see a weaving car early Saturday morning or after a big sporting event. Perhaps those living in bigger urban areas feel different.

I think a major difference is that the beer lobby is HUGE and shower tons of $ on the politicians. Whereas gun advocates have the NRA and thats about it. They donate alot of $, but not even in the same arena as beer producers.

I personally never thought the tabacco industry would be in such a fight. But I was very wrong. Perhaps the lawyers will turn toward alcohol one day?

#32 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/27/2003 1:36:32 AM

This WHOLE conversation is retarded, but I'll make it a little more so with my own comment:

mooresa, because it's called intent. Your argument presupposes that all gun crimes are accidental... when this is clearly not true.

If someone intends to kill some one, and they intend to do it with a gun, and they possess one, the odds are they might be successful.

Now how do you go about intentionally killing someone by drinking alcohol? The odds are: you kill yourself before you kill the intended target if alcohol is your chosen "weapon."

Are you really equating alcohol to a weapon?

#33 By 8062 (68.107.22.49) at 8/27/2003 2:12:47 AM

Good grief, if guns made us safer, then America would be by far the safest nation in the world.
Instead we are the murder capital of the world.
But try and get some gun tooting, fear driven, right wing reactionary to comprehend that reality.
Good luck!

#34 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 8/27/2003 3:01:30 AM

#40 - BobSmith

I hate when you open your argument with a complement! Cut that out! I guess I'll return in kind.

You've made some excellent points. Let me address them one by one.

This sounds like hyperbole to me. While some might say that's not a logical fallacy, I do. Also, hyperbole or no, this sounds like ad hominem.

You're absolutely right. It was stupid of me to make that statement. If taken within the context of my past arguments, and the link I provided, I think it makes it somewhat less stupid... but I shouldn't have said it, nonetheless.

OK, if you are totally opposed to the death penalty, then this is still not an option.

I'm not sure that's true. I'm opposed to having the government take life from an individual in an effort to punish that individual for a crime. If the individual willingly gives up their life, I find that less objectionable. But if they don't wish to spend the rest of their life in prison, they should have the right to euthanasia.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but it seem clear to me that you just attacked yourself.

Yes, you misunderstood me... I clarified above.

I wonder in what other instances you can justify killing. I assume you meant killing human beings? I also wonder how you can justify war and not justify the death penalty. For this to make sense to me, I'd need to see the reasons which you think justify war. I have a hunch that on a smaller scale, those can be applied to using the death penalty.

I can justify killing if there is no alternative. While there is certainly an alternative when it comes to our criminal justice system, there are many situations where circumstances present to alternative. If I'm attacked by somebody and I believe they indent on seriously harming or killing me, I would feel justified and moral in killing them if I felt that was the only way to prevent it. Similarly, we can't "lock up" people we are at war with. Assuming there is no alternative to the war (which there often is, but that's a different argument), there is often no alternative to having to cause deaths on the part of the enemy. In order to prevent them from attack you, you must often attack them. Obviously, this is much different than the death penalty.

From a very abstract perspective, I'd think, since you can never be sure of anything, then you have to base your actions on an exhaustive search and evaluation of all available data. If after such an evaluation, your criteria for war justification are met, could such an evaluation also occur during a murder trial to justify the death penalty?

It depends on your goals. If your goal is to maximize "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", I would say no... for reasons I've already stated. Nothing, no matter how exhaustive the search, no matter how much data we have available, is ever 100%. All truths are tentative. If you wish to maximize the goal stated above, you should always choose life in prison over the death penalty.

Continued on next post...

#35 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 8/27/2003 3:02:00 AM

Continued from previous post...

If we can be so sure of something that we will go to war and probably kill at least a few hundred, why can't a similar system be used to be sufficiently sure a person is guilty of murder, so that he can be executed?

Because, as I said, in war we often don't have an alternative to killing people. (Again, separate issue from whether or not the war was avoidable... which it almost always is.) When I spoke of war, I meant a war that we had no choice but to fight.

Please understand that I'm not attacking you, I'm looking for clarification of your statements.

I understand perfectly! :-) I hope I've clarified my position.

#41 - However, I look at it from a fiscal standpoint. Yeah, I know that is cold, but I dont have a murderer in my family, or a family member thats been murdered... so my point of reference is cold by nature.

Obviously, you fall into the category of "misinformed"... I would also put you in the category of "immoral". Misinformed because all available data shows that prisoners on death row tie up the legal system with many more appeals than prisoners spending life in prison. The cost of the legal proceedings is dramatically larger than keeping somebody in prison for life. (See: http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html)

And even if it wasn't, you would be pretty damn immoral for suggesting we kill people to save money.

#36 By 415 (199.8.64.133) at 8/27/2003 8:56:37 AM

MS Office or Death?

#37 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 9/1/2003 1:50:46 AM

RMD - "pretty damn immoral for suggesting we kill people to save money"

Do you not realize that is what WAR is? We could avoid war and push for years of economic boycott, pressure on the enemy politiicans, etc... BUT SOMETIMES ITS BETTER (FISCALLY) TO JUST GO IN WITH THE MILITARY AND KILL PEOPLE.

In other words, we have KILLED for fiscal reasons FOR YEARS.

#38 By 4240821 (45.149.82.86) at 10/26/2023 6:21:09 AM