| 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 |
 |
EU to force Microsoft to license Windows info for pittance | |
|
||
| Time: 00:57 EST/05:57 GMT | News Source: Yahoo News | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
The European Commission will force Microsoft to hand over what the US software giant claims is sensitive and valuable technical information about its Windows operating system for almost no compensation, the Financial Times reported Wednesday, citing a confidential document. The world's biggest software maker is required to license the technical information to competing groups under the terms of the European CommissionÂ’s antitrust ruling issued three years ago, the newspaper said. The Commission last month accused Microsoft of demanding excessive royalties from licences. Microsoft wants as much as 5.95 percent of companies server revenues to license the information. But the FT said the confidential statement of objections from the Commission "makes clear that Microsoft will at best be allowed to levy a tiny fraction of the royalties it is demanding." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 268 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
9:31:49 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/9/2007 2:00:59 PM |
| #24: Typical Yank. Visit here a couple of times, and think you're an expert on everything and everyone. And you wonder why Yankees are the laughing stock of the civilized world? |
| #27 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/9/2007 2:07:08 PM |
| #25: And you won't either, unless a large oil deposit is discovered there. The US is interested in "helping" Iraq because they want to control the huge oil fields there, by placing a US controlled government in control of the country. Hey, its not like they haven't done that before, too. And they never seem to learn the lesson on why it is a bad policy. They help people like Saddam and Fidel Castro gain power, ousting a baddie currently governing a soverign nation, and then get pissed off when the puppet cuts the strings and starts to act independantly. This happens time after time, and yet they keep doing it over and over again. What is it they say about doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results? Does this mean that America is insane? The government certainly seems to be. |
| #28 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/9/2007 2:51:00 PM |
|
#25, you have no idea how many times U.S. Soldiers have been deployed to Africa, or how many were killed there, or busted up in their efforts to help people there. Chad, Sudan, Liberia, Zimbabwe [Rhodesia], Rwanda, Eritrea, Somalia... I can't name any more, but saw them all and I can tell you that what any power would have to do there to stabilize things we can't do - it would be branded imperialism, or worse. The violence and corruption are so pervasive one would have to treat most places like a police state in order to stop the violence.
I first went there as a pretty naïve young man – as a guide, providing communications, medical and navigational support [long, long before the first GPS birds were in orbit] to workers and teachers trying to help and also to support the distribution of food and medicine – I must have dug a hundred wells and tried to teach people to keep their best seed crops for following years [they’d just dig them up and sell them when we left]. And man, for goodness sake, the U.S. didn’t go into the gulf in force and to stay until the threat of some nut job getting his hands on a nuke was made real enough [regardless of whether or when such are found] AFTER 9/11 – when the possibility that some wacko MIGHT get his hands on a device, then our policy changed. Now, forget politics and break out a map of Central Asia – any arm-chair dork that ever played Stratego would tell you that if you wanted to secure the middle east that you have to control Mesopotamia [Iraq]. You want justification – here ya go: some nut bag cowards came over and murdered 3,000 of our countrymen in living color. Other nut jobs, on the off chance that they might even think about even indirectly supporting more nut jobs that MIGHT do the same, needed to be contained, beat down and removed from the earth. Forget Saddam and WMD – they do not matter – canalizing, controlling, and destroying nut job ass-hats that kill innocent people ON PURPOSE is what matters. So, let Iraq, or any country – Lichtenstein [as a non-example], in any way help such people and you can bet some very determined men are going to come pay you a visit – let that support grow in any open way, and those same men will bring a few thousand friends. Don’t like it – then police up the scum. |
| #29 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/9/2007 2:58:58 PM |
|
#25, and not caring about Iraqi's... ?
Man, where'd that come from? Here's one - a standing order to all U.S. Soldiers in Gulf wars I and II: "Try and limit the carnage; do not kill or wound unless you have to." Do you know how many guys risked their backsides to make good on that order? Do you have any idea how many men helped and cared for even enemy soldiers - you have no idea what an American soldier is all about. |
| #30 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/9/2007 3:17:37 PM |
|
It should be pointed out that today marks the 90th anniversary of the liberation of Vimy Ridge, by Canadian forces during WW I. This was thought to be impossible by many Allied forces, but the good old Canuck forces got the job done.
Just so you Yanks don't think you have cornered the market on helping out other countries. Some of us just don't need to constantly remind people about it constantly. As a country, we are not as vain as some others. :-) http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/09/vimy-memorial-070409.html This post was edited by MysticSentinel on Monday, April 09, 2007 at 15:18. |
| #31 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/9/2007 3:18:48 PM |
|
#28,29: blah blah blah blah blah. You keep talking yet saying nothing. I don't really care how many troops went to random African nation X. I'm not sure I see the relevance when I'm talking to Parkkker about Iraq and his tears for their plight. Nor do I care about your war stories. However, I do love your pedantic tone that says "I know everything - I am the Alpha and the Omega." Thanks Dad, but a few of us have been around for more than a year or two ourselves. You're looking at America through the eyes of what was, not what is.
At any rate, this thread was about the EU slapping down MS and not America's strategic energy policy which is what the Iraq war is about. |
| #32 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 4/9/2007 3:19:41 PM |
|
#26: [i}And you wonder why Yankees are the laughing stock of the civilized world?
You forgot the "until America has to render aid" part. #27: The US is interested in "helping" Iraq because they want to control the huge oil fields there, by placing a US controlled government in control of the country. Hahahaha... the current price of oil causes this argument to fall flat. I can't get over just how many people actually buy into this "theory". What lketchum says in #28 is right on. We didn't need to take out Hussein until after other fanatics showed willingness to fly airplanes full of innocent people into buildings. Now, we can't afford to react to a changing world--we must proactively force the change. The scenario today is similar to what we faced in the mid to late 1930s. Regimes that show an unwillingness to live peacefully with the rest of the world need to be dealt with now, not later. Continued compromise over time is the fanatic dictator's dream come true. Today, an emboldened Iran sees that it can kidnap British soldiers in international waters and then "gift" them back to the people of England! Reminds me of the tests Hitler used--moving troops in the Saar, annexing Czechoslovakia, and so forth--to measure the mettle of the Europeans before full scale attacks were initiated. |
| #33 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 4/9/2007 3:21:24 PM |
|
#25 "And while Saddam was being a bad-ass, what was the US doing, besides paying him?"
Before or after or during Gulf War I? 99% of more of Saddams weapons were from Eastern Block countries. The US did give Saddam some intelligence info during the war with Iran because of Iran's support for Hezbollah which had killed almost 300 marines in Lebanon. Essentially the government was hoping the war would chew up both armies making them less of a threat. "You and all the rest of the right-wing only started to give a damn about the Iraqi people when it became convenient to do so" And the lefties never cared because they love mass murdering dictators. All dictators know how to get a free pass for mass murder from the jew-hating left... spew anti-USA venom. |
| #34 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 4/9/2007 3:24:14 PM |
|
#31: At any rate, this thread was about the EU slapping down MS and not America's strategic energy policy which is what the Iraq war is about.
Or, is it? I think its very telling (and interesting) what the different posters are saying here. |
| #35 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 4/9/2007 3:26:31 PM |
|
#26 I see you don't deny that most Canadian media are anti-american, anti-Israel, pro-terrorist bigots. Do you think we can't read about the hatred on canadian websites?
#30 "3,598 men killed and 7,104 wounded" at Vimy. All those Canadians fighting and dying far away from home just because some anarchist assassinated an Archduke. Its interesting what you think is worth fighting and dying for. Ousting mass murdering dictators wasn't worth it for Canada... or maybe the government in power just took a big fat bribe to go along with the billions it stole. Canada didn't fight in Iraq because it was paid off. Not out of altruism. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover120905.htm http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/may/030502a.html Power Corp, owned by PM Chretiens father-in-law, and giver of huge gifts to Chretiens successor , was the largets shareholder of TotalElf, a French oil company that had paid huge bribes to Saddam for oil contracts. When Canadians claim they kept out of Iraq for "good" reasons, they lie. It was bribe money and payoffs from Power Corp, to the then PM whose daughter was married to the son of Power Corps chairman (both of who were on the board of TotalElf). Paul Martin had earlier recieved the Canadian Steamship Company from Power Corp at rock bottom prices that made him a multi-millionaire. "Power Corporation decided to sell Canada Steamship Lines. It asked the CEO, Martin, to find a buyer. He did: The buyer would be himself. He lined up a partner, borrowed tens of millions of dollars and took over CSL. Critics have styled it as a sweetheart deal, the product of his connections;" http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2004/leadersparties/leaders/prof_martin.html Canada was grossly corrupt. This post was edited by NotParker on Monday, April 09, 2007 at 15:46. |
| #36 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/9/2007 3:50:58 PM |
|
#35: I guess you are unaware of the Canadian Forces being in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban fighters there. And in Iraq, doing the same. And dying there, too. Fighting ALONG SIDE the US soldiers. so in response to your statement 'When Canadians claim they kept out of Iraq for "good" reason, they lie. It was bribe money and payoffs.', I have only one thing to say to you: **** YOU!
I may not agree with the stated reasons they are there, but they are most certainly there. I don't completely disagree that Saddam should have been ousted, and I was happy when he was hung, but the alleged WMDs were a smokescreen, a lie to get permission from Congress, and THAT I have a problem with. And where are the welcoming thongs of people that Bush and company said were waiting for them to go in and free them? When the US finally gets what it wants, it will be Canada, England, and the other allied forces that will be left behind to clean up the mess, not the US. "...paid huge bribes to Saddam for oil contracts." You mean like Haliburton? The same Haliburton that has most of the contracts to rebuild the oil pipelines that were damaged or just being redirected? The same Haliburton that the Vice President worked for as a senior exec? Maybe if you watch something other than Fox or CNN, you might get a better idea of what is really happening out there. And no, I don't mean just adding CBC to the list, either. Also, Desert Storm (Gulf War 1) was about kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, after he invaded it. Bush Senior didn't manage to slap Saddam down hard enough, so Bush Jr. decided to see what he could do to finish Daddy's unfinished project. And Canada was there for that one, too, as you may or may not remember. |
| #37 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/9/2007 3:54:39 PM |
|
#32: "Hahahaha... the current price of oil causes this argument to fall flat."
Actually, the price of oil was not this bad until AFTER the US invaded. And with the higher price of oil, that just makes the huge Iraqi oil fields worth that much more, RAISING the incentive, not lowering it. And don't get me started on the stupid way that the price of oil is determined. |
| #38 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/9/2007 3:57:23 PM |
|
#35: "Canada was grossly corrupt."
I deeply resent that statement. The current government of Canada is still corrupt, and even more so than it used to be. In fact, the current Canadian government is very much like the current Bush one, in quite a few ways. So, basically, it is the word "was" I object to. :-) |
| #39 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/9/2007 4:17:24 PM |
|
#38, Canada has some tough assed troops - I know that much and they are excellent fighters. I soldierd alongside many of them and they are among the best there are - and yes, they sure have fought alongside us many times - as they now are.
All those I knew pretty much thought as I did and have explained here - there are more or less good people around and more or less bad people around and the bad people have to be stopped. Sad thing is, the Canadian govt. doesn't always agree. One thing most Aemricans do not know is, that Canadians of the ruling class - especially the armed forces, see themselves [their affinity] as being much more consistent with the British than any in North America. This is of course, natural, as the cultures are so much closer. Americans confuse popular culture and the parts that Canadians do like with a larger affinity that does not exist. Canadian soldiers did/perhaps do, respect professional American soldiers a great deal - even their officers, like British officers, would always defer to a seasoned American vet. And Latch, you are right - I am from another time - that has passed - and surely, you are wise enough to recognize that what the EU does in the way of software policy is related to all of this. |
| #40 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 4/9/2007 4:49:46 PM |
|
#36 Canadians are in Iraq?
Look, the only reason Canada stayed out of Iraq was OIL. The PM's in-laws owned an oil company that was going to make billions if Saddam stayed in power. The future PM and then finance minister (Paul Martin) had already recieved his multi-million dollar bribe from Power Corp. Canada is a cesspool of anti-american anti-Israel bigotry. |
| #41 By 15406 (74.104.251.89) at 4/9/2007 5:23:32 PM |
|
#32: This has nothing to do with the price of oil today. Iraq is part of a US strategy to ensure its energy needs are met for the next 100 years. It is being predicted that India and China by themselves will, in about 20-40 years, use more oil than the world can produce today. Oil is finite; on day it will run out.
#35: I will finally say what I've resisted saying for awhile: You're an idiot. Plain and simple. You will say the absolute stupidest thing if you think it will somehow get under someone's skin. That is all. |
| #42 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at 4/9/2007 6:25:13 PM |
|
#39: Yeah, those guys certainly are a tough bunch. As proof of that, look at what they manage to do with the pitiful amount of equipment and supplies our government gives the armed forces; an amount that gets smaller and smaller every year. They are grossly ill-equipped to be over there, and yet they are, and have been from the beginning. Many in Canada thought it was wrong to send them, including many in the government itself, but they were sent anyway, as we usually do when the US requests our assistance. We may be annoying and obnoxious at times, but we aren't stupid. :-) As someone put it not too long ago, Canada and the US are like brothers. We don't always agree with each other, but we always have each other's back when push comes to shove. The ONLY reason we don't have more troops in Iraq right now is that the majority of our forces are deployed in Afghanistan at the moment, and we sent everyone else we could send to Iraq.
It is funny. If you ask the British about us, they'd likely say we are more American than British. In truth, we are somewhere in between. We are kind of American in culture, but British socially. Sort of. It is really hard to explain, and I've lived here for almost 40 years, and in the US for 3 or 4 years when I was younger (Maine and New Jersey). #40: Canada is no more anti-Israel than America is. Maybe even less so. We are also not entirely anti-American. It would be more accurate to say that we are anti American Government bullying and arrogance and international meddling in everyone else's business all the time. But we generally do not have anything against the American people themselves, with a few exceptions. There are quite a large number of decent, hard working, honourable people in the USA. And a few at the top of the ruling class who are complete idiots. But I can say that with equal sincerity of many of those at the top of the Canadian ruling class too. #41: Well said. On both points! |
| #43 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at 4/9/2007 6:34:05 PM |
| Parkkker: Also, if you'll recall, there is a big difference between Gulf War I and Gulf War II. GW1 was UN sanctioned, and everyone worked together under the UN umbrella. GW2 did NOT have UN sanction, so the US basically said "screw you" to the UN and did what they wanted anyway. THAT is what people mainly complained about and why many were opposed to the invasion of a sovereign nation by the US. If you'll recall, one country invading another sovereign country was what caused GW1. The US basically did the same thing to Iraq, without the sanction of the UN, and it is called GW2. And despite all that, Canada sent troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq. So you can dismount from your high horse, and go get that cranial-rectal-de-insertion surgery you so desperately need. |
| #44 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 4/9/2007 8:15:02 PM |
|
#41 Everything I've said about Canada is true.
Even MysticSentinel won't deny it: "We are also not entirely anti-American." What a laugh! "Not entirely"!!!!! # 43 "GW2 did NOT have UN sanction" Other than all the resoltions demanding Iraq do X, Y or Z. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). "Resolution 1441 specifically stated: That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991. That this represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed. That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations". " |
| #45 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 4/9/2007 8:17:44 PM |
|
#43 "Canada sent troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq. "
The ONLY Canadian troops in Iraq were a handful on loan to US military units as per usual transfer of soldiers on various learning programs. Maybe you are mistaking Canada and Australia. Australia sent their SAS and hundreds of other soldiers. |
| #46 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/9/2007 9:43:13 PM |
|
#44, 45 NotParker, while all true, it isn't as clear cut as we'd like it to be. There are many sides to the same issues and only parts of select governments may be faulted.
Couple of examples... a lot of nations, Canada, and France in particular, lend tremendous amounts of support to the U.S., and other more overtly involved nations in the war against Islamic extremists. Much of their suport is vital and even critical to the U.S., and Britain, but much of it cannot be openly disclosed. I mean, realisticly, many nations are not in a great position and can't afford more open support - we get a head cold economically, and small nations get terminal cancer when things go south. Similarly, many of the more quiet nations have enormous Muslim populations that are a real consideration, or laws which make it very hard for them to act as some would expect them to. All of Europe, for example, has specific and very open laws regarding imigration, rendition, and apprehension. Many went way left of center following the abuses observed before and during the second world war. Some are especially sensitive to foreign power and the military - I mean, recall when the French Foreign Legion plotted to kill de Gaulle? Despite this, France's and Canada's intelligence services take huge risks to help. I wish I could explain a lot more, but I can't. Just know that the relationships are a lot closer than meets the eye and by the way, their agencies don't like the EU and its BS policies any more than many of us. It is a mess - just as it is here - our press corps have us all believing we're all at odds but the truth is, down deep, we all want the same thing - peace. We all need to understand that we want that, and that extremists want to die. We can't keep carving one another up over it. |
| #47 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at 4/9/2007 9:55:11 PM |
|
#44: Here is some logic that is so simple, even you might be able to follow it:
To be completely not anti-American, I would have to have high regard for all Americans. I have a very low regard for you and your habit of quoting people out of context, and other lazy forms of debate, therefore I cannot technically say that I hold all Americans in high regard. Thus, my statement of "not entirely anti-American" is technically true. However, we do hold 99.9999% of you in good stead. It is just you, Bush Jr. and a bunch of other whack jobs that ruin it for everyone else. Live with it. |
| #48 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at 4/9/2007 10:04:40 PM |
| #46: Very well put. Our actual soldier count may not be as great in that region of the world, due to not having as large a military as the US or Britain has, but like you said, we do a lot for each other, and make a great team. Our guys are dying over there just like yours. And what is not discussed as much as it should be is the aftermath of these conflicts. As is being seen, going in and deposing a dictator is the easy part. Rebuilding the country afterwards is the real challenge. And that is where international cooperation really shines the brightest. Just look at what the international forces in Afghanistan are accomplishing. There is still much to accomplish, but progress is being made. A real difference is being seen there, thanks to US, Canadian, British, and the forces of dozens of other countries. To destroy is easy. To rebuild takes great strength. I fully support the troops over there, of all nations and nationalities, regardless of my beliefs in the reasons for it in the first place. They are there now, and I support their efforts in rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq. |
| #49 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 4/9/2007 11:34:04 PM |
|
#47 I can read the canadian papers and the editorials and the letters to the editor.
This is the day to day reality in Canada: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15638-2004Nov26.html "If you're thinking about coming to Canada, let me give you some advice: Don't. Although I enjoy my work and have made good friends here, I've found life as an American expatriate in Canada difficult, frustrating and even painful in ways that have surprised me. As attractive as living here may be in theory, the reality's something else. For me, it's been one of almost daily confrontation with a powerful anti-Americanism that pervades many aspects of life. When I've mentioned this phenomenon to Canadian friends, they've furrowed their brows sympathetically and said, "Yes, Canadian anti-Americanism can be very subtle." My response is, there's nothing subtle about it. The anti-Americanism I experience generally takes this form: Canadians bring up "the States" or "Americans" to make comparisons or evaluations that mix a kind of smug contempt with a wariness that alternates between the paranoid and the absurd. ... More seriously, in the wake of 9/11, after the initial shock wore off, it was common to hear some Canadians voice the opinion that Americans had finally gotten what they deserved. The attacks were just deserts for years of interventionist U.S. foreign policy, the increasing inequality between the world's poorest nations and the wealthiest one on earth, and a generalized arrogance. " Read the rest if you've got the stomach for it. If you've ever read the Biography of Teddy Roosevelt (Theodore Rex) it is appalling to read the racist anti-blck excerpts from the major daily newspapers that ran all the time in the early 1900's. Travelling to Canada and reading newspapers and watching TV now is just the same, only the casual bigotry is aimed at the Americans. Its somewhat better with the new government, but of course the american haters detest them even more, a sentiment held by MysticSentinel as well. This post was edited by NotParker on Monday, April 09, 2007 at 23:36. |
| #50 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/10/2007 7:54:39 AM |
|
#49: If I were to judge all Americans based on what you have to say here, I would have to conclude that they are all loud mouthed right wing wack jobs with no wit, no intelligence, and hating everything that anyone other than Microsoft stands for. Fortunately for the rest of the US, I have the ability to not judge an entire country based on the mindless rantings of a few idiots like yourself. This post was edited by MysticSentinel on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 08:55. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 268 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
9:31:49 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
