| 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 |
 |
Why the 'Mojave Experiment' Fails | |
|
||
| Time: 23:38 EST/04:38 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Watch | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Joe Wilcox: The "Mojave Experiment" is conceptually a fresh marketing effort—at least for such a lame marketer as Microsoft. But after looking more closely at Mojave and reviewing Microsoft Watch reader comments, I have to call the experiment perhaps the worst kind of marketing.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 354 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
7:41:52 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at 8/1/2008 4:03:05 PM |
|
"Iraqi scientists Khidir Hamza and Imad Khadduri, declared that the consequence of the Israeli raid was to encourage Saddam Hussein to pursue the Iraq military nuclear program further, increasing the country's involvement:[8]
…actually, what Israel [did] is that it got out the immediate danger out of the way. But it created a much larger danger in the longer range. What happened is that Saddam ordered us — we were 400… scientists and technologists running the program. And when they bombed that reactor out, we had also invested $400 million. And the French reactor and the associated plans were from Italy. When they bombed it out we became 7,000 with a $10 billion investment for a secret, much larger underground program to make bomb material by enriching uranium. We dropped the reactor out totally, which was the plutonium for making nuclear weapons, and went directly into enriching uranium… They [Israel] estimated we'd make 7 kg [15 lb] of plutonium a year, which is enough for one bomb. And they get scared and bombed it out. Actually it was much less than this, and it would have taken a much longer time. But the program we built later in secret would make six bombs a year." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak Yellowcake is the raw material necessary for making enriched uranaium. |
| #27 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 8/1/2008 4:20:32 PM |
| #26, Correct. Yellowcake is the by-product of a leeching pocess which extracts Uranium from raw ore. It is a beginning step in the enrichment process. The cake, which is yellow and looks and even feels a bit like corn-meal, is highly toxic and radioactive. It is placed into a series of centerfuges (for which external tubes were also found in Iraq) to produce weapons grade Uranium. It is a poor country's way of obtaining nuclear weapons fuel fo ruse in weapons that are smaller and far easier to build. (than Plutonium based weapons, or boosted weapons - much less thermo-nuclear devices). |
| #28 By 1896 (74.166.235.69) at 8/1/2008 4:42:27 PM |
|
#24 Iketchum: I am pleased to hear you teached in a war college, in fact you did not comment about the invasion plans.
No US are not fighting were they would; Afghanstan is a place where nobody would like to fight and the action has moved back there. If the US could they would fight, correctly btw, on a plane desert. Butler report: I read it; I watch BBC news and read The Times; I read it and other ones too. Based on what you state in your post this is always the first rule... and we see it. Mossadeq was canned by the Eisenhower administration; the ones who tried to cripple Iran, after the talks about the royalties from the extraction of crude oil between the government and Ango Iranian Oil COmpany failed, were the Brits who declared an embargo and even tried to have the nationalization declared illegittimate and took the question to the High Court of Justice and lost it. Btw do not assume you know what my sources are; this is always been the problems of the agencies here; assuming instead of wondering. |
| #29 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 8/1/2008 5:14:55 PM |
|
Fritz, I don't know you well enough to know personal motivations, so it's hard to couch remarks without offending sensibilities, but that is not how it happend, or wat drove the policy, or even our involvement there.
The US was an oil exporter at the time - the biggest in fact and there was no thinking at the time that the situation would change. In fact, US production was in decline and industrial need was reducing relative to what it had been. We capped many wells in Texas and Utah intentionally and worked to drive the price up on purpose precisely so middle eastern states could earn money on the only resource they had. That was considered a lot cheaper than wars in every way possible. What we were dealing with was an enormous power vacuum that resulted from the collapse of colonial rule, which was being back-filled by communist rule. Nationalist governments requested the aid and assistance of the United States. All of Irans northern territories in central asia were gobbled up by the Soviets and Iran entered the alliance. The long standing monarchy forced the resignation of the prime minister they crown had requested form a govt. in its name. The General was appointed to restore order and protect assets that were the "property" of private enterprises. Middle Eastern politics and the politics of oil as we know them today weren't even a factor. They weren't even discussed in that context. I can tell you this much, and I will take this belief to my grave, of which I have both feet already in up to the knees, the US wanted peace. We wanted others to have peace. We wanted others to be free in that peace. Men like me who hate/hated war and had seen it, wanted nothing but that. We worked for that. We worked to extend that and we thought that free enterprise would be the fuel supporitng it. We fought for that - many of us most of our adult lives. |
| #30 By 1896 (74.166.235.69) at 8/1/2008 6:27:02 PM |
|
Iketchum do not get me wrong, I am sure that you sincerely believe what you state and this is one of the many reason why I do enjoy debate with you.
The fact is that "truth" is an elusive word: King George the III sincerely believed that George Washington and Co. were rebels. What I mean is that truth, as almost everything else in our lives, is relative; since the moment we are born there is only one sure thing : at a certain point we will die. Even waht happens after is a matter of personal belief. Said that I wonder if you ever heard the expression "Seven sisters". It was conied in the '50s by Enrico Mattei, the president of ENI, to indicate: Standard Oil (New Jersey) Standard Oil (New York) Standard Oil (California) Royal Dutch Shell Gulf British Anglo Persian Oil Company Texaco Yes the first three were created after the original Standard Oil was splitted under a provision of the Sherman Act, something like what happened with the "Baby Bells". The Standard Oil (California) signed the first contract to prospect for oil in Saudi Arabia at the beginning of the '30s so you can see that the interest of the US in the area comes a long way; US just filled the vacuum created by the decline of the British and the Ottoman Empires. Btw the oil field were not properties of the Anglo persian; they had the concession to extract oil and paid royalties to Iran; the trouble arouse when they did not want to increase the amount of them. |
| #31 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 8/1/2008 6:27:35 PM |
|
The basis for American foreign policy and Iran:
The Shah sent a message to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aug. 25, 1941, asking him to "be good enough to interest yourself in this incident. . . . I beg Your Excellency to take efficacious and urgent humanitarian steps to put an end to these acts of aggression." This was the context in which Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf was deployed to Iran to oversee the military supply effort. Roosevelt pledged that, once the war were over, both the Russians and the British would leave Iran. In addition, U.S. policy for postwar Iran was diametrically opposed to both British and Soviet imperial designs. Roosevelt had sent Gen. Patrick Hurley as his special representative, to Iran, to help prepare what was to become the Iran Declaration, finally adopted at the Tehran Conference of Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill, and which guaranteed the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Iran. |
| #32 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 8/1/2008 6:48:40 PM |
|
Fritz, I respect what you say, but you continue to get basic facts very wrong here. You say Eisenhower was involved.... No Sir and please understand, I know this from mine own eyes:
The usual story retailed in historical accounts, is that the British tried, but failed, to convince Harry Truman of the wisdom of their coup plan, and managed to get the U.S. on board, only after Dwight D. Eisenhower, elected President in November 1952, had assumed office in January 1953. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the official documents show, the U.S. decision to go for "regime change" in Iran was made by Truman in November 1952, long before Ike took office. And it was the British agents, the Dulles brothers—Allen and John Foster—who ran the operation with their British partners, while Eisenhower remained in the background, almost in the dark. The closest IKE ever came to endorsing the any British plan was in fact a gross distortion. All IKE ever said on the subject, privately or otherwise went like this: "By complete coincidence and good fortune, the President, while addressing the Governors' Convention in Seattle on 4 August, deviated from his script to state by implication that the United States would not sit idly by and see Iran fall behind the Iron Curtain." Kermit Roosevelt was the only agent in the entire country at the time and he was recalled for his own safety. When it came down to it, it was a choice of evils. The democrat Roosevelt (kermit) backed the British. Truman (D) backed the British. IKE, the Republican backed the Iranian people and had zip to do with the limited support one officer from the CIA offered to MI6. Kermit was there only to "assess the military situation" (I personally read the order, by the way). In fact, the Carter Administration, moved to support forces seeking to overthrow the Shah Read that one again! None of the truth of this matter is what you think it is, or what is popularly taught in about every political science program in this world. I have often wondered why I were not insane at seeing how so much has been so badly distorted. |
| #33 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 8/1/2008 7:08:19 PM |
|
To continue with US-Iran policy as every officer I ever knew in Govt. viewed it:
On the basis of this discussion, Hurley wrote up his report, in which he said the U.S. policy was to support Iranian independence and to ensure Iranian access to the rights enshrined in the Atlantic Charter. Hurley spoke of the need to eliminate illiteracy, as an enemy to democracy, and to defeat the external enemies of imperialism and communism. Hurley also outlined plans for economic development of Iran, based on infrastructure "and improvement of all facilities contributing to the health, happiness, and general welfare of the Iranian people." Based upon this research undertaken by a then non-existent CIA, FDR said: "Enclosed is a very interesting letter from Pat Hurley. It is in general along the lines of my talk with him. . . . I was thrilled with the idea of using Iran as an example of what we could do by an unselfish American policy Churchill was furious, by the way... |
| #34 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 8/1/2008 7:19:18 PM |
|
US policy supporting Iran required that to build a sustainable infrastructure required pivate investments that could be sustained.
The conflict between nationalist of the loosely unifed National Front, sought not to displace US based corporations, but British control of Iranian assets. Only when against British efforts to sustain an imperial position in Iran persisted, did The Shah, as he stated in his memoirs, repeats that he was in favor of the nationalization, but did not agree with Mossadeq's methods. He characterized Mossadeq and his National Front as "xenophobic," and thought Mossadeq was "a trusted man of the British." He thought a deal should have been negotiated with the British. Mossadeq turned to the Soviets and away from his own government and that is when the Shah demanded his resignation. Both men then fled to Rome. The CIA's role, if you can call it that... was about nill. IKE, largely in the dark and in no way well enough mentally to deal with these complex orchestrations, and candidly, American inexperience, allowed the British to conduct counter-demonstrations adding to the chaos in the streets. All the while the Soviets saw an opportunity to take all of Iran and that very nearly happened. I will admit that the US was both naive and incompetent - and don't think for a second we liked being thrust into these kinds of messes. We entered only because the alternatives were worse - namely wars that are so unspeakable that I have to stop this now, because I can't stand the thought of it any longer. |
| #35 By 238289 (204.124.183.66) at 8/27/2009 1:05:51 PM |
|
Sen. John McCain met with an irritated congregate at a town-hall intersection more constitution forewarn repair Wednesday, every now having to conflict with to talk and weighty a the missis helpmeet who wouldn't drop yelling that she had to leave.
The Arizona senator hadn't till opened up the congress at <a href=http://www.newhot.info><font color=Black>How I earn massive money online every month with forex trading</font></a> McCain's prime Phoenix church to questions when a woman audience individual continuously yelled once more him. "You're introduce to chaff to a stop or you're going to go about to disappear," McCain told the woman. When fastness guards approached to entourage her to, he told her "Goodbye, understand ya" to a tour of applause. |
| #36 By 239137 (204.124.183.66) at 9/2/2009 3:30:17 AM |
|
The search respecting the best observatory put in the coterie has bring up to the acceptance of what is record to be the coldest, driest, calmest put on Ground - a lieu where no vulnerable is plan to have continuously delineate foot <a href=http://www.trainingpeaks.com/bbs-forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=50299&posts=1>propecia buy</a>.
To search <a href=http://www.trainingpeaks.com/bbs-forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=50301&posts=1>discount xenical</a> in rancour of the blameless situate to capture pictures of the heavens, a U.S.-Australian probing partner combined clue from satellites, peach on stations and give the impression models in a ruminate on to assess the assorted factors that fuck up astronomy - cloud hide-out, temperature, sky-brightness, be eligible vapor, perceptible speeds and atmospheric turbulence. The researchers pinpointed a stain, <a href=http://www.trainingpeaks.com/bbs-forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=50300&posts=1>ultram order</a> known fully as Lineage A, that is 13,297 feet (4,053 meters) searching up on the Antarctic Lull on the continent at the tokus of the world. |
| #37 By 240980 (204.124.183.66) at 9/15/2009 8:02:19 PM |
|
You know that saying, it takes a village to frame a child?
Evidently, Kanye's village has failed him. He <a href=https://wiki.nla.com.de/display/~buycialis/Buy+Cialis+Online+Canadian+Pharmacy>buy cialis mastercard</a> patently doesn't take a legal chum in the world. There does not manifest to be anyone who can stir through to him, to occasion him understand that he needs to restrain his obnoxious behavior. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 354 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
7:41:52 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
