| 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 51 through 75 of 745 Prev | First | Last | Next |
The time now is
6:33:49 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #51 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 4/10/2007 9:04:13 AM |
| #50 Typical bi*ot. Never refuting anything I said. Just spewing hate. |
| #52 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/10/2007 10:05:17 AM |
|
#51: I read the article, and she is entitled to her opinion. Of course, she is in Toronto, and forming her opinion of all of Canada based on what she sees there. That is like judging all Americans based on living in NYC or LA for a few years. All three places think they are the center of the universe, and that everyone else is bad because they are different from them. Many places in Canada hold the same contempt for Torontonians, because of their "center of the known universe" attitude. Toronto is Canada's New York City. Vancouver would be our LA, but with more rain. Much of Alberta is like much of Texas. We are as diverse in our beliefs and attitudes as Americans are.
As for spewing hate, I was just giving you a small taste of your own medicine. Tastes bad, doesn't it. As entertaining as this thread has been, it is time to move on to a new topic. I'll be sure to ignore your hate spewage in other threads as well. |
| #53 By 32132 (66.183.197.61) at 4/10/2007 10:42:50 PM |
|
#52 Its not just her opinion. If you are actually from Canada you know perfectly well that I'm telling the truth.
I could post a ton of other references. And I have my own personal experiences. And others. I'm not sure who thought the US deserved 9/11 more ... Palestinians or Canadians. |
| #54 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 4/10/2007 11:42:23 PM |
| latch and mystic, lay off the name calling. Its one thing for you to be embarrassed when confronted with fact and irrefutable logic... its another to make an ass out of yourself, by your own hand. |
| #55 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/11/2007 12:58:37 AM |
|
#54, Nearly everyone that has given the matter any thought at all, understands that the present war must be fought and the fighting of it is best left to those who understand the dependencies and how to win.
The problem is that many people only want to fight select parts of the war and they separate the war into tidy little segments that best suit their interests and ideas. France, Canada, China, Germany and Russia each were making a killing of off and in Iraq. Nearly all these states had other related interests - embarrassment, corruption, involvement in the oil for food scandal and in some cases, worse - trafficking in illegal arms, narcotics for arms [the link between central Asian dope and arms being brought into the Balkans via Iran]. The U.S., let all that slide as it tried to build up consensus for the effort in the Iraqi theater of operations - removing any chance that Iraq could be used in any way to support extremists and as much to separate and canalize Iranian influence and support for its puppet government in Syria [long in need of cash after the fall of the former Soviet Union]. As complicit nations needed to get out from under any examination, it became a lot easier to hide behind the U.N. and come out against the Iraqi phase of the war - their press picked up on this and the people follow along. The reality is different. Treating Iraq as only one campaign, perhaps the most important, is how it should be looked at. Ultimately, the EU and all states will benefit most - stabilizing the world's energy supply is important to all and as much, so is canalizing Iranian influence. In the short term, China, Iran and Russia are the big winners - Syria, Hezbollah and extremists in Pakistan gaining some time, but SOME TIME, only. Sooner or later, Iran will have to be dealt with - a WMD enabled Iran WILL NOT be allowed. And that is the understanding all should have. So really, regardless of side, THAT [Iran] is the question for all and it always has been. The world has one question to ask itself. Do we contain and influence and disarm Iran via bringing democracy to Iraq and ousting its murderous regime, or are we forced to widen the war soon and use yet more arms and spill more blood? The outcome will be the same, Iran will not be allowed to build a bomb - period. The question is how the world will go about preventing that. One way will open Iran and benefit her people and embrace them as brothers. The other will see her burn while the world enters into a terrible depression brought on by the disruption in energy supplies. |
| #56 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/11/2007 12:53:51 PM |
|
#53: Wow Parkkker, not only are you an expert on Microsoft, but an expert on Canada as well. And just as accurate on both subjects.
#54: What's that, mini-moore? I'm confused. While reading your post, I had a flashback to all the coffee girl names. What was that about name-calling again? #55: You really are full of yourself, aren't you? You're obviously the smartest guy you know. "If everyone gives anything a little bit of thought, they'll agree with me because I'm such a smart, deep-thinker" is how your posts come off. And good to see you support Bush's policy of unilateral pre-emptive strikes. That's the way to peace & stability. |
| #57 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/11/2007 1:07:07 PM |
|
What would be your opinion if the shoe was on the other foot, and the other countries of the world decided to invade the good old USA and dispose Bush, through violent means, to remove the threat of the US using WMDs? After all, unlike Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc., the US has actually USED nukes against another nation. Ask Japan if they believe that the US is unwilling to use nukes during war time? But I guess Uncle Sam is the only one able to determine who should or shouldn't have nukes.
And before anyone tries to use that big paintbrush and think that everyone up here thinks everyone should be nuke capable, that is a lie. Personally, I think NO ONE should have nuclear weapons, INCLUDING the US. But for the US to say that they can have them, but no one else can, reeks of hypocrisy. |
| #58 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/11/2007 3:36:18 PM |
|
#56, If you expect me to be less confident, or less convicted because you may not be, then you're in for a long wait. Many people expect me to make decisions based upon the best available information. I am not timid about doing that. I am used to people expecting a good chef that is also a nutritionist - vice being a waiter that is also a short order cook. In other words, customers [be they government officials or business owners] expect decisions and responsibility of people like us - they are not looking for a menu. If I did not have decades of direct personal experience in the areas discussed, I would not offer opinions weighted as they are. I am not one to express false anything.... be it motivation, or modesty. I value sincerity and convictions based upon experience and integrity - e.g., doing what is right, regardless of the personal costs, or consequences.
#57, Enormously valid and thoughtful points - BUT, we can't forget how we got here, or what drove the efforts behind the development of atomic weapons in the first place, and yes, the U.S., did use nuclear weapons, but operations Coronet and Olympic [planned invasions of the Japanese main islands] would have been far worse and accompanied by massive fire bombings that would have killed even more people in Japan. The entire effort was born of a letter of warning coming from Albert Einstein to then President Roosevelt, strongly encouraging the development of atomic weapons because scientists who had escaped Nazi Germany reported that the Germans and their allies [Japan] were working on them. Again, we can't forget how we got to where we are. After the war the U.S. offered to place all such weapons and related technolgy under international control. By the time that body had organized in any way, the Soviets had detonated their first atomic bomb in 1949 and the fate of the world was sealed [in this context]. There are many - a great many, that had they known, they would have decided differently, but with millions dying and 408,000 dead Americans weighing on them, they decided to move forward with development. I can share that making such decisions about who dies and who does not, are all but impossible and they weigh so heavily on those that make them - forever. Nothing is harder. Personally, I'd like to see all weapons of any kind, destroyed entirely, but that isn't going to happen any time soon. Until it does, the U.S. has to look out for the interests of itself and its allies. If you want us to sacrifice ourselves to serve some larger ideal, then I submit that you are being unrealistic. We are at least, less wonton than some empires have been. |
| #59 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/11/2007 3:48:08 PM |
| #58: I am not silly enough to advocate the destruction of ALL weapons. Just really, really, nasty ones like nukes, weaponized anthrax, etc. And yes, the US has been better at not using them since then than many dictatorships would have been had they had them. I was merely stoking the fires a bit by suggesting that the issue be seen from a different perspective, that's all. That makes for a more balanced POV, in my opinion. However, that being said, I do not think that "would have been far worse and accompanied by massive fire bombings that would have killed even more people in Japan" is a terribly good excuse, as it does not address the longer term radiation problems nukes cause. Yes, the firebombs might have killed more people, but there would have been no radiation to kill or make sick those who escaped the firebombs, but had to stay in that part of the country, for whatever reason. The long term collateral damage is the worst part of nuclear weapons. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 51 through 75 of 745 Prev | First | Last | Next |
The time now is
6:33:49 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
