| 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 |
 |
How Apple Became More Valuable Than Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 12:53 EST/17:53 GMT | News Source: PC World | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
In the past decade, Microsoft has acquired nearly 10 times as many companies as Apple, and spent nearly nine times as many dollars on research and development.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 51 through 75 of 553 Prev | First | Last | Next |
The time now is
12:13:13 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #51 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 6/8/2010 3:24:58 PM |
|
#50 "so all those years until 2007 there were no signs of housing bubble "
Bush tried. Barney Frank lied. The economy died. “These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/2447/ |
| #52 By 16797 (99.236.143.109) at 6/8/2010 6:19:34 PM |
|
"Bush tried. Barney Frank lied. The economy died."
Oh yeah, Bush tried but almighty Frank woudn't let him.. How lucky people are that Frank did not lie about Iraq too. Not only economy died because of Frank, but Tinkerbell's light went out and she died too :( |
| #53 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 6/8/2010 8:50:25 PM |
|
Gonzo,
As I have said, The Bush administration first went to the Congress, Fed and Treasury with a formal appeal and warning on 26th April 2001 - three months after being sworn in. In reality, Bush proposed new regulations (over 50 of them!) and the former head of the US Commerce Dept., working with the Bush administration, specifically called for new regulations on derivatives. Bush was only the President - he did not rule by decree. That is not how it works. One just cannot say that he did not try and that first attempt was followed by 25 more. One cannot say that Bush "de-regulated" and caused this. He did not. The Congress did this. Finally, in a session before the house, in December 2006 (after Pelosi took control), President Bush cautioned the new Congress about its spending. They went on a spending spree from day one. The President said: "For people that said they ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility, they are spending like a teenager with his first credit card!" Want smaller government? STOP asking them for stuff! |
| #54 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 6/9/2010 2:01:13 PM |
| OK. Please... no more unnecessary wars. |
| #55 By 16797 (99.236.143.109) at 6/9/2010 3:01:16 PM |
|
#54 We're just talking. Don't give it too much importance, I am surprised anyone is even reading this :-)
#53 "Bush was only the President - he did not rule by decree. That is not how it works. " But, president can refuse to sign a bill, correct? That can be a lot too sometimes (because after that 2/3 votes are needed to workaround this veto). See, Clinton should have refused to sign repeal of Glass–Steagall Act in 1999. I know, Bush would have signed it year later anyways, but who knows.. (In any case, I am, I think, aware of what is needed for a bill to become a law. Not sure where I even implied that bills do not need to go through the house and the senate, etc.) #53 "President Bush cautioned the new Congress about its spending" Too funny :-) Oh, is that why Cheney said that "deficits don't matter" and then treasury secretary (Paul O'Neil), that was strongly against adding more to deficits, had to resign? Is that why he pushed those tax cuts for rich through using reconciliation if I remember correctly? Those tax cuts for rich are all unpaid for. More deficits. (I am not blaming Bush for everything, but boy did he mess so many things.) This post was edited by gonzo on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 at 15:58. |
| #56 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 6/9/2010 11:32:55 PM |
|
"Those tax cuts for rich are all unpaid for."
I was pretty sure I made the argument earlier that the "0 net jobs created" also meant "0 net jobs lost" even though Bush's term started with a bad recession and ended with a worse one. It may be that the Bush tax cuts were a stimulus that worked and the jobs lost in the 2001 were regained because of the tax cuts. Most level headed people now realize that Obama's stimulus did not make anything better and made the deficit way worse than the Bush deficits. http://blog.heritage.org/?p=4210 |
| #57 By 16797 (99.236.143.109) at 6/10/2010 7:40:59 AM |
|
#56 "I was pretty sure I made the argument earlier that the "0 net jobs created" also meant "0 net jobs lost" even though Bush's term started with a bad recession and ended with a worse one. "
In other words, nothing was accomplished in terms of jobs, yet deficit increased. And when he left, economy was losing jobs at about 700K jobs/month. Yet another "mission accomplished" I guess. You talk of this recession as if it is something god forced upon us all. Same like 9/11, Bush was in office for what, 8 months, but hey, it's not his fault, somebody else was supposed to do something to prevent it.. Elections tell story too. Agreed, it makes no sense to continue this discussion.. we're both repeating same points.. |
| #58 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 6/10/2010 11:37:23 AM |
|
"In other words, nothing was accomplished in terms of jobs"
Except for the 8.6 million created after the first recession. If you are down 10-0 in a baseball game, and you score 10 in the bottom of the 9th, its an accomplishment (except to left wing loonies like you). "And when he left, economy was losing jobs at about 700K jobs/month" And yet he was still not in negative numbers when he left office. The current economy is still losing 500,000 jobs a month. How is that hope and change working out? |
| #59 By 16797 (99.236.143.109) at 6/10/2010 12:11:06 PM |
|
# 58 "If you are down 10-0 in a baseball game, and you score 10 in the bottom of the 9th, its an accomplishment (except to left wing loonies like you). "
Not really because all your players are dead or in hospital and you still have many many games to play. Last month: 30K private jobs added. April: 230K private jobs added. Compared to -700K, not bad. Go troll elsewhere :-) |
| #60 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 6/10/2010 4:26:45 PM |
|
My mistake. It is almost 500,000 jobs a week lost:
"In the week ending June 5, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 456,000" http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 51 through 75 of 553 Prev | First | Last | Next |
The time now is
12:13:13 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
