| 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 |
 |
Bush Appoints Microsoft Architect to Tech Board | |
|
||
| Time: 18:36 EST/23:36 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Microsoft SQL Server(TM) architect Pedro Celis has been appointed by President George W. Bush to serve a two-year term on the President's Information and Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC). The committee will help guide the administration's efforts to accelerate the development and adoption of information technologies considered vital for U.S. prosperity in the 21st century. According to the White House, the members of PITAC, who are leading IT experts from industry and academia, will provide the president with "expert, independent advice" on maintaining America's "preeminence in advanced information technologies." The 25-member committee will focus on national IT infrastructure topics that include high-performance computing, large-scale networking, and high-assurance software and systems design. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 310 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:23:38 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/14/2003 8:15:58 PM |
| I see nothing in this article referring to Hamas. |
| #2 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/14/2003 9:43:01 PM |
|
"court appointed" *snicker* I always laugh at that one.
*sigh*.... oh how great it must be to not have the first understand on the constitution or the law of our land and just be spoon fed whatever Michael Moore is sprewing forth. It must be a happy life, I guess. |
| #3 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/15/2003 1:21:24 AM |
|
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&DATAMODE=
There have been 2 or 3, maybe more, independent audits that have come up with about the same numbers, Bush winning by more or less in every account. One of the audits was by the major news agencies including the NYPost, NYTimes, WashPost, etc. So, even without the illegal gerymandering the Democrats did during the counting, and the FL State Supreme Court throwing out the rule of law, Bush still technically won This post was edited by daz on Thursday, May 15, 2003 at 01:30. |
| #4 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/15/2003 8:36:45 PM |
|
#6: I wasn't saying they were evil, I'm just saying that what the Broward and Palm Beach county election officials was doing was illegal.
I mean, the law was right there, it was pretty obvious to everyone, but the Democrats can never accept defeat or, god forbid, a loss of power, so they bent the law as far as they could. The liberal activist FL Supreme Court ignored precedent and laws on the book as far as deadlines and how votes should be counted and threw out the Rule of Law in order to rig the election. Bush had WON THE ELECTION ACCORDING TO THE LEGAL MEANS OF COUNTING THE BALLOTS AND THE DEADLINES SET FORTH IN FLORIDA STATE LAW. The US Supreme Court merely upheld FL state law. There was no "appointing" about it. The counts were the deciding factor, as well as the FL state law. The Surpeme Court merely upheld it. But, no amount of fact, reason, or logic will ever convince you Democrats that you lost fair and square and that the Rule of Law was upheld. |
| #5 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 5/16/2003 12:18:22 AM |
| It doesn't matter how Bush got into office, he simply shouldn't be there. |
| #6 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/16/2003 1:30:39 AM |
|
The problem is that the recounts were being conducted illegally and were causing ballots to mysteriously disappear. Ballots were tampered with, rendering them invalid AFTER the first recount.
The problem is that the democrats just wanted to keep recounting until they got the numbers they were working towards. But the recount period had expired and 2 (maybe 3, I'll have to double check) recounts were performed. The democrats wanted to twist and bend the law until they got their way and the US Supreme Court, not a light organization and not really controlled by conservatives, observed the fact that the law said that you had to count the ballots in a specific period of time, so the numbers stood. Later, we find out that Bush was the winner anyhow, so I don't see any illegitimatacy except that the Democrats were able to get away with as much crap as they were able to get away with (ballot tampering, etc). If there was any subversion, it was the tacticts of the Democrats to rewrite the law over and over again until they bought themselves enough time to lose enough Republican ballots to achieve their desired numbers. I suggest you reread the legal positions of the R's and the D's at the time, and the outrageous and completely unprecedented and activist decision from the FL Supreme Court, and then the arguments and decision before the US Supreme Court. It's pretty cut and dry. The Law said you only have so much time to do recounts and they did 2 or 3 recounts, but the Dems were fighting to be allowed to keep recounting until MAGICALLY enough votes showed up. Your revision of history only embarasses you. Please don't make me pull up all the facts, because then I will be pissed when you continue to deny it even when smacked in the face with it. |
| #7 By 61 (65.32.171.144) at 5/16/2003 10:27:00 AM |
|
Actually, Moore, there were hand-recounts done, clearly showing that Bush had won.
There a total of 4, yes that is 4, recounts done, I believe it was all but one showing that Bush won. What exactly did Bush, et all, do on election night that was so bad? And why was it bad? BTW, I am a Florida citizen. |
| #8 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/16/2003 3:46:23 PM |
|
#19: Perhaps you should stop playing Internet Lawyer. "Court Appointed" has a very specific meaning and the process by which the election was decided did not involve an appointment by a court, or by any entity, for that matter. It was decided through an election process clearly spelled out in FL state law. All the USSC did was uphold the FL State Law and prevent the Democrats from tampering with it or overriding it.
A court decision on law and an a court appointment ( a completely different process involved different court systems) are not the same, and I would hope you can recognize that, but it seems you have the reality blinders on. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 310 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:23:38 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
