ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

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

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

MSN Gives Consumers 1,000 More Reasons an Hour To Upgrade to MSN Messenger 6.0

Time: 10:46 EST/15:46 GMT | News Source: Microsoft | Posted By: Robert Stein

Consumers have more than just the new and improved features of MSN� Messenger 6.0 -- everything from live video pictures and online games to customized backgrounds and oodles of new and animated emoticons -- to convince them to upgrade to the newest version of the world's most-used free instant messaging (IM) service.* On four upcoming Fridays, MSN will give away $1,000 an hour for 10 hours to U.S. consumers who enter the Friday Fast Cash sweepstakes** and are logged on to MSN Messenger 6.0.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 212
Last | Next

The time now is 1:36:26 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 7/16/2003 2:07:16 PM

You're both wrong.

Kennedy was killed by the Illuminati for authorizing via Presidential Executive Order the creation of the HIV virus. He was under their direct control at the time (through his cocaine habit). But the Illuminati was, in fact, a foil for me, The Great Cthulhu, to destroy man using their greatest vices--sex and "recreational" drug use.

So, in fact, you can blame me.

Why do I tell you this, foolish, insufferable mortal? Because I, like many Bond villains, have a penchant for the dramatic. Plus, my plan is impossible to divert--although it will take 1000 of your years to complete the destruction of man, that is but a blink of the eye to me who is immortal, patient, and potent; until then I sit, soft and snug in my hideous, non-Euclidean chambers in my sunken city!

Laugh with me! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

And you want to know what else I have planned for you? DO YOU!

I invented Linux, Unix, and frogurt! FEAR ME! I am too perverse for words! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

#2 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/16/2003 2:25:53 PM

Everyone knows that Colnel Sanders heads the illuminati and Gates is a slave to him.

Wow... cookoo!

And everyone talks about right-wing whackos... there are just as many on the left.

#3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/16/2003 2:44:36 PM

Ehh, don't want to get into politics, but I was talking to a few friends last night about this exact story. It IS IN FACT a complete fluff PR piece that read like complete insubstantial bullshit ON THE FRONT PAGE for Mr. Gate's benefit. One of my friends is a journalist, one is a programmer, and we didn't discuss this from an ABM or in-any-way-MS-related manner... Simply from the perspective that the NYT is printing fluffy PR on the front page, obviously to someone's benefit.

Jagged, some day you'll have to explain your logic: "The writer of that article simultaneously states that $6 billion is nothing ("only 2% of his net worth"), and also that the $6 billion is having a significant impact on "killing Africans." Well, which is it?"

Where's the contradiction? 2% of my net worth isn't much, certainly wouldn't get me much accolades on the frontpage of the NYT, but it would be a substantial sum to a homeless heroin addict on the street, wouldn't it? How are the two statements in opposition?

#4 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/16/2003 3:20:48 PM

Either way, Bush or Gates, throwing medicine at the problem doesn't help much.

As we see in San Francisco as well as Africa, as newer drugs come to market and help alleviate the SYMPTOMS and to a very minor extent the cause of the problem (HIV and AIDS), the people with the disease resume their normal behavior and are, in some cases, emboldened by their new found life (concept of barebacking, etc).

In communities in Africa where drugs have been supplied from donations like Gates', the AIDS rate skyrockets as the people, who are mostly uneducated, think the pill is a cure, not a treatment and go out, thinking they're bulletproof and infect tons of other people.

Encouraging abstinence and faithfulness first, and condom use second is the only way to help stem the rate of infection. Give the drugs to the people who are most affected and either quarantine them, or educate them on the risks that still exist.

It seems to be working in Uganda with their ABC plan:
Abstinence, and if you're in a relationship:
Be faithful, and if you can't do either of those and you're hopeless, at least use a
Condom

Of course, I'm sure Blue will slam me as being some ultra fundamentalist right-wing Christian whacko which is not the case.

It's really simple. If you don't smoke, you won't get smoking-related illnesses. If you don't have sex, or have sex responsibly, you won't get sexual-related illnesses. No religion, no "family values", just common sense.

-d

This post was edited by daz on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 at 15:26.

#5 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 7/16/2003 5:43:10 PM

"As we see in San Francisco as well as Africa, as newer drugs come to market and help alleviate the SYMPTOMS and to a very minor extent the cause of the problem (HIV and AIDS), the people with the disease resume their normal behavior and are, in some cases, emboldened by their new found life (concept of barebacking, etc).'

Bullsh!t! Show me a statistic where the infection rate of AIDS has climbed along with the availability of drugs in San Francisco. Show me that drugs have a countereffect against education in San Francisco.

To say that people remain uneducated in Africa is fine. To say that the same lack of education is present here in America (but only in one city, huh? Picking out a city because of your's and Rush's retarded perceptions, maybe?) and that this lack of knowledge is actually caused by the availability of drugs is another. To concede that education is a factor in this, but to place complete blame on the availability of drugs is a travesty of logic.

It is retarded, slanderous, ignorant, dangerous, and unsupported twaddle.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 at 17:57.

#6 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/16/2003 6:08:24 PM

#19: Huh? Apparently you haven't been paying attention. Haven't you heard of AIDS 2 or the growing "barebacking" trend?

Do a google for "AIDS resurgence".

(please note, I'm not saying that homosexuality is wrong or anything, I'm just reporting the clinical facts. I'm concerned more with AIDS than anything else and it's a concidence for this post that homosexuals have generally higher rates of infection)

Here's but one of the plethora of results:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-08-13-aids.htm

The decline has halted for a number of reasons, Gayle says. Some people delay getting tested for HIV, so they don't learn they are infected in time to obtain treatment and stave off illness. Moreover, AIDS drugs are toxic, difficult to take and often helpless against resistant strains of HIV, the AIDS virus. About 40% of people with AIDS lack access to appropriate treatment.

Also of interest:
These bleak trends were partly offset by good news � including an 84% decline in the number of infants infected with HIV by their mothers. Just 156 cases were diagnosed in 1999, studies show, vs. 901 in 1992.

So it seems infections from sources other than sex and drugs have greatly declined. This, I believe, shows that AIDS is resurging because of the resumption of irresponsible behavior among the communities most commonly affected by AIDS (homosexuals, I.V. drug users, prostitutes, etc).

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/aids_cdc010531.html

A government survey released today shows 4.4 percent of gay and bisexual men ages 23 to 29 are newly infected each year with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

It suggests even more staggering infection rates for blacks in that group: 14.7 percent � one in seven � become HIV-positive each year.

THIS IS MY POINT
The government's effort to contain HIV/AIDS may be cursed by its own success, CDC analysts said. New HIV infections have leveled off in America at about 40,000 a year, and improved medicine allows AIDS patients to live longer and healthier lives.

"People don't perceive that you get infected and you die in two months anymore," said Phill Wilson, executive director of the African-American AIDS Policy and Training Institute at the University of Southern California.

Exactly. The perception of AIDS as an instant killer is gone and so people resume their irresponsible behavior and infection rates go up (by irresponsible, I mean not using safe sex, sharing needles, or even doing IV drugs in the first place).

-----------------------
The stats of the CDC compiled in 2001 and updated in 2002:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1302.htm

#7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/16/2003 6:21:56 PM

daz, I stay fairly well-informed on the issue; too bad you use lousy sources and do not review their methodologies.

(your usatoday article is speaking from the world perspective, but worse it jumps all over the place and doesn't mention any sources, limitations, or methodolgies--for example: "The rate of unprotected sex among gay men in Seattle has increased nearly 20% since 1994." Oh, has it? 20% sounds high, but spread out over 6 years it's not as much... It even sounds to me like a simple increase in truthful reporting because pollees are more comfortable being themselves and can admit to their behaviors without (as great) a backlash--do you think that maybe 20% fewer men felt comfortable saying they had risky sex back in '94 than today?...hmmm, maybe;

your abc piece actually says this: "Government analysts acknowledged the data could be flawed: The men were recruited only at dance clubs, bars, city shopping centers and gay-and-lesbian community centers, so the true rates for all young gay and bisexual men could be higher or lower." Jesus Christ, if you ever wanted a damn good reason from keeping conservative fundamentalists out of the executive, how 'bout the complete lack of objectivity, reality, and sanity in their administration of scientific research, huh? You just convinced me that the CDC is a joke, daz, thanks. Fifteen years of research down the drain and backwards we go through 10 million years of evolution with a simple change of administration.)

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/May2002/PhonyHIVStats.htm

This very simple page will make it clear that new infections have gone down steadily in SF from 96 to 2001. Not only did the number of people who were reported on increase, so did testing, but NEW infections fell. i.e. their methodologies and coverage of the population are better, and the nubmers still reflect the exact opposite of the bullsh!t popular news.

What is lost in the mix is the fact that reporting of incidences has improved and that statistics being bandied around for increases do not actually refer to NEW infections.

This story also makes it clear that the gay advocates, research facilities, and governments have a hand in allowing bigots like yourself to be deluded in their own ignorance.

"New HIV infections have leveled off in America at about 40,000" Yeah, so after 10 years of increasing growth, growth is now FLAT. "so people resume their irresponsible behavior and infection rates go up" Didn't you just read your previous statements. The rate of infection remains the same, it has not gone up.

Go here: http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/Reports/HlthAssess.htm for some genuine AIDS statistics for the SF area.

Sorry, buddy, step away from the Faux News and usatoday, bullsh!t, and realize reality is something different than what they're telling you.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 at 18:48.

#8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/16/2003 7:01:45 PM

"Of course, I'm sure Blue will slam me as being some ultra fundamentalist right-wing Christian whacko which is not the case."

If soda won't I will: YOU ARE AN ULTRA FUNDAMENTALIST RIGHT-WING WHACKO!!

"It's really simple. If you don't smoke, you won't get smoking-related illnesses. If you don't have sex, or have sex responsibly, you won't get sexual-related illnesses. No religion, no "family values", just common sense."

Umm, most people would consider sex a biological imperative, quite unlike smoking. The notion that all sex should cease is very much tied to your deluded "family values" and religion and has nothing to do with common sense. Are you saying it's common sense to stop having sex? Sorry little conservative, but you are a WHACKO if you think so! Sexually transmitted diseases have existed throughout all humanity and will continue to... There are other ones too, did you know that? Some with higher incidences than HIV in certain areas/populations, and even amongst non-high-risk populations. I bet there are more nasty little Christian girls with chlamydia in Baltimore than there are gay black men with AIDS.

And guess what, there are airborne and waterborne diseases too. Do you have any "common sense" advice on how to wipe them out?

This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 at 19:03.

#9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/16/2003 7:24:28 PM

Actually, no, barebacking is unimpressive, unalarming, etc... to me. What about the word makes you think I would be defensive to it? If anything, I like the notion of it. I wish my girlfriend would get on the damn pill!

"Unprotected sex is not a biological imperative. " And, conversely, protected sex is NOT a biological imperitive. What's your point? And I strongely disagree: my point was we cannot exist by avoiding sex. I see no biological inclination to include a rubber when I have sexual desires; sex itself is the imperative--any qualification of it (unprotected or protected) is ridiculous--sex will happen no matter what, in whichever way... My point is that with any sexually-transmitted disease, you will have a baseline infection rate because unprotected sex is unavoidable. However, the subsistence of that disease or the lack of a continuing decline does not suggest renewed growth. Do you disagree with that?

Only a deluded person who lets his own "family values" intervene upon reality would think otherwise. Only a deluded person would think that sexually-transmitted diseases can be eliminated through the elimination of sex. Only a deluded person would think such a remedy is common sensical rather than nonsensical.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 at 19:43.

#10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/16/2003 7:35:05 PM

"Well, I'm thinking that here on the one hand he's just attacking Gates for not giving out enough money, and on the other hand he's harping about how it's having a big impact on people dying or something. I mean fine, it's 2% of his net worth, but if it's doing something significant what does that matter?"

No, he's harping on how pathetic NYT is to play him up big time despite the reality of its impact. Did you read the first sentences: "Bring back Jayson Blair! The New York Times has eliminated the scourge of plagiarized journalism by eliminating journalism altogether from its front page." I simply don't see how anyone can draw such a bizarre connection (or rather contradiction), but so be it.

Don't know why you all lose sight of the real story because it includes MS. The point of the story: there is a real story when it comes to American philanthropy's effect on the world, but a pathetic fluff piece appears as a bunch of PR bullsh!t probably triggered by money or influence from either side (the Republican adminstration that wants to claim success in Africa and/or Gates who wants to look fluffy and sweet), and it's the NYT's responsibility to cover the real story, not to promote bullsh!t. I dig the last sentence: "And for our own Republic, we can only hope that when the bully-boy billionaire injects his next wad of loot into the Bush political campaign, he uses a condom." i.e. We are getting fukked from both sides of this story as well as by the Times for actually publishing such twaddle.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 at 19:49.

#11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/16/2003 8:10:29 PM

And, so what, Africa is a horrible mess and Aussies are a bunch of world-traveling hicks... Take a look at Brazil. They have become the model for AIDS prevention and treatment for the World Health Oganization despite being a bunch of over-sexed, drug-adled heathens!!

And what does mentioning some random info about some random countries indicate? You cannot say that your last two posts supports the argument made by daz that infection rates increase because of the availability of effective treatments? Is this your point? Do you intend to support that argument? Because the Aussie story is just a mess and tells me nothing, and your Canada story is about immigrant populations which are afraid to face it, haven't received treatment, and view it as taboo -- the complete opposite of daz's argument... Which is what I was arguing against... And this is your rebuttal?

The only thing I get defensive about is ignorant d!psh!ts spreading inaccurate and harmful information as if it were fact. I get defensive about his making claims that his personal and/or religious views do not interfere, that he actually does not have anti-homosexual sentiments... when from much of what he posted it is clear that he actually does.

So let's get this straight: daz claimed that SF (a U.S. city) and Africa (a pretty substantial continent) show the same thing: that the availability of drugs motivates renewed high risk behavior and can accelerate the rate of infection.

So... I've demonstrated that the infection rate in the US and in SF in particular hasn't increased (his own usatoday story says the # of infected has been 40,000 for the last two years. (Not exactly the best supporting material). But, even worse, it doesn't mention that it was actually around 40,000 for the last FOUR years and that prior to that it was at 60,000. Where's the growth?) And I've tried to lead him to understand that there are many complex factors that can contribute to different rates of infection among different populations.

If you don't think there's an agenda in saying: "AIDS is spreading again in this country and faster than it has in the past (particularly in SF, and it's been demonstrated)", then you can't be helped, sorry. But otherwise, daz is very much wrong and needed a response.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 at 21:06.

#12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/17/2003 11:50:19 AM

parker, how many times do I have to tell you: learn to read. My previous posted link dispells the bullsh!t in your posts. In fact, this has been a famous story for the last three years in the city, which is why I asked daz to back up his claim in the first place--I knew there would be articles claiming so, but the fact is, this is propaganda and is not true.

#13 By 4240821 (45.149.82.86) at 10/26/2023 6:01:42 AM