| 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 |
 |
Massachusetts calls Microsoft's behavior `troubling' | |
|
||
| Time: 10:03 EST/15:03 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Massachusetts, the lone holdout in the Microsoft antitrust settlement, said on Friday that the software giant may be engaging in "troubling" new efforts to crush its rivals. Massachusetts, the last state opposing the settlement with the federal government approved by US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, said in a court filing that the settlement had failed to rein in Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct, and may not be able to do so. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 303 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:54:38 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 1/18/2004 1:25:33 PM |
| I find Mr. Reilly's behavior equally troubling. |
| #2 By 9589 (66.57.156.92) at 1/18/2004 8:38:03 PM |
|
#2 - "Its most ardent attackers portray Scientology as a totalitarian organization bent on world domination" - Yeah, I guess the Germans would be able to recognize a totalitarian organization when they see one!
The goofy Germans ban Scientolgoy, but support Saddam Hussein. The former is a joke foisted on humanity by Ron L. Hubbard and the later is an inhuman regime that was the epitome of evil and now is gone forever from the earth. Are you "clear", yet? |
| #3 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 1/19/2004 12:57:48 PM |
|
LOL! So since we're talking politics... :-)
This week we had a fascinating glimpse into the world from which parker picks up his "facts". This is a rare glimpse into the inner world of the conservative mind. Consider this an edition of Wild Kingdom, and I'm your host Marlin Perkins. [Insert soundtrack for dramatic effect] The GOP Smear machine started this week with an **World Exclusive** article from The Drudge Report declaring that Wes Clark made case for Iraq War before Congress. http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/01/16/20040116_014804_mattwc.htm Ed Gillepsie, the RNC party chair picked up on it the next day... http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=3805 The WSJ had it on their News & Views page The Washington Times played along http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040115-112529-9766r.htm There were also articles from Andrew Sullivan, and a whole slew of other news sources. It was spread wide and far by the vast right-wing conspiracy. But here's the bizarre part. The Republican party, Matt Drudge and all their ilk were making the assumption that Americans are too stupid to check their facts. Knight-Ridder(you know, part of that evil liberal media) published an article pointing out how Matt Drudge distorted Clark's testimony to create his article. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/election2004/7720762.htm Josh Marshall posted the entire testimony to his site, just in case you're interested. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/clark.perle.testimony.pdf He then points out that what's bizarre about the Republican Smear Machine's claims is that right there in the testimony, Richard Perle himself tells Congress that Wes Clarks testimony dost not say what Matt Drudge claims it does. That is, Clark is not making the case for war, b ut rather the case that Iraq is not an imminent threat, and we can and should focus our efforts elsewhere instead. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_01_11.html#002424 But the original Drudge article sounded so convincing, didn't it? That's cause Drudge not only cherry picked quotations out of context, he even went so far as to take a quote from page 6, add in a quote from page 25, then go back to page 6 all in one paragraph using ellipses to reconstruct it into a semi-coherent argument. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_01_11.html#002427 These are the same people who made the convincing argument justifying war against Iraq by cherry picking pieces of evidence out of context from intelligence reports to prove that Iraq had WMDs and was going to use them against the US if we didn't act quickly. This was just a small example of exactly how they operate, and why they can't be trusted. |
| #4 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 1/19/2004 1:12:32 PM |
|
BTW, parker.
The case for war that you guys made was that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, he was an imminent threat and we had to act now before we had a mushroom cloud over New York City. Even after the UN put in weapons inspectors who found nothing, that still wasn't enough and you committed this Nation to war. So now we have 150,000 troops in Iraq being shot at, being bombed, under fire every day and dying in the streets. All because you convinced yourself that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and once we invaded we'd find evidence, and you wouldn't have to take responsibility for your fabrications. Now you've backed off those claims, and you've done the "Saddam Hussein wasn't a nice guy" argument, hoping to get liberal sympathy. Well nobody is saying that Hussein was a nice guy. Nobody is saying that Hussein wasn't evil. What we are saying is this... http://carlisle-www.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.pdf The global war on terrorism as presently defined and conducted is strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military and other resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security. The United States may be able to defeat, even destroy, al-Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil. It's all about prioritizing our resources and using them effectively, and that can only be done by smart people who are reading the intelligence data trying to understand it, not just cherry picking out details that support their preconcieved ideologies. This post was edited by sodablue on Monday, January 19, 2004 at 13:14. |
| #5 By 9589 (66.57.156.92) at 1/19/2004 6:40:42 PM |
|
#5 - Stated, "Tell that to the woman, the scientologists murdered in clearwater and got away with it, just because she wanted to leave.
They are a very powerful and dangerous organization." There is no doubt that Scientology is a dangerous organization. And, perhaps, as you say, they are responsible for a death in Clearwater. If that is the case, then the perpertrators should be charged, tried and convicted. Meanwhile, the biggest blow to a so-called "religion" like Scientology is that its tax exempt status be taken away. My guess is that Hubbard devised it for that reason alone. But, then if you know how they "clear" people. It must have been irresistible for him to continue. "Clearing" is the process of one person on a skin galvanic response meter (what amounts to being a crude lie detector device) telling another person all about their life while it is often being recorded! The idea is to "clear" past all of the burdens of this and past lives to attain a certain "clarity of reason or state of mind." As you can tell from this brief description, it is a wonder that any one leaves this "church." You quickly are at the mercy of your "clearer" since you have told him or her things that would certainly be embarrassing and possibly illegal about your life and often of those around you. While the above "church" is nothing more than a system to enslave people one at a time, in my opinion, the Saddam regime enslaved an entire country and was responsible for millions of lives destroyed, tortured, and murdered over several decades both inside and outside of Iraq. The fact that we, the United States, had the gumption to rid the world of this merciless dictator should make every citizen proud to be an American. Having served in Army Special Forces for 26 years and now retired, I can say with some perspective that it has been worth the loss of American lives and treasure. The result up to now is that we have enjoyed a terrorist free period within our borders since 9/11. Meanwhile, more than a few trouble spots across the globe are less so today as well. The hopeful end game of this endeavor is a country free and democratic and a entire region on its way to the same. |
| #6 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 1/19/2004 7:01:39 PM |
|
parker - "Or are you saying that stopping Saddam from acquiring nuclear weapons was not worth going to war over? "
No, I'm saying we had stopped Saddam from acquiring nuclear weapons already without having to go to war. In fact that's what Colin Powell was saying in 2001, in addition to Wesley Clark in 2002. You'll forgive me, but I'm going to trust the word of men who have read the intelligence briefings over your fabrications. "Wesley Clark and Bill Clinton attacked and invaded Serbia while Serbia was less of a threat to the United States than Iraq was. " How so? 1.5 million refugees were exiting Kosovo and destabilizing the neighboring nations. It was critical to the security of Europe, and we performed the operation under a NATO banner with the support and cooperation of 19 member nations. It was much more of an imminent threat than Iraq. Remember that this region of Europe was responsible for igniting World War I. Meanwhile, Iraq had been contained. Colin Powell said so himself back in 2001, and I have every reason to believe he was being honest then. "Osama was dead by March 2003. " Well I hope that prediction is true. Sadly your history of predictions does not lend to believing in your credibility. |
| #7 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 1/19/2004 7:20:41 PM |
|
jdhawk - "The result up to now is that we have enjoyed a terrorist free period within our borders since 9/11."
I think it's clear that you don't understand what is at risk here. The threat of this terrorism from Al Qaeda is not just towards the United States. It is a threat towards Western Society. The fact that we have not had a terrorist attack within the US, while these threats have increased externally, is a small comfort considering such attacks have increased in frequency against allied nations. The only way Iraq plays into this is the way in which the US destroyed the good will and cooperative nature that we had engendered following 9/11. Such destruction of allegiances does not make the West safer, and certainly does not make the US safer. Other than that there was no connection between the terrorism and Iraq. "Meanwhile, more than a few trouble spots across the globe are less so today as well. The hopeful end game of this endeavor is a country free and democratic and a entire region on its way to the same. " I'm not aware of any trouble spots across the globe which are less troublesome today than 3 years ago, rather quite the opposite. What areas are you thinking of? As to the Democratizing the middle-east like dominoes... We heard that line before, back with Vietnam. The only way the middle-east will ever become a stable Democracy is if the people rise up and demand it of their leaders. Just as the United States rose up and demanded it of England. Sure blood will be shed on their parts, but blood was shed by our forefathers with the very same purpose, and it is that foundation of blood and guts which has been the root and strength of the United States of America. The mission of this great nation of ours is not to enforce democracy at the end of a gun. Our founding fathers never envisioned such a mission, and it is doomed to failure. We promote democracy through education and setting ourselves up as a shining example of democracy in action. Our military is necessary to defend, but we don't have the stomach for colonization. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 303 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:54:38 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
