| 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 |
 |
Defense bill could stifle computer trade | |
|
||
| Time: 09:31 EST/14:31 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
In a move that has re-energized the debate over export controls on high-performance computers, the latest version of a defense-spending bill would require companies to seek licenses to export even underpowered desktop computers. The dramatic tightening of export regulations is included in the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual military funding bill that has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Though the proposed rules are only a tiny portion of the 630-page bill, they could have a devastating impact on the computer industry. "It would bring exports to a grinding halt," said Dan Hoydish, director of trade, public policy and government affairs for Unisys and chairman of the Computer Coalition for Responsible Exports, a trade group that counts many major technology companies as members. "We wouldn't be asking for 20 export licenses in a year, we would be asking for 20,000 in a day." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 156 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:00:15 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 11723 (192.139.71.69) at 7/5/2004 12:09:53 PM |
|
It may also drive smaller computer manufacturers out of the United States.
Larger companies such as IBM which already have a global presence will be able to do business in other coutries, but the smaller companies which do global business based out of the United States may suddenly find those global markets closed to them. |
| #2 By 860 (68.62.165.46) at 7/5/2004 12:38:38 PM |
| Land of the free! |
| #3 By 931 (66.156.95.189) at 7/5/2004 11:16:03 PM |
|
"The Bush administation are a bunch of idiots. "
... It's your congress moron that passes legislation. Assuming this even passes the senate, which it will not it'll be stripped or watered down in committee.. keep your panties on. |
| #4 By 135 (208.186.90.168) at 7/5/2004 11:30:28 PM |
|
Well wouldn't you know... Congress slams yet something else into a bill that they don't have a fricking clue about. And there very likely wasn't any debate, because debate is bad, we just must follow the leader's wisdom.
And sadly, we already know the President doesn't have a backbone, and he won't veto any spending bill Congress sends him. Bush just loves to spend other people's money, and bloat the size of government. Bloody idjits. It's time we moved into DC with a bulldozer and cleaned house. |
| #5 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 7/6/2004 3:13:52 AM |
|
Gawd...could I spill the beans in this thread....
Look, the President has as a primarly responsibility, the requirement to provide for the common defense of the constitution and this country. The country is engaged in leading and fighting a global war on extremist theocrates that have shown that the intentional targeting of the innocent is not just acceptable to them, but their primary tactic. New laws and regulation are designed to account for technology transfers and distribution - not eliminate them. The President, acting on the advice of countless professionals, will or will not sign into law, Bills, passed in committee, to him as originated in our legislature. He may, in extreme cases, and subject to very strict limits, sign an executive order, providing for greater accountability of technology transfers. Please remember, we are at war - a war which began with an unprecedented sneak attack against innocent people. We all watched more than 3,000 of them incinerated in front of us. The President is doing his duty - if that includes limiting the undocumented transfer of technology then so be it - I am sure legitimate countries and knowing companies will happily comply. I am equally sure that once the war is won, then such restrictions will be relaxed. Personally, I'd accept whatever sacrifices are necessary to ensure we do win. |
| #6 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 7/6/2004 10:14:09 AM |
| The liberation of Iraq had everything to do with the War and the administration's strategy for fighting it. The doctrine of preemption required an "examlple" - adding to the political, military and economic hagemony secured by this couintry. That doctrine, endorsed at every level in our government, requires that decisive action be taken to prevent the attacks that resulted in its adoption. The war, the way it is fought and the restriction by accounting for technology transfers is part of a complete strategy designed ro defeat extremist theocrates that would butcher people like you and me. As a retired soldier, I can attest after having fought these kinds of people that they cannot be reasoned with. Making high-powered tools freely available to them is not consistent with the President's duty to protect and preserve the constitution, or good sense. What exactly does an enemy have to do before you pursue victory as aggressively as many seem to pursue complacency? Do you not see that the decades of more moderate policies were our nation's attempts to prevent the very war we are now engaged in - no matter how distasteful? Only after the attack did we change that policy. What "specifically" should we do opposite technology transfers and distribution - nothing? Do you not see how packet based communications and high-powered PC's have been used by extremist theocrates to help kill our people and our soldiers? |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/6/2004 10:35:19 AM |
|
Fear! Uncertainty! Doubt!
And you wonder why they're losing the war against Al Qaeda. They don't even know where the battle is, much less what war we are fighting. Just want you to hide in your basement with your plastic sheeting and duct tape, and vote to keep the mighty leader in power. Begone with you lketchum, your pessimistic view of fear and hate is unwelcome in this great nation of ours. Go back to Soviet Russia where you were spawned. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 at 10:36. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/6/2004 4:45:04 PM |
|
Phaedrus - Yeah. Richard Clarke mentions in his book that there was a memo from Karl Rove prior to the start of the war talking about how they were going to use their winning the Iraq War in the 2004 campaign. The LA Times just reported over the weekend that the Saddam statue coming down in the square was even staged.
I think the Mission Accomplished flight-suit photo-op is going to go down in history as the focal point of this campaign stunt, and how a President can abuse the trust of the American people for banal reasons. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 156 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:00:15 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
