backtop


Print 185 comment(s) - last by Strunf.. on Jul 18 at 10:08 PM

But there is a 20% chance that Windows will be delayed again

During a press conference, Microsoft Europe's president Darren Huston told reporters that despite the fine imposed on it by the European Commission, Windows Vista will go forward as planned and will not be affected. "I don't think this has any impact on the teams and the efforts that are going forward to that launch," Huston said.

Earlier this week, DailyTech reported that the European Commission decided to go forward with a $357 million fine to Microsoft for not complying with an anti-trust ruling. According to the ruling, Microsoft was asked to unbundle its Windows Media Player as well as share some of its Windows technology with competitors to even out competition. Microsoft was given several months to comply, but did not.

Interestingly, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates stated that there is an 80% chance that Windows Vista will ship by January 2007. Gates told reporters that he would not hesitate to delay Windows Vista's release date even further if Microsoft found critical bugs from beta testing. So far, Microsoft has removed various features from Windows Vista, some of which were originally touted as revolutionary. Despite this, Huston said "we are still committed to the existing plan of record."

Microsoft may face another fine of $634 million if it still does not comply with European Commission demands by July 31st of this year.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What is ridiculous
By smitty3268 on 7/13/2006 11:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
is the sheer number of posts that get put up every time we have an article about MS and the EU, always saying the exact same things.

Person A: MS is like Jesus, and the EU are the Romans crucifying him.
Person B: No, no, MS is more like Hitler, and the EU has decided not to appease him this time.
...
...
...
...




RE: What is ridiculous
By fayainz on 7/13/2006 11:56:48 AM , Rating: 3
Then why did you read this in the first place?


RE: What is ridiculous
By smitty3268 on 7/13/2006 12:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
Because it amuses me?


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 1:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
The reason is that the EU's rulings are controversial and they tap into deeply-held feelings of ethics, morals, nationalism, etc.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/13/2006 4:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
That's because Americans are self centered... I mean don’t you watch the news EVERY time someone doesn’t agree with them they are forcefully wrong... last time I heard you guys were even changing the name of your fries...

And before you guys start flaming me and saying that others are too, you may be right but as far as I know the EU isn’t a US state not a 3rd world country you guys can bully around, you want to make business in our lands you have to go by our rules if not no need to come, its really disrespectful to go to someone else house and act like if it was yours, sooner or later you get stomped for your doings… and don’t feel sorry for MS the WTO is there to hear them but I doubt they will complain cause that would mean more bad publicity and that’s bad for the business.


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 5:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's because Americans are self centered... I mean don’t you watch the news EVERY time someone doesn’t agree with them they are forcefully wrong... last time I heard you guys were even changing the name of your fries...

Besides being a stupid comment (do you really believe that all Americans are self-centered - all 300 million of them?), it doesn't even address the question made by the original poster which is that there are typically two poles in the discussion - the American view and the European view.

Do you really not understand the "freedom fries" thing? I can explain it to you if you like.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/13/2006 8:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
My comment is not on topic ? actually is right on the target if your telling I'm really off topic then tell why there's so many posts criticizing the EU and the EU citizens?... And the stats don’t lie the Americans are the most patriotic/nationalistic people around… you’re right there’s two point of view the American one “Its our way or no way” and the European one “Its our way or no way” funny as they look like a lot…

Freedom fries? yes I know what it means it was all over the news back then.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/13/2006 9:20:34 PM , Rating: 1
> "That's because Americans are self centered... I mean don’t you watch the news EVERY time someone doesn’t agree with them they are forcefully wrong"

We like to argue here in America. It works out aggression, and keeps us from engaging in the mass genocides favored by so many European nations.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/13/2006 9:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
Really ? I'm not sure the North American natives are of the same opinion...


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 9:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not sure the North American natives are of the same opinion...

The Native Americans were largely decimated by diseases brought by Europeans, so good luck with that line of reasoning.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 6:56:36 AM , Rating: 2
Again...I'm not sure the North American natives are of the same opinion...


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 9:21:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again...I'm not sure the North American natives are of the same opinion...

Not sure what you mean, since it is a historical fact. But I suppose you're the type that would argue black is white anyway - "don't confuse me with the facts"?


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 8:42:30 AM , Rating: 2
Number of Native Americans victimized by genocide in the past 100 years: 0

Number of Europeans victimized by genocide in the past century: {**overflow error**}


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 10:21:53 AM , Rating: 2
True... I never pretended that we were saints either hence why I didn’t contradict what was said before but pointed that you guys aren’t saints either... and I could just as well reply something in the same way you did just now but that is just too easy when the US stakes it nose in soo many places…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 11:27:28 AM , Rating: 2
> "I never pretended that we were saints either..."

While I understand what motivates your desire to now back down from earlier remarks, you can't change what you said. "Americans are self-centered"; which, when stated by a European, becomes the phrase "Americans are more self-centered than us".

Furthermore, immigration from Europe to the US is still many times higher than that from US to Europe. And, as for the US "sticking its nose" into places, the fact remains that the US still garners as much criticism for *failing*
to act as it does for acting. Criticism from Europeans, in fact, who wish the US would "stick its nose" into more situations its wishes help upon.




RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 12:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don’t back down from my earlier remarks, like I said stats give me the reason, Americans are the most patriotic/nationalistic people on earth... and when was the last time the EU acted alone even if pretty much everyone disagreed with it ?...

I think the criticism the US gets for its actions far surpasses the ones for not acting... actually hardly ever I heard someone say the US should do something about it but then again maybe you know better than I what we Europeans think about the US and its world police work...


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 12:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "stats give me the reason, Americans are the most patriotic/nationalistic people on earth"

Where are your statistics for this claim?

> "when was the last time the EU acted alone even if pretty much everyone disagreed with it ?"

You mean, besides that little WW2 thing?

More recently, I seem to recall that, when the UN rejected military action against Yugoslavia, that all the NATO members willingly voted to attack anyway, and participated in the subsequent hostilities. Italy, Germany, France, Denmark...even Greece, despite its publicly stated opposition to the war.

Of course, when the UN rejected military action against Iraq, those same European nations conveniently decided that a far larger coalition than NATO would be in violation of
"international law", for proceeding anyway.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 2:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
Cause you call Germany the EU now ?...

All the NATO members is hardly alone... don’t ya think.

A larger coalition than NATO? when we know NATO accounts most of the top countries in the world and keeps expanding I find it really hard to make a even larger coalition...at least when it comes to military equipment, the fact is no country besides the US really wanted to attack the Iraq and the Afghanistan.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 2:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "All the NATO members is hardly alone... don’t ya think"

Ah, the attack on Yugoslavia, denied by the UN, but approved by 16 nations, is "hardly alone"...but the attack on Iraq, approved by 49 nations, is "the evil US acting alone"?

You're losing credibility fast here.



RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 3:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
Really 49 ? I wonder how many each of them contributed for the war effort, would I be optimistic if I said that all of them combined are less than 5% of the overall investment?...


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 4:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really 49 ? I wonder how many each of them contributed for the war effort, would I be optimistic if I said that all of them combined are less than 5% of the overall investment?...

Yes, you are right - primarily US families are paying for the Iraq war disproportionately through the deaths of their family members, US service men and women paying through their injuries sustained in Iraq, and US taxpayers (current and future) are paying nearly the entire financial cost of the war with Iraq (total direct cost to US taxpayers will probably be around $500B).

This is obviously a sad situation since the work done in Iraq potentially benefits the world (especially Europe), not just Americans. The main contribution from Europe (with the UK and few others being notable exceptions) is criticism of the war effort, not unlike your criticism.

How about if you guys take care of the next rogue state - maybe Europe should solve the problem with N. Korea and America will sit on the sidelines and criticize Europe's actions. But you and I know that this situation would never happen, for many reasons.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 5:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
> "Really 49 ? I wonder how many each of them contributed for the war effort..."

Most of them contributed very little...just as most of the NATO nations contributed little to nothing against the war in Yugoslavia.

What's your point? European nations have long been willing to let the US pick up the tab for their actions. The nations named stil supported the war efforts. And those European nations still-- in Yugoslavia even more so than Iraq-- supported unilateral action, in disregard of UN mandate.



RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 1:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don’t back down from my earlier remarks, like I said stats give me the reason, Americans are the most patriotic/nationalistic people on earth... and when was the last time the EU acted alone even if pretty much everyone disagreed with it ?...

I think that's largely true. Only America has the guts to take on big problems like Iraq, although most American citizens are not happy with that situation for obvious reasons.
quote:
I think the criticism the US gets for its actions far surpasses the ones for not acting... actually hardly ever I heard someone say the US should do something about it but then again maybe you know better than I what we Europeans think about the US and its world police work...

I disagree - the US gets a lot of criticism for not acting. Even (literally) today, I hear in news reports that many are critical of the US administration for not getting more involved to help the current crisis in the Middle East. And of course the US was highly criticized for not getting involved to stop atocities in Rwanda, Darfur/Sudan, etc. Obviously Europe also sits on the sidelines in many of these cases, but America, being the only remaining superpower, seems to have acquired the role of world police. Believe me, that is not a role that most Americans are comfortable with. Not to mention the cost in terms of US lives and how much it costs US taxpayers.

Believe me, I for one would be pleased to see the EU help more in this "world police" role. But based on the history, I don't see this as a realistic possibility.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 3:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
“on big problems like Iraq”
You mean the worry of the WMD that are yet to be found ?...

The EU is today 25 countries and 5 more expecting to be part of it in the near future, we have better things to do than play the world police, like for instance but not only fine US companies… I sure wouldn’t like to see the EU now investing more than they already invest in more army equipment; actually I would be more than happy if the army was reduced to half what it is today, like no more than 0.5% the GDP of each country.


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 4:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The EU is today 25 countries and 5 more expecting to be part of it in the near future, we have better things to do than play the world police

Such an isolationist policy is not possible in today's world. First, problems in other parts of the world will also affect Europe; so even if you take a selfish perspective, Europe still needs to get involved for its own good.

Second, Europe shares the moral responsibilities of preventing genocide and other human rights violations, preserving the global environment, helping to promote peace and stability throughout the world, etc. You cannot always crawl into your shell or stick your head in the sand and assume somebody else will always solve the world's problems.

Your dreams of pacificism (spending no more than 0.5% of GDP on military) and isolationism are dreams we all share, but unfortunately, the world is full of bad situations that require attention. This is the lesson of World War II. Being from Europe (I assume), you should already know this.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 5:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
True... funny however that you speak of global environment when the US didn’t sign the Kyoto agreements, one could argue if we are or not causing the warming up of our planet, but still the agreements are regardless of its reasons a step forward in global environment policy.

While I may not have been for the Iraqi war I do agree in the commitment of the EU countries on the Iraq/Afghanistan reconstruction.

As for North Korea I don’t know if they will go rogue when even China seems to want them to cool down, the Iran on the other hand may cause a tougher headache…

The 0.5 is not really that low, today we are at lets say 1 to 2% of the GDP and this when each country has its own equipment, if we combine everything together into something organized through the member states, we gain in efficiency and then I can bet that with less money we can still maintain a fairly large army, enough to not fear to be attacked by conventional means and with some troops available for the peacekeeping missions.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 5:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "still the agreements are regardless of its reasons a step forward in global environment policy."

Actually, I recently posted a letter from some 60-odd climate scientists, saying that Kyoto was a massive step backwards in environmental policy. Do you know more than they?

> "As for North Korea I don’t know if they will go rogue..."

Already happened, just last week. Did you miss their little fireworks show?

> "I can bet that with less money we can still maintain a fairly large army, enough to not fear to be attacked by conventional means "

And what prevents you from being attacked by nonconventional means? We already know that answer, don't we? The US.

Let me clue you in a little elementary geopolitique. Once Iran has nuclear weapons, it will motivate its neighbors-- and other nuclear-hopeful nations-- to seek them as well. Iran is also very likely to export nuclear technology, just as has other nuclear-capable nations such as China and Pakistan.

Today, 10-12 nations have nuclear weapons...and that number is only small due massive amounts of pressure from the US (that "world cop" role you despise so). But in 25 years, that number could easily be double. Non-nuclear unconventional weapons (biochem) are even easier to develop.

A military is like an insurance policy. Expensive when you don't need it...priceless when you do. And, just like that policy, its too late to purchase one when you notice the house on fire. As you would have thought Europe would have learned by now.


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 6:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
masher2, sorry for my somewhat redundant reply/replies; I did not have the benefit of seeing your reply before I posted mine.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2006 12:31:34 PM , Rating: 1
> "masher2, sorry for my somewhat redundant reply/replies; I did not have the benefit of seeing your reply before I posted mine."

Not at all; the thread is quite muddled at present. In any case, your reply seems more clearly stated than mine.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 7:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
I don’t know I didn’t read the letter how the heck would I know if they tell crap or not…

North Korea sending a few missiles into the sea of Japan, I call that hardly going rogue, its like when India and Pakistan had the period of having both of them doing missiles tests, and even if it worried some in the end nothing happened.

And of what good would be the US against non conventional weapons, you’re telling us the US would give us all a free passport so we could run away from Europe?... man no country is protected against non conventional weapons (or WMD) not even the US regardless of how many troops you have, a missile defense system may help though and a nuclear shelter may help too I have one and you?

“Let me clue you in a little elementary geopolitique.”
I’ve amply discussed the subject to now be lectured… if you want to lecture someone you clearly have chosen the wrong target. Besides you’re just enforcing what I said, the Iran may be more troublesome than North Korea or maybe not… who knows, if you are as good to guess like the ones that said the Iraq had WMD then man the opposite of what you said may be more realistic.

You know nothing of the WWII if you think that France and others lost the war cause they didn’t invest enough in the army…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2006 12:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "You know nothing of the WWII if you think that France and others lost the war cause they didn’t invest enough in the army… "

So you're implying that, had they invested *less* in military matters, they would have won?

France did poorly due to an overreliance on the Maginot line, and the mistaken belief the Germans would once again rely upon the Von Schlieffen tactics they used in WWI. In other words, France relied wholly upon a defensive doctrine, and not an offensive one. They refused to act against Hitler when they could, and instead settled upon a policy of appeasement, followed by passivity during the "Phony War". The established doctrine of the period was that, should Germany attack, France need do nothing but "hold out" until Allied assistance arose.

In other words, pretty much the same military philosophy used by many European nations today-- take no action until its too late...then scream bloody murder for help.

Q.E.D.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/15/2006 7:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not implying anything… I'm saying that if France lost it was cause they were using outdated equipment and tactics, I don’t have any doubts that if they had invested better their military funds they would do a lot better even with less money...

No country in Europe needs the US to defend them, we have nothing to be ashamed of sure we may not be up on pair (when it comes to numbers) with the US but very FEW other countries are as well equipped as all the European countries combined, not too mention that some of the EU countries have nukes and I’m yet to see a country with nukes being attacked…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2006 10:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "No country in Europe needs the US to defend them..."

Unfortunately, Europe doesn't agree with you...which explains why NATO still exists (with the US funding more of it than all the European nations combined), and why the US still has dozens of military based in Germany, Spain, Italy, Iceland, Turkey, and other EU nations.

Whenever the US attempts to close one of these bases, there is always a furor from the host government.

> "but very FEW other countries are as well equipped as all the European countries combined..."

Only a few, surely. But it only takes one to start a war. Which you should have already learned by now.

Besides, you're forgetting a very basic fact. The EU is an economic union, not a military one. You think all those nations are going to assist each other in an expensive, grueling, dangerous war? Some might, depending on circumstances. All of them? Not a chance in hell.

> "I’m yet to see a country with nukes being attacked… "

England has nukes, and yet its territory was invaded by Argentina. France had nuclear weapons, and very nearly had Paris invaded during the Algerian War of Independence...with an enemy planning to use France's own nukes, no less.

The Soviets and the US both have nukes...and both have had their foreign territories attacked many times.



RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/16/2006 7:13:27 AM , Rating: 2
The NATO is prior to the EU... and there's currently cooperation in the military missions between the member’s states and even some official ones, like but not only the Eurofor and the European Security and Defence Policy.

"Whenever the US attempts to close one of these bases, there is always a furor from the host government."
Any links ?

"Only a few, surely. But it only takes one to start a war. Which you should have already learned by now."
Again what country would attack us, those countries that are on pair with us aren’t really wishing our death...

No the EU isn’t only an economic union my friend, its far more than that, but maybe its now that you will teach what the EU really is.

Argentina invaded England? damn I sure didn’t see any of them here... Paris was going to be invaded by the Algerian army, damn I sure didn’t know that.

"The Soviets and the US both have nukes...and both have had their foreign territories attacked many times."
Attacked by flees no less, and thankfully they don’t reply with nukes to flees.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 11:00:29 AM , Rating: 2
> " the Eurofor and the European Security and Defence Policy. "

I am glad you brought up the ESDP, given that they have been asking for budget increases since the policy was first signed. Guess they don't agree with your ideas about "needing less" of a military budget.

As for the EU not needing US military protection due to this agreement, perhaps you should read the ESDP's charter itself. Let me quote:

quote:
There are few, if any, problems we can deal with on our own...The transatlantic relationship is irreplaceable. Acting together, the European Union and the United States can be a formidable force for good in the world. Our aim should be an effective and balanced partnership with the US.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78...

Oops. Poor Strunf.



RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/16/2006 3:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don’t see your point about the ESDP, even if the EU further increases their budget it only further gives me a reason that the EU needs to organize its entire military, which will eventually decrease its costs and the ESDP budget is peanuts when compared to the combined army budget of all the member states.

Today the NATO or the UN are a requirement for any international mission and I hope it will continue to do so, what I’m talking about is an independent organization that would take care of the EU defense only, by combining all of our independent armies together and its there where we would save money, since we would gain in efficiency…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 3:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "I don’t see your point about the ESDP"

It's quite simple. You claim the EU doesn't need the US for protection, And as proof of that, you cite the ESDP-- which itself states the exact opposite. That the US military is essential to its goals.


Clear now?


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 7:33:34 AM , Rating: 2
No I didn’t cite the ESDP to say we don’t need the US, I cited them to say we work together and need to further expand it by combining our armies together, the Eurofor and ESDP were mere examples of our cooperation.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2006 8:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
> "No I didn’t cite the ESDP to say we don’t need the US"

Your original statement was no nation in Europe needs US military assistance. However, the ESDP (certainly a far larger expert on the subject than you) states the exact opposite. That all the nations of the EU, acting together, still need US assistance. Do you need cede the point?

You also posted a few other falsehoods (e.g. as "countries with nukes have never been attacked", and concluded by demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge of the basic history of the European continent. You've been so clearly disproven on all these issues, though, that continuing to belabor them is clearly pointless.



RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 10:45:31 AM , Rating: 2
What I said was that no nation in Europe needs the US if we combine all of our armies together, the ESDP is only an example of our cooperation but not even close to be called a European combined army, like I pointed before the ESDP is tiny when compared to the combined army of all the member states.

And do you think it would look good on the ESDP something like “We created this so we don’t need the US anymore”? man give me a break no one is stupid enough to say we don’t need the US even if that’s true… why the heck do you think the ESDP was created in the first place if not for giving us more freedom…

“You also posted a few other falsehoods (e.g. as "countries with nukes have never been attacked", and concluded by demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge of the basic history of the European continent.”
Again I’m yet to see a country with nukes being attacked, obviously a war not the little quarrel of the Falklands … what else would you call that ?...


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2006 11:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
> "And do you think it would look good on the ESDP something like “We created this so we don’t need the US anymore”? man give me a break no one is stupid enough to say we don’t need the US "

Ah, so you believe the ESDP is lying? An interesting viewpoint...do you have any facts to back up this claim?

> "I’m yet to see a country with nukes being attacked, obviously a war not the little quarrel of the Falklands … what else would you call that ?... "

I'd call it the Falklands War ...as does everyone else in the world. Everyone else with an IQ above 80, that is. Britain committed nearly its entire navy, the bulk of its air force, a substantial amount of its army, and deployed nuclear weapons, along with a statement to use them, should the course of the war deem it neccesary.

If this is a "little quarrel", what constitutes a real war in your mind? Global armaggedon?





RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 1:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
“Ah, so you believe the ESDP is lying?”
No they aren’t however the very simple fact the ESDP exist already is a proof we have more freedom of actions and less dependence on the US if that wasn’t the case then why bother...

“If this is a "little quarrel", what constitutes a real war in your mind?”
Something that would fully engage both countries on it, but yeah technically you’re right it’s a war since there’s not a scale for that kind of things, its either a war or not.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 11:01:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whenever the US attempts to close one of these bases, there is always a furor from the host government."
Any links ?


Are you seriously so ignorant of the history of the past 30 years? What's next, you want links to prove Italy fought in WW2?



RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/16/2006 3:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
You said
"Whenever the US attempts to close one of these bases, there is always a furor from the host government."
What I want is a link of an European country asking the US to not abandon one of its base there, and obviously in the EU time and more or less recent since you said “Whenever” so I guess its still up-to-date.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 11:08:06 AM , Rating: 2
> "Argentina invaded England? damn I sure didn’t see any of them here... "

Argentina invaded English territory in the Falklands. This was 1982...before you were born, I guess.

> "Paris was going to be invaded by the Algerian army, damn I sure didn’t know that."

Guess you didn't. 1961, at the end of the Algerian Independence War. France faced invasion from rebel paratroopers...De Gaulle told residents of Paris to prepare for invasion over the radio....rebel forces in Algeria gained control of a French nuclear weapon, and, had it not been disabled by a special missions team, may have been used against France itself.



RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/16/2006 3:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
"Argentina invaded English territory in the Falklands."
Not even one thousand dead there this just to say how deadly the battle was... man give a break if you call that an attack I wonder what you call then when thousands of Mexicans invade the US illegally, maybe you call that an invasion.

Any link about the Algerian taking the French nuclear weapons, I cant find anything about it...


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 4:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
> "man give a break if you call that an attack I wonder what you call then when thousands of Mexicans invade the US illegally"

At least have the good grace to admit you were wrong. You claimed Argentina had never invaded British territory. After being proven wrong, this is the best you can do? Say it wasn't deadly enough to be a "real" attack? How pathetic.

As for the war "not counting", it had far more of an effect than just the 1000 casualties. Thatcher threatened to NUKE Argentina over the invasion, and the resultant loss brought about the fall of the Argentine government.

Comparing this to illegal immigration is childishly silly. But then I forget...you weren't even born when these events took place.

> "Any link about the Algerian taking the French nuclear weapons..."

It wasn't "weapons", it was one weapon, at France's test site in Algeria. I studied the event in college, and its also mentioned in Leonard Spector's fine books on nonproliferation. Google the "Generals Putsch" and I'm sure you can find references.




RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 7:54:13 AM , Rating: 2
Its you that its pathetic if you call that an attack... I doubt England even moved 5% of its army... Man give me break I'm speaking of a full scale war... if not there’s countless examples and you don’t need to go into the past, like for instance the case of Israel… the fact is any country would think twice before attacking one with nuclear weapons, regardless of how big its army is.

Nothing about the getting a hold to a nuclear weapon even with “Generals Putsch”.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2006 8:55:13 AM , Rating: 2
> "Its you that its pathetic if you call that an attack... I doubt England even moved 5% of its army"

I don't know what language you're attempting to speak....but I'm using English. And in English, the word "attack" is not defined as "only those situations in which a nation moves 5% or more of its army".

In any case, you are, as usual, wrong. Great Britain responded to the Argentine attack by sending 100% of its large surface ships, including both its aircraft carriers, five nuclear submarines (half its entire force), and 23 destroyers and frigates, the majority of its force. It also deployed 22 out of 27 support ships in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and an additional 48 merchant ships commandeered for the war.

In regards to aircraft, Britain deployed 16 Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm, 14 squadrons of the RAF, one squadron of the Army Air Corps and 3 Squadrons of Royal Marines. Several hundred aircraft total, of which 34 were lost.

Land forces deployed included 3 commando brigades, 2nd and 3rd Infantry Battalions, a light armor squadron, the 656 helicopter squadron, 2 recon squadrons, the 12th Air Defense Regiment, two regiments of Combat Engineers, the 49th EOD squadron, and the entire Army 5th Infantry Brigade. Land forces alone totalled some 10,000 men, which doesn't count the much larger total of naval and air forces. They even pressed the QEII into service as a troop transport (at the time, the largest cruise liner in the world).

All total, the U.K. sent a sizeable portion of its armed forces into the war. Far more than "5%".

Anything else you wish to embarrass yourself with?


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 10:54:52 AM , Rating: 2
lol they sent all that and only killed 650 or so soldiers man that was a overkill... I give you the point they did send over 5% apparently, that’s what I call killing a flee with a bazooka.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2006 11:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
> "lol they sent all that and only killed 650 or so soldiers man that was a overkill... I give you the point they did send over 5% apparently, that’s what I call killing a flee with a bazooka."

Lol, you never tire of being incorrect do you? The "flea" in this case was Argentina? Britain was outnumbered 3-1 in the Falklands War, as Argentina committed essentially 100% of its armed forces to the fight. Most modern military analysts agree that Argentina should have *won* the conflict, it was a combination of poor execution, tactics, and morale that caused them to do so badly.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 1:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
What Argentina sent 3x more stuff, lost the war and only killed 255 soldiers... damn that sure must have been a fancy war then.


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/17/2006 1:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, Strunf, you must like getting beat. You put yourself out there again and again and again to be pummeled by masher2's quick recollection of facts and google searches. It is even painful for me to watch, and I'm not even involved.

Anyway, carry on; there is at least one other person enjoying this debate!


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/18/2006 7:18:01 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn’t matter... I just don’t cover my flanks as good as he does ;) I mean yeah I was somewhat too "naïve" to say “no countries with nukes has ever been attacked”, I meant one thing and he understood it like it suited him… should have stayed focused. He beats me here I beat him there and life keeps going…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2006 12:36:51 PM , Rating: 1
> "I don’t know I didn’t read the letter how the heck would I know if they tell crap or not…"

Here's an excerpt:

quote:
...As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that [a review be conducted] of the Kyoto Protocol...

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto...

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational
headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. ...significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural cause s and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."...

It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe . But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas...

(signed Apri 06, 2006)

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.






RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 4:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
Please, don't confuse us with the facts - it undermines the FUD we're hearing from government and news media w/r/t to global warming. Also, Al Gore's presidential campaign is going to be on this issue, so how is he going to get elected if this is found out to be false?!?

Funny thing is, that letter mentions the last time that we were supposed to fear a large global change, which was in the 1970's when there was supposedly going to be another ice age. I was too young to care at the time, but my parents told me about that. I think it helps to keep everything in context when you hear politicians and the media talking about global warming like it is hard fact, which it clearly isn't.

Here's a link to a web site with the complete letter, if anybody is interested:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/15/2006 8:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
I said “one could argue if we are or not causing the warming up of our planet, but still the agreements are regardless of its reasons a step forward in global environment policy.”

You said “Actually, I recently posted a letter from some 60-odd climate scientists, saying that Kyoto was a massive step backwards in environmental policy. Do you know more than they? “

Then you post the excerpt where I read nothing about being a “massive step backwards in environmental policy”, they just say that from their point of view its useless, like I said some agree with it other don’t, and you cant argue that it’s a step forward in a global environment policy for the simple fact that the Kyoto agreements are probably the first really global agreements that exists for the sake of environment.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2006 11:08:07 PM , Rating: 3
> "Then you post the excerpt where I read nothing about being a “massive step backwards in environmental policy”, they just say that from their point of view its useless"

No, they argue that its worse than useless, as it wastes hundreds of billions of dollars with no benefit-- money that could be used for actually doing something worthwhile. Like research on whats really causing climate change, and ameliorative actions in response to that change.

> " for the simple fact that the Kyoto agreements are probably the first really global agreements that exists for the sake of environment"

So you admit that Kyoto is just a token gesture, only important because it demonstrates "commitment" to the environment? Do you think that, given the problems of disease, poverty, war, and climate change facing the globe, that wasting vast sums of money without any benefit is a wise course of action?


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/16/2006 7:26:55 AM , Rating: 2
No benefit ? it depends what you call benefit, if you tell me that polluting less doesn’t bring any benefits then ya YOU may not see any benefits on it.

“So you admit that Kyoto is just a token gesture”
I said that the Kyoto agreements are the first global agreements that exist for the sake of environment, and its not just a token of gesture.

I would rather spend money in the environment than in lets say... war, any day of the week, ya you may be right that there’s many other things we could do with that money, what you forget is that the bulk of the money you talk about is what companies will spend to improve their emissions and do you think those companies would give that money for other reasons ? the simple answer is NO. Don’t look to those numbers like if they were actually money we could use in some other stuff cause that not the case.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 11:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
> "No benefit ? it depends what you call benefit, if you tell me that polluting less doesn’t bring any benefits "

CO2 is not a "pollutant". Its the most important airborne natural fertilizer, generated or used by every living thing on earth.

If you feel its "pollutant", why not stop breathing? You generate CO2 with every breath you take.

> "I said that the Kyoto agreements [is]its not just a token of gesture..."

Hundreds of climatologists and environmental scientists disagree with you. I've already listed a small fraction of those that do.



RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/16/2006 3:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Man it depends of the concentration a little wont matter, but after a certain extent it kills you... its like when you pee on the river a little wont matter but if x millions do it on the same river you are polluting it… (depending on the river it may be more or less pee).

“Hundreds of climatologists and environmental scientists disagree with you. I've already listed a small fraction of those that do.”
I could probably bring just as many names of scientists defending it… besides like I said before there’s people supporting it and others against it.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 4:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "Man it depends of the concentration a little wont matter, but after a certain extent it kills you."

Sure. Too much water will kill you also. Are you now going to call water a dangerous pollutant?

When you exhale, you generate CO2 at a level of about 4500 ppm. A few minutes exposure at levels of 70,000 ppm can cause unconsciousness...and becomes deadly at levels of 100,000 ppm or higher.

Now, what level do we find in the atmosphere today. About 360 ppm...and not even the most wild-eyed environmentalist predicts a level above 500 ppm. That's 10% of what you generate from breathing in a closed room...and as far from being "toxic" as is drowning in half a drop of water.

Interestingly enough, 450 million years ago, the earth's CO2 level was about 3500 ppm. And, at that time, the planet was locked in its coldest ice age on record. CO2 is a very, very weak greenhouse gas...and it gets weaker the more you add into the atmosphere, as it only absorbs a very narrow band of radiation. A huge increase in CO2 does not correspond to a huge temperature increase.



RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 8:16:33 AM , Rating: 2
"Too much water will kill you also."
You mean if I drink too much water I'll die? I doubt of it at most I'll pee a lot.

And who said that the CO2 you exhale is pollution? Industries are far from working like the human lungs when it comes to produce CO2, its for no reason that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as been increasing over the time, more so in the Industrial age and afterwards… and the Kyoto protocol covers others gazes also…

“CO2 is a very, very weak greenhouse gas...”
Did it ever occurred to you that the fact we output so much may actually make your point useless...


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2006 9:04:59 AM , Rating: 2
> "You mean if I drink too much water I'll die? I doubt of it at most I'll pee a lot. "

Yet again, you are wrong on the facts. If you drink too much water too quickly, you will die. The term is "hyponatremia", or water intoxication. Rare...but several people each year die from it.

> "And who said that the CO2 you exhale is pollution?"

If CO2 is a pollutant, then the CO2 you exhale is also a pollutant. This is pretty basic stuff, kid.

> "Did it ever occurred to you that the fact we output so much [CO2] may actually make your point useless... "

Yes, and I already responded on this point. The amount of CO2 we output is a tiny fraction of that already in the atmospher, and a far smaller fraction of that which has been in the atmosphere before. Research has already shown that, while man may be increasing the CO2 level slightly, nature is increasing it much more. Meaning if we stop creating CO2 entirely (only possible if we destroy every car, factory, and power plant on the planet, revert back to the stone age, then all stop breathing at once) that CO2 levels will STILL continue to rise.

How much will they rise, even without our influence? Impossible to yet say...but in the earth's past, they've risen by huge amounts. Luckily, those rises rarely correspond to major heating of the earth...proving that the correlation between CO2 and global temperature is a very weak one.






RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 10:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
Well drinking too much water and drinking too much water too quickly is not really the same thing... and what about drinking too much water too slowly?

"If CO2 is a pollutant, then the CO2 you exhale is also a pollutant. This is pretty basic stuff, kid. "
Kid things don’t really work that way, example noise that may or not pollutant, or paper for instance, it depends on many factors to call something pollutant or not.

"while man may be increasing the CO2 level slightly"
Thank you I guess you agree with me.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2006 10:47:21 AM , Rating: 2
> "Well drinking too much water and drinking too much water too quickly is not really the same thing."

Now you're just being too silly. Even the most deadly poisons aren't dangerous...if taken slowly enough. Would you argue that strychnine in our water isn't a pollutant...merely because if you drink only one cup a day, you won't die?

> "it depends on many factors to call something pollutant or not."

And that factors you're using are childishly simplified-- anything created by man is a pollutant, whereas anything created by nature is not. A distinction that brings nothing to the debate.

Rational people judge a pollutant by its effects. And the effects of manmade CO2 are insignificant.

> "Thank you I guess you agree with me. "

Stop trying to pull a fast one and discuss the issues. Even if man stops creating CO2 entirely, a task that even you should admit is impossible-- CO2 levels will still continue to rise...naturally. And the earth will still warm slightly.

Given that, why spend hundreds of billions of dollars on actions that will do NOTHING to improve the environment or human life.







RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 11:02:14 AM , Rating: 2
"Now you're just being too silly. Even the most deadly poisons aren't dangerous...if taken slowly enough. Would you argue that strychnine in our water isn't a pollutant...merely because if you drink only one cup a day, you won't die?"
And ? you just agree with me that drinking too much water and drinking too much water too fast isn’t the same thing.

"And the effects of manmade CO2 are insignificant."
Insignificant doesn’t mean they don’t exist right ?...

"Given that, why spend hundreds of billions of dollars on actions that will do NOTHING to improve the environment or human life."
Not everyone agrees with you but I guess we already know that.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2006 11:09:12 AM , Rating: 2
> "Insignificant doesn’t mean they don’t exist right ?... "

It means they are too small to measure, and therefore may not even exist. We can't say for sure. We do know, however, that the bulk of the very slightl warming seen so far is natural in origin. And thus, not preventable by lowering anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

> "Not everyone agrees with you... "

A large number of scientists do. People who actually study climate chage.

Very few environmentalists agree, obviously...the facts don't fit their agenda.





RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 1:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
“A large number of scientists do. People who actually study climate chage.”
And a large number doesn’t…

“Very few environmentalists agree, obviously...the facts don't fit their agenda.”
But apparently they fit very well in the agenda of some others… as to be facts or not like I said before some believe in it others don’t…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/18/2006 9:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
> "as to be facts or not like I said before some believe in it others don’t… "

And in this particular case, I've been presenting facts, and you've been presenting beliefs.

Still waiting for you to present some of the "large number" of climatologists and atmospheric researchers who believe that anthropomorphic CO2 emissions are a danger to either mankind or the environment.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/18/2006 10:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
You have presenting facts and I beliefs? So you speak of x millions ago and it’s a fact I speak of 400000 and it’s a belief, go figure...

You want to read about the other side of the story, just go to wiki and type global warming...

Also do you know the butterfly effect... I say this cause you seem to speak as insignificant things as if they didn’t exist when they do...


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 11:48:10 AM , Rating: 2
> "I would rather spend money in the environment than in lets say... war, any day of the week"

Who wouldn't? No one wants to spend money on war. When they do it, its because the alternative is worse.

But spending money to lower CO2 emissions is, at present, just wasted money. Why not spend it on cleaner air, water, or earth?

> "what you forget is that the bulk of the money you talk about is what companies will spend..."

Ah, I see. The old socialistic stick-it-to-the-corporation mentality returns. Well I have news for you. YOU pay those costs, not companies. You can fine a single company...when you fine entire industries equally, it raises the cost of doing business. That means higher-prices and lower wages.

You think you won't end up paying higher energy costs, higher prices for all manufactured goods, and higher taxes? What a childishly naive belief.



RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/16/2006 4:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
"When they do it, its because the alternative is worse."
Or that some benefits may come out of it...

"Why not spend it on cleaner air, water, or earth? "
Less CO2 emissions = cleaner air... if you don’t even know that…

"You think you won't end up paying higher energy costs, higher prices for all manufactured goods, and higher taxes?"
Where did I say we wouldn’t? I'm just saying that amount of money belongs to the companies, ya sure it will be us that will pay the final bill little by little, but I would rather pay a few % more on the price of things if I know that company respects more the environment than others.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 4:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
> "Less CO2 emissions = cleaner air"

No, no, a thousand times no. CO2 is neccesary for life on earth. Its in no way, shape, or form hazardous to humans...which explains why we intentionally load our soft drinks with it, at concentration levels hundreds of times higher than found in the atmosphere.

> "Where did I say we wouldn’t? "

You implied that the hundreds of billions of dollars that Kyoto will cost is going to be paid by "companies" and not you and I. You now admit this is incorrect, so we can move on.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 8:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
Who was speaking of air without CO2, stop putting words where they don’t exist, industries output CO2 and the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing hence it is pollution, also since when pollution means hazardous to humans?...

Its not incorrect, its correct its the companies that will pay it, if not then companies don’t pay anything since after all in the end its the costumers that pay all the final bills.
Anyway its not money we can invest in other things like you pretended, but ya lets move on just don’t say the same crap again.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2006 9:09:11 AM , Rating: 2
> "Who was speaking of air without CO2, stop putting words where they don’t exist, industries output CO2 "

This is the same childishly ignorant attitude espoused by most environmentalists. CO2 found naturally in the air is "natural" and good, whereas the same CO2 created by a power plant is "bad", and harmful.

Nature is increasing airbone CO2 levels now, and at a rate much faster than is mankind. Vast changes in CO2 concentration happen naturally, and quite often. And the end result of that higher concentration won't be harmful to the environment. Quite the opposite in fact, it's very likely to increase biodiversity.

> "Its not incorrect, its correct its the companies that will pay it, if not then companies don’t pay anything since after all in the end its the costumers that pay all the final bills"

This is so muddled I can make neither head nor tails of it. Without meaning to offend-- were you drunk when you posted this?


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 10:23:25 AM , Rating: 2
"This is the same childishly ignorant attitude espoused by most environmentalists. CO2 found naturally in the air is "natural" and good, whereas the same CO2 created by a power plant is "bad", and harmful."
Stop reading what is not there, what I say is that if industries keep increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere then it is pollution, anything that is not natural and that nature cant really “absorb”/balance or whatever is pollution.

Is not muddled it’s a fact that companies produce things hence if you say that its costumers that will pay the bill for the gaz restrictions and not the companies then we can also say that since costumers pay all the products one way or another then the company doesn’t pay anything by your logic... Anyway this is besides the point the fact is that its not free money you can spend as you wish like you pretended and lets stay at it.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2006 10:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
> "I say is that if industries keep increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere then it is pollution, anything that is not natural "

Lol, so when nature increases CO2 levels by 2500 ppm, that's not pollution...but man possibly increases CO2 by 50 ppm, is pollution? You're getting even sillier here.

> "nature cant really “absorb”/balance or whatever is pollution."

Nature had no trouble "balancing" massive past increases in CO2 levels...increases far larger than man could ever possibly cause. Why should this be any different? State your specific reasons please...don't simply speak in muddled terms of "balance" and "nature".

> "This is besides the point the fact is that its not free money you can spend as you wish like you pretended and lets stay at it. "

Err, you were the one pretending it was "free" money to consumers. That somehow, corporations would magically pick up the tab, and you and I would never notice a thing.

As you're now agreeing, the point is moot. The hundreds of billlions of dollars wasted by Kyoto would be paid for by the common man...in terms of lower wages and higher prices for energy, goods, and services.




RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 11:16:45 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn’t call what nature produces by itself pollution... Most of the times if not always pollution is associated to a human activity.

Well there seems to exist evidence of a link between the industrial revolution and the increase of the CO2 levels in our atmosphere… coincidence? and for the past 400000 we haven’t seen a this high level of CO2 in our atmosphere…

“Err, you were the one pretending it was "free" money to consumers. That somehow, corporations would magically pick up the tab, and you and I would never notice a thing.”
That’s simple economics, I would never pretend such thing… its only natural to say that its our companies that will pay it.

“The hundreds of billlions of dollars wasted by Kyoto would be paid for by the common man...in terms of lower wages and higher prices for energy, goods, and services.”
Billions of dollars dividing by so many people nothing to worry about…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2006 11:33:47 AM , Rating: 2
> "for the past 400000 we haven’t seen a this high level of CO2 in our atmosphere… "

Go back a little further, though, and you see a much higher level. What caused it? It certainly wasn't man. CO2 levels now stand at ~380 ppm. During the Phanerozoic era, CO2 levels hit nearly 7,000 pm.

Where did all that CO2 come from? Not us, for sure.

As for the current tiny increase of approximately 100 ppm, we know with certainty that the majority of it is natural in origin. But let's look at the worst case scenario-- 50 ppm came from man, and 50 from nature.

What gives you the right to arbitrarily label one "good" and the other "bad", even though their effect is identical?

This is the basic illogicality in most environmentalists thinking. You don't CARE what the effect is. To you, only the source matters. Nature can spew trillions of tons of dangerous toxins from volcanoes or other sources-- thats GREAT to you. Lovely. But man emits some harmless CO2, and thats a great crisis. Utter Insanity!

I'm through with this "debate". You've been proven wrong on too many points as it is, and I'm sure everyone else has long since stopped reading.

> "Billions of dollars dividing by so many people nothing to worry about…"

Not billions of dollars. Hundreds of billions. And not a one-time fee either...but a recurring cost that never goes away.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 1:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
“What gives you the right to arbitrarily label one "good" and the other "bad", even though their effect is identical?”
I don’t label anything, one you can change the other you cant as simple as that.

“Nature can spew trillions of tons of dangerous toxins from volcanoes or other sources-- thats GREAT to you.”
It’s not great; it’s the way things are since a long time ago…

“And not a one-time fee either...but a recurring cost that never goes away.”
Just like many other things we have to pollute less, big news you just gave me…


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 6:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
True... funny however that you speak of global environment when the US didn’t sign the Kyoto agreements, one could argue if we are or not causing the warming up of our planet, but still the agreements are regardless of its reasons a step forward in global environment policy.

The US decision to not sign Kyoto does not imply that the US is not concerned about or is not taking any action on the environment. In addition, there is not good science yet on global warming - so really to make a commitment like that which has such significant economic costs really doesn't make sense.
quote:
While I may not have been for the Iraqi war I do agree in the commitment of the EU countries on the Iraq/Afghanistan reconstruction.

Yes, I know, and that is one of the problems with Europe - let the US do the "dirty work," and then come in after the fact to cash in on the billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts. I think the US did the right thing in this case by, from what I understand to be the case, giving preferencial treatment to US businesses in the reconstruction.
quote:
As for North Korea I don’t know if they will go rogue when even China seems to want them to cool down, the Iran on the other hand may cause a tougher headache…

Maybe you need to brush up on your knowledge of N. Korea - it already is a rogue state. Do you advocate waiting until they threaten to or actually launch missles with conventional or nuclear warheads against civilian populations in Northeast Asia before you classify them as "rogue"? There are a lot of people living within their reach.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 7:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
Any environmental issues involve costs and that’s a fact be it the Kyoto agreements or others…

In other words you’re telling us that now that you have brought their houses to pieces you’re going to charge them to rebuild them… and you don’t even want to share the profit with others, how selfish of you… But the US is really too nice you guys put a country upside down and then you charge them to put everything back the way it was before, no wonder you guys keep moving from country to country…

I doubt North Korea would ever send a nuclear missile against any other country, they aren’t that dumb and China is stepping in…


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 7:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In other words you’re telling us that now that you have brought their houses to pieces you’re going to charge them to rebuild them… and you don’t even want to share the profit with others, how selfish of you… But the US is really too nice you guys put a country upside down and then you charge them to put everything back the way it was before, no wonder you guys keep moving from country to country…

As with previous wars, including WWII, the American taxpayer will foot the bill for rebuilding Iraq. Please tell me if you can spot selfishness in that.
quote:
I doubt North Korea would ever send a nuclear missile against any other country, they aren’t that dumb and China is stepping in

Probably right, but both (a) their ability to reach large populations even with conventional warheads, and (b) their ability to threaten to use nuclear weapons, is a serious threat. These weapons in the hands of a "rational" government is one thing, but in the hands of North Korea is another story.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 9:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt the American taxpayers pay the bill of the reconstruction; Iraq is rich, lots of Oil enough to rebuild it a couple times… I grant you however that the taxpayers pay the bill of war but the US gets a refund with some extras then with the reconstruction and some other contracts… war is a business and hardly ever the side that won it gets out of it loosing money… and think about all the brand new weapons the Iraqi people will now have to buy from the US since you guys destroyed the ones Saddam had…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2006 11:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "I doubt North Korea would ever send a nuclear missile against any other country, they aren’t that dumb..."

Funny, this sounds suspiciously like all the poeple saying in 1938 that they doubt Hitler would ever attack France, he's not that dumb.

> "and China is stepping in ..."

China is stepping OUT. Read the newspapers...it reneged on its promise to pressure North Korea to halt its ICBM testing program.

Oh, and by the way-- Iranian engineers were in North Korea for those tests as well. Seems they're buying some missile technology themselves. That, coupled with their new nuclear program should make Europe sleep easy at night.



RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/16/2006 7:33:16 AM , Rating: 2
Comparing Germany in 38 with North Korea today is rather pathetic, North Korea is not anywhere near being one of the top countries in terms of military technology...

Yup I sleep easy at night and will keep to do so… what about you?

“China is stepping OUT. Read the newspapers...it reneged on its promise to pressure North Korea to halt its ICBM testing program.”
All I read is that North Korea isn’t really listening to them, care to share any link saying that China wont pressure them anymore ?


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 11:56:41 AM , Rating: 2
> "Comparing Germany in 38 with North Korea today is rather pathetic, North Korea is not anywhere near being one of the top countries in terms of military technology... "

North Korea doesn't need to be a "top country" to attack with nuclear missiles. Or, more likely, simply to use those nuclear weapons to hold civilian cities hostage against their use.

> "care to share any link saying that China wont pressure them anymore ? "

After the missile launches, China vetoed any UN pressure against North Korea. A Chinese analyst had this to say about the situation:

quote:
"I don't think China will take at this moment stronger political or economic action against North Korea...We Chinese believe basically, fundamentally it is not our problem, the missile launch problem. It's a problem between North Korea and the U.S., it's a problem between the DPRK and Japan, it might be a problem between North Korea and South Korea. But basically it's not a China problem...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...



RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 11:49:38 AM , Rating: 2
> "In other words you’re telling us that now that you have brought their houses to pieces you’re going to charge them to rebuild them… and you don’t even want to share the profit..."

Profit? What profit? The US is spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. We won't ever see "a profit" from the endeavor.



RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 5:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "actually I would be more than happy if the army was reduced to half what it is today"

Very happy..until you actually need that army. Then you'll, once more, ask the US to bail you out again.

Insurance is nice...but free insurance, paid for by others, is nicer still.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 7:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
And what country would attack Europe even if we had only half of our troops ?


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 8:00:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And what country would attack Europe even if we had only half of our troops ?

Reduce your troops and military equipment in Europe, wait 20 years, and you'll find out. Without an effective deterrent, I'm sure someone will see a viable opportunity.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 9:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
Who? half of the EU military would sure be no problem for the US and others but I fail to see who would come... they are coming though through the diplomatic way, Turkey is on the list like others working to be part of this great EU, and they come on their free will…


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 5:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
How about Russia? If you can't envision any scenario where that could possibly happen, then you obviously lack any creativity.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/15/2006 8:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
Its not that I don’t have any creativity its that I usually don’t pull things out of my butt for the sake of having something to argue about... anyway to reply to your “Russia” I see no reason for them to attack us, the cold war ended long ago and they certainly have enough land and trouble for themselves to wish more…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2006 11:22:47 PM , Rating: 1
> "anyway to reply to your “Russia” I see no reason for them to attack us... they certainly have enough land and trouble for themselves"

What reason did they have to attack you 40 years ago? They had more land than they do today, twice the trouble, and yet all of Western Europe was begging the US to protect them from imminent invasion. And the US did so.

Sorry, but your attitude is so pathetically, wrong-headedly predictable I have to laugh. This same cycle of events has been repeated in world history hundreds of times, over the last several thousand years. And always a certain class of person refuses to learn. In the peaceful times, they "just can't imagine" war ever happening...when war finally strikes, they're the ones screaming loudest for action.

Europe is a rich continent. If it is simultaneously weak, it will beget war. This is a truism of history. Human nature is no different today than it was during the time of Hitler-- or Frederick the Great, Charlemagne, or Genghis Khan.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/16/2006 7:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
Russia attacked Europe 40 years ago? I sure don’t recall of that…

“Human nature is no different today than it was during the time of Hitler-- or Frederick the Great, Charlemagne, or Genghis Khan.”
The I don’t know why you guys complain about the Iraq causalities then when those “wars” are nothing compared to the ones those guys you pointed fought, back then a few thousand dead soldiers was nothing to talk about…


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/16/2006 9:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Russia attacked Europe 40 years ago? I sure don’t recall of that…

Are you kidding me? Russia invaded Europe along the Eastern Front in WW2, ultimately defeating the Germans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_...

I'm not trying to make an argument that Russia will invade Europe in the near future. My point is that Europe needs to remain militarily strong in order to deter possible future attacks against it. It is impossible to predict what countries will be friends or foes in the future, and what history teaches us is that war aggression is part of human nature. In addition, Europe has a moral responsibility to help where it can throughout the world to help promote peace and stability, and to help prevent human rights violations (e.g., genocide).
quote:
The I don’t know why you guys complain about the Iraq causalities then when those “wars” are nothing compared to the ones those guys you pointed fought, back then a few thousand dead soldiers was nothing to talk about…

I take all loss of human life seriously. The only difference is whether it is a "tragedy" or a "large tragedy."


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 12:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "Russia attacked Europe 40 years ago? I sure don’t recall of that…"

Lol, did you skip history entirely in school? Did you even finish school? Russia invaded Hungary (that's a nation in Europe, by the way) in 1956. They blockaded Berlin (a city in Europe) in 1949. They invaded Czechoslovakia (a nation in Europe) in 1968. And every European military analyst during the periods named above firmly believed the only thing preventing Soviet tanks from rolling across the entire continent of Europe was the US presence there.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/16/2006 11:03:51 AM , Rating: 2
As far as I know the Axis attacked them first and it was a war… it has nothing to do with the theory that they want more land so we had to protect ourselves against them.

“I take all loss of human life seriously. The only difference is whether it is a "tragedy" or a "large tragedy."”
It’s far different from the past … back then it only became a tragedy when the causalities were over thousands or more, actually it didn’t matter much how many died has long has the empire was kept in place or even expanding… so saying that mentalities don’t change seems a bit wrong…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 12:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
> "As far as I know the Axis attacked them first."

Finland didn't attack the USSR first. Neither did Hungary. Nor Czechoslovakia. Nor Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia. All these were attacked by the Soviets.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/16/2006 4:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
Hungary wasn’t part of the EU in 56, the same about Czechoslovakia in 68, nor the Latvia, nor the Lithuania, nor the Estonia, nor the Finland back then, and today Russia has nothing to do with the URSS... but yeah keep sending reasons why the Russians would now come over us…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2006 4:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "Hungary wasn’t part of the EU in 56, the same about Czechoslovakia in 68, nor the Latvia, nor the Lithuania, nor the Estonia, nor the Finland back then..."

There was no EU back in 56, or even '68. Let's repeat your statement. It was, "Russia attacked Europe 40 years ago? I sure don’t recall of that… "

Europe was what you said. Not the EU. At least have enough backbone to admit your mistakes. Then go learn the history of your own continent, to spare you the embarrassment of being taught by a couple of Americans.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 8:49:41 AM , Rating: 2
I was speaking of the EU of course... this is after all a theory about Russia attacking the EU isn’t it ? or is it now about Russia attacking an European country that may not even be part of the EU? If its about European countries being attacked no need to look that far in the past, just think of Bosnia and others conflicts, even Russia is partially in Europe too… Lets stay on topic, what I want is reasons for Russia to attack us that’s all, since after all it was you guys who said they may attack us.

Embarrassment? What embarrassment do you really think a forum, blog or whatever is really something you can use to evaluate someone else knowledge?


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2006 9:16:04 AM , Rating: 2
> "I was speaking of the EU of course"

So when you said, ""Russia attacked Europe 40 years ago? I sure don’t recall of that…" you were speaking of the EU...even though it didn't exist at the time? Why not just admit you were wrong? You're just digging your hole deeper with this nonsense.

> "is after all a theory about Russia attacking the EU isn’t it ?"

No, this is basic history. The EU is a new institution-- too new to have seen major warfare. That had led to certain starry-eyed youngers, poorly-school in history, to conclude that war against the EU is somehow "impossible". Simply because they were lucky enough to be born into a relatively peaceful couple of decades.

The EU will fight wars, either external, or (more likely, given European history) internal. Quite possibly both. And it will do so within your lifetime. Who will it fight them with? Impossible to say. And, quite likely, the nation or nations who begin those wars will have-- in your and mine opinion-- no "reason" to do so. That won't stop them...just as it hasn't stopped so many nations in the past.

Learn from history. Human nature doesn't change.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 10:09:18 AM , Rating: 2
The EU didn’t but the ECSC did, just like the EEC and so on all the way till the today EU, the EU history is far from starting in 1993. Anyway like I said before You said Russia would attack us and what I want is the reasons they would do so, or now countries start wars for no reason?...

"The EU will fight wars, either external, or (more likely, given European history) internal. Quite possibly both. And it will do so within your lifetime."
Like I said to some other dude I wish you guys could lend me your crystal ball...

"Learn from history. Human nature doesn't change."
Doubt of it Human nature does change specially the way we express it...


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2006 11:00:12 AM , Rating: 2
> " You said Russia would attack us and what I want is the reasons they would do so..."

No one said Russia *would* attack the EU. We stated it as a possibility. China's another possibility. The US is a possibility. A coalition of nations from around the globe is another. The possibilities are endless.

> "I wish you guys could lend me your crystal ball... "

Certainly. It's called a history book.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 1:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
If it’s for the sake of pulling names then ya countless countries could attack the EU.

The history book doesn’t predict the future if it did I would buy one right now...


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/17/2006 9:17:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was speaking of the EU of course... this is after all a theory about Russia attacking the EU isn’t it ? or is it now about Russia attacking an European country that may not even be part of the EU?

As masher2 already pointed out, EU is not a military alliance. Therefore, there is no such thing as a miliary attack on "EU." If someone were to attack an EU state, it is not a forgone conclusion that all other EU states would rise up in its defense, right?


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 10:11:19 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong they would, its a given fact. How the heck do you think the EU would still going on when one of its member state is in war…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2006 11:22:03 AM , Rating: 2
> "Wrong they would, its a given fact"

Then cite where this fact is given. Or withdraw the claim.

> "How the heck do you think the EU would still going on when one of its member state is in war"

It would continue the same way past trade alliances in history have continued, when one or more of its members were at war.

Now, if two or more member states were at war with each other, it would complicate things...and quite possibly tear the EU apart. But a member state at war with a nonmember...wouldn't affect the EU in the slightest.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/17/2006 1:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
“It would continue the same way past trade alliances in history have continued, when one or more of its members were at war.”
The EU is not just a trade alliance anymore; the fact is that if one of its countries was at war nothing would be same. To even think things would just go on normally is fooling yourself and don’t having the slightest idea of what the EU is about.


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/17/2006 9:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The EU is not just a trade alliance anymore; the fact is that if one of its countries was at war nothing would be same. To even think things would just go on normally is fooling yourself and don’t having the slightest idea of what the EU is about.

I read through most of the official EU information site, and I could not find anything dealing with any sort of military organization.

http://europa.eu/index_en.htm

Do you have any links that back up your statement?


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/18/2006 7:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
Look here
http://europa.eu/agencies/security_agencies/index_...

“Agencies have been set up to carry out very specific technical, scientific and management tasks within the framework of European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) – the "second pillar" of the EU.”

Under the CFSP we have the European Defence Agency (EDA)

Which promotes :
“-improve the EU's defence capabilities especially in the field of crisis management;
-promote EU armaments cooperation;
-strengthen the EU defence industrial and technological base and create a competitive European defence equipment market;
-promote research, with a view to strengthening Europe's industrial and technological potential in the defence field

Consequently, the Agency's current tasks include:

-to create a comprehensive and systematic approach when defining and meeting the needs of the European Security and Defence Policy; to promote defence equipment collaborations between the EU Member States;
-to assist in the development and overall restructuring of the European defence industry;
-to promote EU defence-related Research and Technology, while keeping in mind European policy priorities;
-to work, in close cooperation with the Commission, for the development of an internationally competitive market for defence equipment in Europe.”

Really how can you guys even think the EU would just go on as nothing was happening when one of its members is at war, do you guys even know that we don’t have “borders” anymore and any European (from the EU) travels within the EU freely, and that anyone (from the EU) can vote on countries other than their own country of origin, and that the EU even has its own institutions that are sometimes above the ones of each country… the EU is today far from being just a economical alliance…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/18/2006 9:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
> "Under the CFSP we have the European Defence Agency (EDA)..."

The phrase you're looking for (and the phrase you do not find) is "mutual assistance pact". Without this, there is no binding agreement for one member state to aid another in terms of war. The EDA does little more than to "promote" the research and defense base of the individual members. It is not a military pact in any sense of the word.

The EU is evolving to more than an economic treaty. However, it is a long way from a military alliance. Even the draft of the EU constitution (should it ever be signed) doesn't require member states to adhere to a common military, defense, or foreign policy-- in these areas, each member STILL has has the individual power to "go their own way", and ignore EU directives.

(reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2950276.st...

Seriously, learn a little about the EU and its evolution. Its really not that complex a subject. For anyone actually living in an EU nation, the topic is vital.

> "do you guys even know that we don’t have “borders” anymore "

Lol, you still have borders. The political boundaries still exist, though they no longer control the flow of internal goods and EU citizens. In other areas-- most particularly law enforcement, military, defense, and foreign policy-- they are still very much in force.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/18/2006 10:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you keep insisting that life would still going as if nothing was happening if one of the EU member states was at war, I really cant understand why you say such thing…

“It is not a military pact in any sense of the word.”
It is or what do you call when countries share and invest in secret military technology together…

"Seriously, learn a little about the EU and its evolution."
And where did I say something wrong? You however keep telling crap about the EU...

"In other areas-- most particularly law enforcement, military, defense, and foreign policy-- they are still very much in force."
In force yes but like I said before there's a bunch of laws that are over the one of each country, there's a lot of military cooperation in both defence and offence, and the foreign policy is very often decided in Brussels... I don’t know what else you want, to understand that if a EU country gets attacked the whole EU would have to decide what to do about it and I doubt they would sit still and keep with their scheduled as if nothing was going.

And why you ignored the very first objective of it
“-improve the EU's defence capabilities especially in the field of crisis management”

Also about the CFSP
“According to the treaties, the European Union defines and implements a common foreign and security policy covering all areas of foreign and security policy, the objectives of which shall be:
-to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests, independence and integrity of the Union in conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter;
-to strengthen the security of the Union in all ways;”
How the hell would all of that be possible if one country is at war ?


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/18/2006 1:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
> It is or what do you call when countries share and invest in secret military technology together…"

No, you call that a shared development program, not a mutual assistance pact. Most nations engage in joint development operations, especially for big-ticket military platforms. It doesn't mean they automatically assist each other in times of war.

> "In force yes but like I said before there's a bunch of laws that are over the one of each country, there's a lot of military cooperation in both defence and offence, and the foreign policy is very often decided in Brussels..."

No one is disputing this. But-- and listen carefully now, this is the key point-- the cooperation between EU members, and that foreign policy in Brussels is all voluntary. Nonbinding.

If England is attacked, all NATO members are obligated to assist her. The US cannot legally "just say no". That's a mutual assistance pact. Similarly, when Washington sets foreign policy, Texas and California cannot just "opt out" of its decisions. The United States are United. Bound.

The EU is none of these. Foreign policy is a set of guidelines for member nations, for them to implement if they choose. If an EU member is attacked, other nations are in no way obligated to assist (though, depending on circumstances, they very well may choose to do so).

> "And why you ignored the very first objective of it
“-improve the EU's defence capabilities especially in the field of crisis management”"


How do you feel this is relevant? Seriously, read an actual military pact, and you'll see the difference in the language. For instance, the NATO Treaty:

quote:
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them , the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened...

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force , to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. ...

Each Party ...undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty"


It goes further to specify exactly what constitutes an armed attack. For instance, an attack on a US ship in the Pacific does not qualify...but the same attack on that same ship while in the Mediterranean does.

> "How the hell would all of that be possible if one country is at war ? "

The EU can set policy all day long with one or more members at war. For instance, lets say Turkey joins and was attacked by, say Greece, over the Cyprus conflict. The first thing Brussels does is issue a policy statement saying "this action is contrary to the spirit and needs of the European Union, and all member states should take firm steps to resolve the conflict."

Turkey and Greece both promptly ignore it, several other EU members send a diplomatic team to "help resolve" the situation, and business proceeds as usual. All states continue to trade normally with each other, except Turkey and Greece itself (who quite likely still do for many goods, via third-party transshipment). Some EU members may take a more active role, up to and including military support of one side or the other...but as long as that participation is very limited, the EU itself survives just fine.

Now in a more polarizing conflict, where multiple member states are actually providing troops, and the conflict escalates beyond disputed border regions into fullscale invasion, and threatens to topple the governments of one or more members...the EU itself would be threatened.

In the case of an attack by an outside nation or nations upon a member, the situation is even more clear cut. Each EU member is going to do a rational analysis on the situation...if they don't see a benefit to assisting, they won't. An invasion of Germany, for instance, would certainly bring widespread assistance, even without the benefit of NATO. If, say, the Aland Islands of Finland are invaded by Russia, you're not going to see anything from EU members except expressions of "shock and regret".


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/18/2006 2:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
"the cooperation between EU members, and that foreign policy in Brussels is all voluntary."
Voluntary... funny word you said when the objectives of the CFSP are clear as water, and they IMPLY a union against an attack…

“Foreign policy is a set of guidelines for member nations, for them to implement if they choose.”
If they choose? Guidelines? man give me a break if we are to put things this way then nothing is a given and not even that the US would protect England, the CFSP has some key objectives that are to be met, why the hell would it exits if now countries would choose to apply it or not…

If Turkey joined and started a war with Greece then Turkey would be in conflict with the EU ideals and set of rules, the whole EU would shake and EVERYTHING would be changed, its impossible to maintain the EU we have today when some of its member states are at war, be it one or two and they would probably support Greece, since you said Turkey attacked Greece and not the other way around...

“If, say, the Aland Islands of Finland are invaded by Russia, you're not going to see anything from EU members except expressions of "shock and regret".”
Really?... I doubt of it.

More info on Treaty of the Union

“The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence, should the European Council so decide.”

Common defence if the EC so decide seems to me like a common force…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/18/2006 4:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
> "If they choose? Guidelines? man give me a break if we are to put things this way then nothing is a given and not even that the US would protect England"

The NATO Treaty is not a set of guidelines. It is a firm committment of mutual assistance. The ESDP is no such beast.

I already posted you the link to analysis of the EU draft constitution (which goes well beyond ESDP), clearly demonstrating that foreign policy and military defense *still* remain autonomous, and that any member state exercizes personal veto power over any action. What more do you need...a signed letter from Tuomioja himself?

> "Voluntary... funny word you said when the objectives of the CFSP are clear as water, and they IMPLY a union against an attack."

They imply no such thing, and I'm not sure why you think it does.

Here's some more information for you on CFSP and the ESDP:

quote:
The CFSP sees NATO responsible for territorial defence of Europe and "peace-making" while since 1999 the European Union is responsible for implementation missions; i.e. peace-keeping, policing of treaties etc....

The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) was initiated by provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam which stipulated the progressive framing of a common security and defence policy that could deal with humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management ...


In other words, the EU at present, lacks both the legal and military framework for a mutual assistance pact. The draft of the EU constitution granted more military powers...but that was a primary reason it was rejected by so many different nations. In simple terms...It don't exist. It never got signed and, even had it done so, would not have guaranteed mutual assistance.

> "If Turkey joined and started a war with Greece then...EVERYTHING would be changed.."

Ok, I'll bite. Tell us *specifically* what you think would be changed. Would the EU fold? Would they rise up en masse and all attack Turkey? Would they ignore the situation? What?




RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/18/2006 7:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
"It is a firm committment of mutual assistance."
Because you think you can actually force countries to actually follow it if they don’t want to? We sure didn’t do anything to the US when it went against the UN…

“The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence, should the European Council so decide.”
It says a common defence policy, common defence… I don’t know what else you want.

On your analyses it says that each country has the right to do what it wants however the ESDP objectives is to make them work together.

“The draft of the EU constitution granted more military powers...but that was a primary reason it was rejected by so many different nations.”
Many different nations? 2 out of 25 I call that few.

“Ok, I'll bite. Tell us *specifically* what you think would be changed. Would the EU fold? Would they rise up en masse and all attack Turkey? Would they ignore the situation? What?“
I don’t feel like… understand it has green light to you to think we would still live our everyday life as if nothing was happening…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/18/2006 8:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
> ""It is a firm committment of mutual assistance."
Because you think you can actually force countries to actually follow it if they don’t want to?"


Look, do you want to learn or don't you? The difference here is simple. If a NATO member is attacked and other members don't assist-- they are in VIOLATION of the agreement. If an EU member is attacked and other nations don't exist...they are in violation of NOTHING.

True, in neither case can one *force* a nation to assist. But a nation that violates one treaty may violate them all..and thus doing so is a step that most nations are not willing to take.

Why do you think nations quite often refuse to sign treaties? For instance, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Many nations refuse to sign, even though they take a bit of grief over it. Why don't they just go ahead and sign anyway...then break it when they feel like it? Quite obviously, because BREAKING a treaty is a more serious step than simply failing to accept it.

Now, for the last time, there is NO treaty, pact, or agreement of any kind obligating EU states to defend each other. That may come about at some future point in time...but it does not exist today.

> "Many different nations [rejected the Constitution]? 2 out of 25 I call that few. "

Two rejected it outright. Eight more failed to ratify it. That's a fair percentage of the total EU.

> "We sure didn’t do anything to the US when it went against the UN…"

We didn't punish any of the European nations who went against the UN to attack Yugoslavia either. What's your point?


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/18/2006 9:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
“If a NATO member is attacked and other members don't assist-- they are in VIOLATION of the agreement.”
So what? happens all the time with the UN…

“If an EU member is attacked and other nations don't exist...they are in violation of NOTHING.”
hmm if that was the case the thing would be handed to the EC and it would be them then to decide a EU position since if a member state is at war it puts in danger the Union security and integrity...

“Two rejected it outright. Eight more failed to ratify it. That's a fair percentage of the total EU.”
You mean 7 are in the process of either ratifying it or not… that’s quite different from rejecting it.

“We didn't punish any of the European nations who went against the UN to attack Yugoslavia either. What's your point?”
That even treaties don’t force countries to do what they don’t want to.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/18/2006 10:18:56 AM , Rating: 2
Just so you know that it wasnt Russia but the U.R.S.S. ... yup I know to play games too.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/18/2006 10:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
Damn forgot in English its U.S.S.R..


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/18/2006 1:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "Just so you know that it wasnt Russia but the U.R.S.S."
You can call it Soyuz Sovetskik Sosialisticheskik Republik, if you wish...I attended school in Moscow, actually.


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/18/2006 1:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
If you wish... either way its not Russia.


RE: What is ridiculous
By TomZ on 7/18/2006 2:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you wish... either way its not Russia.

U.S.S.R. is gone now, so Russia is a possible future aggressor, right?


RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/18/2006 3:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
I don’t think so, I think they are more into developing the country than really pick another fight, a fight they cant really afford and that wouldn’t bring them anything, Europe doesn’t has that many resources and we actually buy a lot from the Russians, would they fight us, loose a fine costumer and then be left with 400 million unhappy Europeans, its virtually impossible for a country today to do something like and hold everything in place for a long time…


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/18/2006 3:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
> "I think they are more into developing the country than really pick another fight, a fight they cant really afford and that wouldn’t bring them anything"

The same thing was true in 1979, when they invaded Afghanistan. They couldn't afford it, they should have been more interested in developing their own nation...and they gained nothing from it. So why did they attack?

> "Europe doesn’t has that many resources and we actually buy a lot from the Russians"

France didn't have many resources, and was Germany's biggest trading partner in the 1930s. Germany still invaded.

South Korea is North Korea's biggest trading partner...but if the North Koreans ever invade anywhere again, it'll be the same place they invaded in the 50s-- South Korea.

I could list hundreds of more historical examples, but I see you're not interested in learning form history. You wish to believe that a brief interlude of peace means the world has somehow changed, and that war will never come again.

I'd laugh..but millions of people before you made the same mistake. I do suggest you look up a little information on a person by the name of Neville Chamberlain. You'll find his life story very interesting.





RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/18/2006 6:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
lol comparing the EU with Afghanistan are we... Russia with the USSR... what’s next?

"France didn't have many resources, and was Germany's biggest trading partner in the 1930s. Germany still invaded."
What can we do against a madman; the Germany of the 30s has nothing to do with the Russia of today, yeah sure you can always argue that a madman may rise to power in Russia and start a war with us but lets stay focused… anyway nothing stops you from thinking it will actually happen, maybe you should build a nuclear shelter and harvest enough food just in case.

"South Korea is North Korea's biggest trading partner...but if the North Koreans ever invade anywhere again, it'll be the same place they invaded in the 50s-- South Korea."
Comparing Russia with North Korea are we, North Korea is far from being as diplomatic as Russia…

"You wish to believe that a brief interlude of peace means the world has somehow changed, and that war will never come again."
I don’t take my wishes for the reality nor even take them into account when replying to your out of the butt theories.


RE: What is ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 7/18/2006 8:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
> "What can we do against a madman; the Germany of the 30s has nothing to do with the Russia of today"

While your "madman" view of history simplifies things to an admirable degree-- its not that simple. Hitler was not "mad" (except perhaps towards the end of the war), and many millions of other Germans supported their nations attacks.

Trying to blame it all on a madman fails utterly when you consider Italy and Japan both allied with Germany. Were they led by madmen also? What about Thailand, which signed a military alliance with Japan during WW2, and Finland which assisted Germany in attacking the Soviets. Were they madmen also? What about Croatia and Bulgaria? Madmen all?

> "Comparing Russia with North Korea are we"

Now you're just being silly. No one is comparing North Korea with Russia. Since you've become confused totally over the thrust of the debate, let me refresh your memory. You attempted to make the point that no nation would attack its major trading partner. I pointed out the flaw in this...that nations regularly do just this. And gave you historical references to support it.

Get it now?






RE: What is ridiculous
By Strunf on 7/18/2006 9:24:34 PM , Rating: 1
Italy was ruled by a fascist and the Japanese emperor shouldn’t be a that nice guy either to ally himself with Hitler and Mussolini, the U.R.S.S. probably didn’t join in cause Hitler didn’t asked them too… I my opinion many smaller countries went with Hitler for fear too, after all with Hitler it was simple you are either with us or against us.

“You attempted to make the point that no nation would attack its major trading partner.”
No I said Russia… wait now we are going to tell me we weren’t speaking of Russia after all.

Anyway the answer I’ve been asking hasn’t been answered yet, why would Russia attack us, how about instead of pulling historical facts from 40 or so years ago you work on the present day…


Fine is BS
By FITCamaro on 7/13/2006 11:15:12 AM , Rating: 2
That fine is BS. Is any other company out there expected to give out the inner workings of its products? No. The whole "remove media player or else" thing was also crap. Guess what, if you don't like media player, DON'T USE IT!!! It's not like Microsoft is preventing anyone from installing any other media player. They just bundle theirs with Windows. Its their damn product so they should be able to do with it as they please. The special N version of XP they had to come out with has hardly been used and was a waste of Microsoft's time.

The EC can suck it as far as I'm concerned. I know Windows isn't perfect by far, but this crap is ridiculous.




RE: Fine is BS
By Loser on 7/13/2006 11:31:52 AM , Rating: 2
anyone who studied economy at least a little bit knows its for the best
you are not one of them.
i agree that this ridiculuous fines are so high coz microsoft CAN pay them, but in the end its best for the economy


RE: Fine is BS
By masher2 (blog) on 7/13/2006 11:50:36 AM , Rating: 3
> "anyone who studied economy at least a little bit knows its for the best..."

Well, I've studied enough economy to know that antitrust actions often wind up hurting the competitor, not helping them. How much

> "i agree that this ridiculuous fines are so high coz microsoft CAN pay them"

Yet European companies much larger than Microsoft, were never fined anything even remotely approaching the fine levelled against Microsoft. The situation is worse when one realizes that Microsoft isn't even accused of criminal violation of the antitrust laws, but is being punished for, in the EC's opinion, not fulfilling their disclosure order quick enough.

Some people seem to think of Microsoft as some sort of corporate behemoth...but it barely makes the top of US companies...on a global scale, its far smaller still.

Given the EU action is in the "workgroup server" market, a billion dollar fine equates to roughly a entire year's profits for Microsoft in this segment. Hardly a slap on the wrist.


RE: Fine is BS
By purvisa on 7/13/2006 4:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
European companies much larger than Microsoft, were never fined anything even remotely approaching the fine levelled against Microsoft. The situation is worse when one realizes that Microsoft isn't even accused of criminal violation of the antitrust laws, but is being punished for, in the EC's opinion, not fulfilling their disclosure order quick enough.


You should follow this more closely. The disclosure order was part of an antitrust ruling from two years ago. Furthermore, it is not so much that MS did not comply quickly enough (aren't adverbs cool?), but that MS didn't comply. No other company has refused compliance before this, making MS the first ever to receive this kind of fine.


RE: Fine is BS
By masher2 (blog) on 7/13/2006 9:15:34 PM , Rating: 3
> "You should follow this more closely..."

No one follows it closer.

> "it is not so much that MS did not comply quickly enough (aren't adverbs cool?), but that MS didn't comply..."

Microsoft did comply. Many times, in fact. The first demand was for "full and accurate disclosure" of all APIs. Microsoft provided every page of documentation it possessed, both internal and external. The EU spent a year looking at it, then (in Oct 2005, just 9 months ago) judged it "incomplete and poorly organized".

Microsoft then offered the full source code to the APIs, along with 500 hours of free training for every competitor who used the code. This was judged incomplete as well, and Microsoft was ordered to rewrite the documentation from the ground up.

Microsoft then asked for formal guidelines on what specifically was wrong with the existing documentation, and what format the new documentation should take. This was supplied by the EC indepedent trustee Neil Barrett in March of this year (4 months ago).

Since those four months have passed, Microsoft has had a team of 300+ engineers working triple-shift on the documentation project. It has *already* delivered 6 of the 7 planned installments of this rewrite, and plans to deliver the last within the next couple of weeks.

This is "refusing to cooperate"? Which world do you live in?


RE: Fine is BS
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 7:28:03 AM , Rating: 1
The EU NEVER spent 9 months reading the MS crap, MS refused the EC demands and brought the process to court and by the end of 2004 the court ruled in favor of the EC, then only on the 06/06/2005 MS agreed to comply… but what they gave was useless crap and on 05/10/2005 an independent trustee is put in place (one suggested by MS), on the 22/12/2005 the EC sent a Statement of Objections that reinforced what they have said before and they also sent a report made by the trustee where we could read that the MS documentation was “entirely inadequate”, “devoted to obsolete functionality” and “self-contradictory”, it also says this “In addition, both reports point out that Microsoft appears to assume that it is for users of the documentation to report incorrect, incomplete or inaccurate information which Microsoft would then correct.” Funny as it reminds me a lot of what happens in the PC world…

On 02/2006 MS requested an oral hearing, and Monitoring trustee said about the latest MS documentation “The Monitoring Trustee notes that although it was improved slightly, “nothing substantial was added to the Technical Documentation” compared to the previous version, and that the material continues to be incomplete, inaccurate and unusable. The improvements required to the documentation are not merely refinements or improvements to the text: the documentation as it stands is unusable.”

03/2006 MS has the oral hearing.

After that MS started finally to give the apparently correct documentation but this over 2 years after the EC demands, and by the 12/07/2006 the EC still didn’t have all the documentation but only part of it and they fined MS…

Anyway this is not the end yet, the EC and the monitoring trustee has still to read all the MS documentation and if stills not what they want, more fines will come underway and this time they are even higher…


RE: Fine is BS
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 8:54:58 AM , Rating: 1
> "then only on the 06/06/2005 MS agreed to comply"

Ooops, The 6/6/2005 deadline was set by the EC itself, and it included not only documentation, but the new version of Windows sans Media Player, new licensing terms from Microsoft, and a few other things.

> "The EU NEVER spent 9 months reading the MS crap..."

Documents provided June 2005, EC responds they are "unsuitable" 6 months later (22/12/2005-- your own date), and provides formal guidelines for rewriting them in March 2006.

That's 9 months, cubby.

Even before March, Microsoft had worked to improve the documentation. But, given the EC's failure to provide any specific objections and complaints, is it any wonder they were unsatisfied with the results? Seriously, do you think that looking at 12,000 pages of documents and issuing a blanket, "it's unsuitable-- fix it!" is sufficient working order for a team of 300 people?

> "Anyway this is not the end yet..."

Of course not. They've already slapped Microsoft with a $600M fine, then this additional $350M fine, and will likely take the opportunity to steal another $600M before they move onto another victim.



RE: Fine is BS
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 10:03:51 AM , Rating: 2
“Ooops, The 6/6/2005 deadline was set by the EC itself, and it included not only documentation.”

No the dead line was 120 days after March 2004 for the documentation and 90 days for the windows with out the WMP… The CFI didn’t gave any delay just said “Microsoft must now implement both remedies without delay” without delay thing the MS understood has the 6/6/2005…

“Documents provided June 2005, EC responds they are "unsuitable" 6 months later (22/12/2005-- your own date)”
No the 22/12/2005 is the date the EC issued the STO enforcing what they had ALREADY SAID BEFORE (as of the 10/11/2005 that is 5 months after MS supplied the documentation) and including the Monitor trustee report.

“That's 9 months, cubby.”
No the EC took 5 moths to check the documentation (12000 pages) and issued a statement saying it wasn’t that what they wanted, a month later the EC further reinforced its position and even gave MS a report from the monitoring trustee.

“Seriously, do you think that looking at 12,000 pages of documents and issuing a blanket, "it's unsuitable-- fix it!" is sufficient working order for a team of 300 people?”
The report by the motoring trustee CLEARLY says that the MS documentation was “entirely inadequate”, “devoted to obsolete functionality” and “self-contradictory” in other words 12000 pages of crap that cant fool us ;)


RE: Fine is BS
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 12:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
> "the dead line was 120 days after March 2004 for the documentation and 90 days for the windows with out the WMP… The CFI didn’t gave any delay..."

The deadlines were pushed back by the EC itself, in response to the initial disclosures of some documentation by Microsoft. I've already posted the references for this in the earlier thread.

> "No the EC took 5 moths to check the documentation (12000 pages) and issued a statement saying it wasn’t that what they wanted, a month later the EC further reinforced its position and even gave MS a report from the monitoring trustee"

Six months to check it...the end result of which was a simple "not acceptable" verdict. The EU didn't provide *specifications* for how the documentation should be rewritten in March of this year. That's 9 months, any way you slice it.

> "The report by the motoring trustee CLEARLY says that the MS documentation was “entirely inadequate”, “devoted to obsolete functionality” and “self-contradictory” in other words 12000 pages of crap that cant fool us ;) "

Sounds like most technical documentation anywhere in the world. And you are still ignoring the main point. This original documentation was all Microsoft ITSELF had. Microsoft managed. Other companies have managed even without that documentation and source code.

The notion that anyone *needs* a total rewrite of that documentation simply to be able to "communicate" with Windows servers is nonsense. Its an excuse to plug Microsoft for another billion dollars, plain and simple.


All Microsoft did here was what EVERY software company in the world does. Protect its intellectual property. The EU demanding open access to that IP is bad enough. Demanding they rewrite tens of thousands of pages to their specification is worse. But giving them NO TIME to do it is a farce. Its a massive project, so massive in fact that the EC took so many months to even write the specifications for it. They should at least give Microsoft enough time to meet their demands.



RE: Fine is BS
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 1:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
Care to share again when the EC gave further deadlines ?

“Six months to check it...”
No 5 months, from the 6/6/2005 to 10/11/2005, that’s 5 months or pretty close to it…

“The EU didn't provide *specifications* for how the documentation should be rewritten in March of this year.”
That’s the date when MS had an oral hearing, if MS wanted they could have asked for one before, instead of going to court or trying to fool us with the source code or the crap documentation.

“Sounds like most technical documentation anywhere in the world. And you are still ignoring the main point.”
And who are you or I that didn’t read those papers to say what they are or what they are not, what I say is what the monitor trustee said, and guess what he CERTANLY knows more than you and I on the subject… but feel free to say whatever you want about papers you know nothing about.

“This original documentation was all Microsoft ITSELF had.”
Doubt of it my friend… if MS was to works with “entirely inadequate”, “devoted to obsolete functionality” and “self-contradictory” documentation then they wouldn’t get anywhere, they are just releasing what is good enough for others…

“The notion that anyone *needs* a total rewrite of that documentation simply to be able to "communicate" with Windows servers is nonsense.”
Same as above I don’t see any competence in you to speak of papers you never read or know anything about, unless now you tell me you are a one of the MS that supplied the documentation…

“But giving them NO TIME to do it is a farce.”
No time? what a joke they had over 2 full years my friend… others just pay or comply right away, you hardly ever gain anything by going against the system…

“Its a massive project”
And ? didn’t MS put 300 people just for it ? besides what the EC wants is what MS already should have or do you think MS doesn’t keep decent documentation about its products, if that was the case they would be screwed every time they wanted to release any new product, update the ones they already have or even link together some different products.


RE: Fine is BS
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 2:38:03 PM , Rating: 1
> "That’s the date when MS had an oral hearing, if MS wanted they could have asked for one before, instead of going to court or trying to fool us with the source code or the crap documentation."

I've already posted confirmation of the number of times Microsoft asked for specific guidelines for documentation from Neil Barrett. Those guidelines were not provided until March 2006.

As for Microsoft trying to "fool us" with source code to their products, one simply has to ask--- are you insane? Microsoft went to court repeatedly to BLOCK the release of that code. They only agreed to release code AFTER the EC dropped their demand to allow it be integrated into open-source products verbatim:

quote:
The European competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, has agreed to suspend a part of the antitrust ruling last year against Microsoft until after the company's appeal is concluded in the coming years, the commission said Monday.

Under an informal agreement reached last week with Microsoft, the commission agreed to exclude open-source software developers from the benefits of this remedy for the time being. In return, Microsoft vowed to apply the remedy globally...


> "feel free to say whatever you want about papers you know nothing about..."

Isn't that exactly what you've been doing for a dozen posts, calling them "useless trash" and "crap"? Seems your debating standards are as hypocritical as your views on Microsoft.

However, unlike you, I do know something about those papers. I know they're all Microsoft had as a resource. Which means they're certainly sufficient for other developers.

And by the way, you once again refused to answer the primary point...what about all the developers who've made competing products WITHOUT this documentation and source code? They prove the EU doesn't have a leg to stand on here. Writing competitive server products is possible...many people do so. Many of those products are better than Microsoft's own...and NONE of them required any of this preexisting documentation...much less the new, rewritten docs that the EU claims are "absolutely a requirement".



RE: Fine is BS
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 2:42:32 PM , Rating: 1
> "No time? what a joke they had over 2 full years my friend"

The original requirement was for "full and complete disclosure". Which Microsoft made last year. Source code is full and complete. Period. NOTHING can be hidden. This is inarguable.

After EU received the original documentation and source code, their demand changed. Now it becomes "full and complete...and in a very succinct, convenient form, easy-to-use format". A demand that Microsoft, quite rightly, asked the EC to clarify. What specifically did they find fault with in the original documents...and what specifically did Microsoft need to change to be in compliance.

A very reasonable request. And one the EU did not answer until March of this year.

> "what the EC wants is what MS already should have or do you think MS doesn’t keep decent documentation about its products..."

So now you're claiming Microsoft really had additional documentation kept hidden? When you get through checking your yard for black helicopters, perhaps you can back up that claim.





RE: Fine is BS
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 4:39:57 PM , Rating: 1
Stop saying non sense the EC NEVER asked for the source code, actually they said they didn’t want it, its clearly written on the 2004 demands.

Why did you quote that part of text ? the EC is saying that for now MS may require a fair amount of money for the use of it’s technology and not allow the open source community to use it, and they expect in the future the open source community may use it too, this is also written on the 2004 demands.

“Isn't that exactly what you've been doing for a dozen posts, calling them "useless trash" and "crap"?”
No that’s what the report says, I grant you they don’t use the word crap though, they call is useless and others adjectives more respectful.

“what about all the developers who've made competing products WITHOUT this documentation and source code?”
What do you want me to say about it, I sure don’t know those products so how the heck would I know how they made them and how hard it was or if they offer the same capabilities to interact with windows PC like the MS products etc etc I don’t speak of something I know nothing about… What I know is that companies complained to the EC, they investigated it and found enough evidence to charge MS.

A source code is pretty useless with out the documentation, the EC clearly didn’t ask for the source code but for the documentation, you’re right though everything is there but the problem is now how to find what your looking for without the documentation, its like opening an encyclopedia that has no page numbers, no index, and the articles aren’t organized by an specific order, ya sure everything is there but good luck finding what you’re looking for.

“So now you're claiming Microsoft really had additional documentation kept hidden? When you get through checking your yard for black helicopters, perhaps you can back up that claim.”
One could guess any company of the size of MS keeps a good record of its documentation… this is not really the average joe apartment with papers all over the place.


RE: Fine is BS
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 5:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why did you quote that part of text ? the EC is saying that for now MS may...not allow the open source community to use it..."

Why did I quote it? Isn't it obvious? Because, prior to the EC dropping that demand, the released source code would have been freely integrateable into open source projects. Making it public domain material.

By YOUR OWN ADMISSION, the original demand was for source code. If it was simply for documentation, then why would open source developers not be able to use it? They can freely use any and all documentation. Point in fact, the EC was not only demanding source code, but demanding it to be released into the public domain. Luckily they dropped that part of the demand.

> "I sure don’t know those products so how the heck would I know how they made them and how hard it was "

So you're claiming you don't anything about Windows Server, or any competing products? And that-- if true-- we should somehow take your opinion as authoritative? Trying to baffle us with your ignorance?

> "What I know is that companies complained to the EC"

Sun complained...a company that, due to its own missteps, has been losing market share to Microsoft, and others, for decades. Companies ALWAYS complain about their competitors...thats why they call it competition.

> "...they investigated it and found enough evidence to charge MS"

The "evidence" they found was that Microsoft had information about its products that it didn't release to competitors. Woo hoo. Big crime, there.

> "A source code is pretty useless with out the documentation..."

Where do people get this nonsense? Source code is never "useless". Its incredibly valuable...which explains why the EC spent a year trying to force Microsoft to put it into the hands of open-source developers.

With the source code, you can do ANYTHING. Its full disclosure. It tells you absolutely everything about a piece of software, without any possible omission.

If you want to debate this undebatable point-- name one possible thing about an application that isn't fully disclosed by its source. Just one will do.

We'll wait. It's going to be a long time.


RE: Fine is BS
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 5:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2004 — March 24: The European Commission fines Microsoft $613-million (U.S.), orders it to share communications code with rivals within 120 days and market a version of Windows without a bundled multimedia program within 90 days. The sanction is later suspended while a judge hears a Microsoft appeal...

— Dec. 22: An EU court rejects Microsoft's appeal against the order that it disclose code and produce a version of Windows without Media Player...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM...



RE: Fine is BS
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 6:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
“If it was simply for documentation, then why would open source developers not be able to use it?”
Cause the documentation may have parts of the code actually used; this is not what we call the source code usually.

“They can freely use any and all documentation.”
No you cant, Patents very often covers not only the code but also the way the code is implemented, for instance do you recall the plug-in function of the IE that brought them to court cause apparently someone patented a function (with out the code) that described what the plug-in does, the documentation may tell the way something is implemented and this way may be protected with a patent.

“Trying to baffle us with your ignorance?”
No, just saying I don’t comment something I know nothing about.

“Companies ALWAYS complain about their competitors...thats why they call it competition.”
And that’s why the EC and others exist…

“The "evidence" they found was that Microsoft had information about its products that it didn't release to competitors. Woo hoo. Big crime, there.”
If it’s a big crime or not I don’t know, I know however MS has to pay for it.

“Where do people get this nonsense? Source code is never "useless". Its incredibly valuable...”
May be, but not when you are looking for a specific thing, when looking for something I would rather have a good documentation about the code than the source of the whole code any day of the week.

“If you want to debate this undebatable point-- name one possible thing about an application that isn't fully disclosed by its source. Just one will do.”
Everything is on the code but like I said before the code isn’t something easy to read, every single programmer writes the code on its own away and I’m not speaking of cosmetics, its incredibly hard to understand someone else code with out the documentation, its just like the encyclopedia example I pointed before.

Official papers :
“To the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area, Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration. The disclosure order concerns the interface documentation only, and not the Windows source code, as this is not necessary to achieve the development of interoperable products.”

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?refe...

In other words just the documentation not the source code.


RE: Fine is BS
By fayainz on 7/13/2006 11:50:53 AM , Rating: 2
Can you please explain how this fine is "good" for the economy?


RE: Fine is BS
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 1:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
In addition to the posts above,
quote:
i agree that this ridiculuous fines are so high coz microsoft CAN pay them

So in your mind the fines are justifiable because of Microsoft's ability to afford them? Don't you think this is kind of wrong, that maybe instead the amount of the fine should be related to the harm done?


RE: Fine is BS
By Strunf on 7/13/2006 4:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
Why that ? are you telling us that just cause someone has plenty of money they can go freely breaking the law cause after all that still peanuts for them and small companies that don’t have as much cant break the law so that's somewhat unfair don’t ya think, and instead of promoting competition no you’re just giving more advantages to the bigger companies over the smaller ones. Thank god the Tax guys don’t think like you do…


RE: Fine is BS
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 5:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
The principle of "equal protection" - all individuals and companies should be treated equally under the law regardless of who they are or how much money they have.


RE: Fine is BS
By Strunf on 7/13/2006 8:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Not true... just look to your system aren’t the fines to wait trial outside of prison proportional to your wealth ? and for instance the case of MacDonald having to pay a lot for the coffee that burned the throat of I don’t know who and there’s many others examples, the fact is that very often the tribunals enforce a fine proportional to your wealth.


RE: Fine is BS
By masher2 (blog) on 7/13/2006 9:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "just look to your system aren’t the fines to wait trial outside of prison proportional to your wealth ? "

Oops, no they are not. Which is why a millionaire awaiting trial for littering doesn't even have to post bond...yet a penniless indigent awaiting trial for murder may have a half-million dollar bond set.

> "and for instance the case of MacDonald having to pay a lot for the coffee that burned the throat of I don’t know who "

The fine was set based on a jury determination of the damages suffered by the woman. The wealth of the corporation had nothing to do with it. She could have sued Joe's Deli instead and won the same fee....they simply wouldn't have been able to pay it, is all.




RE: Fine is BS
By alienplay on 7/13/2006 12:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
XPn isnt used beacuse
A. It costs the same as the regular and
B. no oem in (to my knowledge) europe bundles with -n. Somehow i dont think the development of the mediaplayer was at no cost.

"the inner workings" in this case is documentation on network protocolls to make *nix servers able to properly interact with win servers/klients. Ever tried using Samba ?.

MS has a 90%+ marketshare on client and 54% on servers, that is not just "any other company".


RE: Fine is BS
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 1:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
XPn isnt used beacuse
A. It costs the same as the regular and
B. no oem in (to my knowledge) europe bundles with -n. Somehow i dont think the development of the mediaplayer was at no cost.

The development cost doesn't necessarily have any impact on the sell price. This is software, not hardware.

The fact that XPn is of no commercial significance just shows the stupidity of the EU ruling and settlement. It has zero net increase in competition and does nothing for consumers.


RE: Fine is BS
By Strunf on 7/13/2006 4:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
"does nothing for consumers."
Wrong it gives them the choice... and that's what the EU wanted.


RE: Fine is BS
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 5:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong it gives them the choice... and that's what the EU wanted.

If the consumer has a choice, and everyone chooses the regular XP version, then was it a reasonable or necessary choice to offer?

Anyway, the consumer has already had a choice, since Windows Media Player is trivial to uninstall. Is it like three mouse clicks?


RE: Fine is BS
By Strunf on 7/13/2006 5:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
That's three mouse clicks less to do... now if with IE it was as simple...


RE: Fine is BS
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 5:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's three mouse clicks less to do... now if with IE it was as simple...

IE has the same uninstall procedure (did you even check this before posting?). Why would anyone complain about this? Heck, it actually takes more effort to download and install a different media player or web browser than it does to uninstall the included ones. You need to be more practical in your views.

Bottom line is that the bundling of these applications with Windows is a net benefit to consumers. If the majority of consumers did not believe this, Microsoft would not bundle the software because consumers would complain.


RE: Fine is BS
By Strunf on 7/13/2006 8:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
No it doesn’t, IE isn’t uninstalled, windows only removes the links to it... but if you call that uninstall then I guess we different perceptions of the meaning of the word, the fact is that IE is linked to XP that MS said they couldn’t uninstall it properly or so they said…

How about bundling it just so customers don’t look somewhere else when picking a browser or a media player…


RE: Fine is BS
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 9:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No it doesn’t, IE isn’t uninstalled, windows only removes the links to it

The IE "application" is uninstalled, but it leaves behind the IE automation server. Why is this? Because many applications (probably some you have on your machine) assume that IE is installed and that they can instantiate instances of the IE web browser. If you uninstall IE fully, then these apps will break.


RE: Fine is BS
By Strunf on 7/14/2006 6:51:24 AM , Rating: 2
No the IE isn’t uninstalled... I've tried to uninstall it and like I said before it only removed the links, then I installed it again and guess what my Favorites was still there, my history was still there and my google toolbar was still there, everything was exactly the same.


RE: Fine is BS
By masher2 (blog) on 7/13/2006 1:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "MS has a 90%+ marketshare on client and 54% on servers..."

33% on servers, actually. Reference in the previous MS thread.


RE: Fine is BS
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 2:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds about right to me: in 2005, Windows server worldwide sales were $17.7b of the overall $51.3b market (source: IDC). That's 34.5% as I calculate it, pretty close to 33%.

Anyone who claims that MS has a monopoly in server OSs hasn't looked at the market at all.


RE: Fine is BS
By Strunf on 7/13/2006 4:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
That or you're putting a bunch of servers that have NOTHING in common into the same bag...


RE: Fine is BS
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 5:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
First, let me say that "I" am not categorizing anything; I'm just passing along IDC numbers.

The IDC press release cites that category as including Windows, Unix, and Linux. I would consider those to be pretty similar.

But your point is valid - it is easy to play with the numbers - which seems to be exactly what EU did in order to justify their actions against Microsoft.


RE: Fine is BS
By alienplay on 7/13/2006 3:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
"Microsoft's server market share is about 54%, with Linux at 24%, according to market research firm IDC. The market shares of both Linux and Windows are growing at the expense of Unix, NetWare and other server operating systems."

http://www.tunexp.com/news/windows-story-317.html


"Windows servers accounted for $4.9 billion in 4Q05, representing 33.6% of quarterly server market revenue."

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS2007...


RE: Fine is BS
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 3:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Microsoft's server market share is about 54%, with Linux at 24%, according to market research firm IDC. The market shares of both Linux and Windows are growing at the expense of Unix, NetWare and other server operating systems."

Not sure where that comes from. Here is the original IDC press release that includes the numbers I stated in the above post, which give the 34.5% value:

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS2007...

Maybe they are counting server unit market share instead of revenue?


RE: Fine is BS
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 3:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I just noticed that your second link was to the same PR that I cited. In any case, I don't see data in that PR to support a 54% market share claim.


RE: Fine is BS
By masher2 (blog) on 7/13/2006 4:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
...or the reporter simply "took poetic license" to make a better story.


RE: Fine is BS
By Nekrik on 7/13/2006 2:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
The cost could (arguably should) have been higher, MS had to cover SKU creation, production, test, time lost from other profit generating products, etc...


Anybody who actually studies economics...
By Dfere on 7/13/2006 1:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
Can tell you, that in most industries, most mergers NEVER result in the merged company gaining more than 50% market share in a given geographical region. regulators in the US and Europe won't allow it. MS already has that and more. So to say that :
1) You can compare your supposed study to MS and what regulators ought to allow is BS.

2) MS ought to be treated like any other company clearly ignores the facts of what a monopoly they do have. If regulators impose additional conditions, how can you say they are unreasonable? Nobody else is is MS's position (I am not saying it is right or wrong, I am saying the argument is invalid).

3) "MS is evil" is irrelevant. All companies will leverage market share and we, as stockholders, or employees, or business partners want them to. It is the basis for a worldwide issue of ant-trust activities.

before you flame..... How do I know? I have a BSBA (cum Laude) with minors in Economics and Accounting, major field of sudy in Finance and Real Estate, and a Master's degree in taxation. Oh and I am a senior tax analyst in an international manufacturing with over a billion in U.S. sales alone that just bought out its competitor and just received conditions on merger from the EU and the FTC is about to rule on us.




RE: Anybody who actually studies economics...
By TomZ on 7/13/2006 1:08:02 PM , Rating: 3
What is sad is that, even with your long list of credentials, you still reach the wrong conclusion.

What you are not aware of is the fact that having a monopoly is not illegal. It is only when you use that monopoly in certain ways that you run amok of the law. This undermines your entire argument.


RE: Anybody who actually studies economics...
By Rapsven on 7/13/2006 1:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
TomZ is right in this case.

AT&T operated as a monopoly for decades until the government decided it was subversive to public interests. Telecommunications was NOT a natural monopoly and only in the government's good graces was AT&T able to become so large yet so lazy. The breakup of AT&T has suddenly created massive amounts of competition in the telco industry.

Microsoft is hardly in AT&T's boat. High market share (even 85%) does not mean one company is a monopoly. First off, monopolies in the past focused around hard goods. Goods that were necessary. We can see now that oil was necessary. Steel was necessary. Transportation (the railroad monopolies) was necessary. Microsoft Windows is NOT necessary. There are other alternatives, except the vast majority of people prefer Microsoft's OS. When did Microsoft jack up prices on Office or Windows because consumers didn't have a choice? When did Microsoft buy out smaller companies in the same market (Operating systems, in this case) in order to stifle competition?

The EU is a joke, in any case. In fifty years, it'll be nothing more than a fortified retirement community, if that.


RE: Anybody who actually studies economics...
By purvisa on 7/13/2006 4:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the legality of, and thus the ways in which a company may use, a monopoly is not the same in different parts of the world. Using United States law to explain European law makes relatively little sense, especially since the EU has much stronger antitrust legislation than the United States.


By TomZ on 7/13/2006 4:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
You're right about that, but the conclusion is still the same when you apply EU antitrust law. Microsoft didn't get into any trouble in the EU by simply having a 95% desktop OS market share; it only got into trouble when it allegedly used that market share to capture market share of "workgroup servers."


RE: Anybody who actually studies economics...
By Strunf on 7/13/2006 4:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
In fifty years? man I wished I knew what's going to happen this week let along predict what will happen in fifty years... how about you lending me your crystal ball so I can see the next EuroMillions numbers and get like 15000000€...


RE: Anybody who actually studies economics...
By maxusa on 7/14/2006 2:09:29 AM , Rating: 2
How about a $315M for single person lottery win for a $1 invested? Jack Whittaker of WV, USA in 2002.


By INeedCache on 7/14/2006 6:38:58 AM , Rating: 2
...must really like pain.


RE: Anybody who actually studies economics...
By Dfere on 7/14/2006 11:25:33 AM , Rating: 2
Where did I say a monopoly is illegal?

Read my article first before resonding , please.


By TomZ on 7/14/2006 1:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
MS ought to be treated like any other company clearly ignores the facts of what a monopoly they do have.

Not said, but implied. Your post boils down to an incorrect conclusion that Microsoft has to just accept whatever EU says it has to do, simply because it has a monopoly.
quote:
Read my article first before resonding , please.

I did. What's your point?


No effect on launch date
By ET on 7/13/2006 10:09:00 AM , Rating: 2
The fine will not affect Vista's launce date. It will be released in 2008, as expected.




meh
By Boney on 7/13/2006 10:02:49 AM , Rating: 1
I heard that Microsoft has about 32billion cashonhand in order to help buy technology and other companies ...... so you just took out 1/32 of their "spending" money.

Ouch EU ... you really showed them.




no duh
By JaredExtreme on 7/13/06, Rating: 0
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki