systran(Αμερικάνοι) -> idiots? && Pentium

Post by **HdkiLLeR** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:35 pm

Διαβάστε το παρά το ότι είναι στα αγγλικά. Έχει πολύ γέλιο.

Recently, Congress has been pushing a bill that would require companies to acquire a license for each computer exported that is more powerful than a Pentium 3 650MHz. The theory behind the bill is that computers more powerful than the mentioned minimum are able to run too many of the United States Government's military programs and therefore are a threat to the nation. The bill has already made its way through the House of Representatives and is awaiting approval in the Senate. What this will mean for computer companies in the United States trying to export computers with greater than a Pentium 3 650MHz processor is that they will have to seek a license for each individual unit shipped. Licenses will even be required for exports to nations considered allies.

Currently, the required minimum for computers needing licenses for export is equal to or greater than 32 Intel Itanium processors. A computer of this power is said to be able to run 98% of the military programs in the United States. It is estimated that instead of needing 20 licenses a year, computer companies would be having to file for close to 20,000 a day. All this can mean is that small or struggling computer companies will go out of business and buyers overseas will have to pay much higher import taxes on the products.

Source: CNET

Post by **Ethel** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 7:39 pm

Για μια ακόμη φορά αποδεικνύουν περίτρανα την ηλιθιότητά τους....

vagalati · Post by **vagalati** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 9:23 pm

Ε ρε γέλιο...

Post by **jimmyD** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 3:46 am

Η μήπως Ε ρε κλάμα ??

Post by **Einherjar** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 4:21 am

Υπάρχει καμιά εταιρία κατασκευής επεξεργαστών εκτός ΗΠΑ? Για να αρχίσουμε να προσανατολιζόμαστε!

lumenintervalum · Post by **lumenintervalum** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:32 pm

Εμένα αυτό μου βγάζει μόνο προβληματισμό και με στεναχωρεί..Δεν έχει κανένας το δικαίωμα να ελέγχει με τέτοιο τρόπο τον οποιονδήποτε!!!ΑΑΑ!!!Φρίττω!!!

koki · Post by **koki** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:11 pm

Εγώ λέω να το επιβάλλουν και στις εταιρείες που κατασκευάζουν φαξ/τηλέφωνα/εκτυπωτές και αντιγραφικά. Εφόσον με βάση επιστημονικές μελέτες μπορούν να διαδίδουν στοιχεία του Στρατού. Και γιατί όχι στις κουζίνες? Φαντάζεσαι να ψήνουν φαγητά ίδια με αυτά του Αμερικάνικου Στρατου?

sarge · Post by **sarge** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 10:44 pm

όταν το διάβασα νόμισα ότι ήταν φάρσα. απίστευτο.
όμως το cnet νομίζω ότι είναι αξιόπιστο.
βρήκα αυτό το κείμενο στο cnet:
http://news.com.com/Defense+bill+could+ ... 53873.html

είναι φοβερό που κάποιος σκέφτηκε/διανοήθηκε αυτό το πράγμα. το καλό είναι ότι μερικοί καταλαβαίνουν τι σημαίνει αυτό. δεν είναι όλοι τόσο ...:
==================
αποσπάσματα από το άρθρο
-----------------------------------------
===>
"...A congressional staff member familiar with the House and Senate bills said it's likely Section 1404 will be changed or dropped...."
-----------------------------------------

Section 1404 of the appropriations bill would roll back the licensing equation to a level not seen since 1994.

"The President shall require a license...for the export of goods or technologies included on the Militarily Critical Technologies List," Section 1404 of the House bill states. That list cites a level of 1,500 MTOPS as being militarily critical.

The computer-export issue has already become a talking point in Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Kerry promises that if he's elected president, he'll shift "the emphasis of computer export controls from attempting to control widely available business computers, to controlling the availability of classified software created for applications such as weapons development," according to the Kerry campaign's policy paper.

Yet, on that issue, Kerry may not differ much from his opponent. The Bush administration has criticized that part of the legislation in its Statement of Administration Policy for limiting the Executive Branch's power, and listed it as the third most significant problem with the bill.

"These requirements are contrary to the president's policy to refine U.S. export control to protect truly critical technologies while facilitating legitimate trade," the position paper stated. The paper, however, did not promise to veto the bill if Section 1404 remained intact, something the Bush administration pledged for its top two concerns outlined in the position paper.

Not only does the White House oppose that section of the legislation, but a representative of the Office of the Secretary of Defense also said it's not likely the Pentagon would support a bill that used the list of critical technologies for export restrictions.

---------------------------------------------
====>
"...If this gets through Congress, it is a regression of mind-boggling proportions..."