I heard that Windows 7 is supposed to get a new API. Old programs would run in a sort of virtual machine designed to support backward compatibility, while new apps could be developed directly for "native mode". I think this is a great idea.
On the other hand, if the API is going 100%.Net like was suggest in the FA, I'm gone from developing on Windows. I generally work in C/C++ or even assembler and I like being close to the bare metal. I don't want to program wearing a condom like the.Net people do. Beyond that, to me 100%.Net means 100% lock-in and a non-portable skill set
Iran also has the world's second largest reserves of natural gas (15% of the world's total); these are exploited primarily for domestic use.
Ahmadinejad's Achilles Heel: The Iranian Economy
"Some 30,000 Gigawatt hour electricity equal to the total electricity generation of some 30 Boushehr-like nuclear power plants is wasted annually in Iran. Some 18.5 percent of the electricity produced in Iran is wasted before it reaches to consumers due to technical problems and mismanagement in the Energy Ministry, a former supervisory body in the ministry told BAZTAB.
...lavish spending has increased the double digit inflation rate even more and has caused concerns among politicians and economists that [Ahmadinejad's] economic policies coupled with his hard-line stance on nuclear dispute and approach to foreign policy may damage the country.
As inflation is rapidly approaching critical levels, economists and politicians have began to sound the alarms. There are now open calls for impeachment of several government ministers and although not openly mentioned, the moderates and some conservatives would like nothing more than impeaching the president himself.
One of the most pressing issues in Iran today is the mushrooming energy use and the amount of hard currency that is going into subsidies. The government imports over $7 billion dollars worth of petrol per year. Yet the price of a gallon of petrol is only 33 cents. This subsidy does nothing more than encourage smuggling of petrol to the neighbouring countries where prices are higher. It also removes any incentive for the consumers to save on their energy consumption.
it is calculated that each year over one billion dollar worth of electricity is wasted due to the inefficiency of the Ministry of Energy.
"Some 30,000 Gigawatt hour electricity equal to the total electricity generation of some 30 Boushehr-like nuclear power plants is wasted annually in Iran. Some 18.5 percent of the electricity produced in Iran is wasted before it reaches to consumers due to technical problems and mismanagement in the Energy Ministry, a former supervisory body in the ministry told BAZTAB.
Bazzaries (Traditional merchants) seldom declare their true net worth or income to the authorities, and the authorities have no system of finding out the true income of these individuals and companies. Another problem is the informal economy. For example, major part of Tehran's economy, a city of almost 12-15 million people, runs on an informal, off-the-book system, making taxation extremely difficult. Then we have the various tax exempt charity foundations that are involved in almost all aspect of the economy.
In Iran, by some estimates, the Bonyads (charity foundations) control over 30% of the economy and yet pay no taxes at all [[3]]. They are involved in everything from vast Soybean and cotton fields to hotels to soft drinks to auto-manufacturing to shipping lines to..... These foundations represent vast economic empires that are neither taxed nor are directly under government control.
As charity organisations they are supposed to provide social services to the poor and the needy. Yet since there are over 100 of these organisations operating independently, the government doesn't know what, why, how and to whom this help and assistance is given. Lack of proper oversight and control of these foundations has also hampered the government's efforts in creating a comprehensive social security system in the country.
Corruption is usually the result of three things, lack of transparency, lack of regulations or too m
I'm sorry but I don't find your premise very convincing at all. I really don't have the interest (or to be completely honest - the knowledge) to give it a proper rebuttal - I'll leave that to others. I will point out a few things, however.
A prime reason would be diversification of their energy base. Oil might be cheap and plentiful now but it won't always be.
Come on now - didn't you notice? This country is downing in oil reserves. They'll never run out if they manage it properly.
As clean as "clean burning" is, there is still pollution generated and you can't avoid the CO2 emissions
Who says you can't avoid CO2 emissions, eh? Have you ever considered what a nuclear energy program costs? It must be billions upon billions of dollars. What if you spent all that money on being a world leader in clean oil burning technology with practical CO2 capture?
Nuclear energy is a terrible investment for such a small country, where they should be diversifying their economy. They could trade for nuclear technology some day if deemed necessary to conserve their oil - say 500 hundred years from now.
it makes plenty of sense for them to invest in a nuclear program
I contend just the opposite - that it makes no sense! Oh, by the way - I am a Canadian - as you can tell my my use of the word "eh".
"Iran claims to have the world's third largest reserves of oil at approximately 136 billion barrels (21.6×109 m3) as of 2007, although it ranks second if Canadian reserves of non-conventional oil are excluded. This is roughly 10 percent of the world's total proven petroleum reserves. Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer and is OPEC's second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia."
You tell me why Iran needs nuclear energy for power generation? They could invest all that money in clean oil burning technologies and still have plenty left over to advance a very broad range of research on industries that would diversify their economy. It makes no sense at all for them to invest so much money in nuclear energy, unless perhaps it's not really nuclear energy that they are after?
It just happens that you believe Adobe is better than Microsoft, but they are just the same, and will do anything at all costs to crush the opponent.
Come on - you're kidding, right? Adobe competes in the niche market with Pdf and Flash, whereas Microsoft p0wns 85% of desktop computers in the world, and is a convicted monopolist? That is typical M$ party line, where they try to say the "enemy" is no different. They tried that in the M$OOXML scandal, rationalizing their unscrupulous tactics by saying Open Source companies were just as bad. How come they are always in such a position? everybody does it - we are no worse that them - that is the meme they keep pushing both directly, and indirectly via their proxies we encounter on \. Pretty pathetic, I think. How about not behaving badly in the first place, instead of all these rationalization?
Of course there are problems for linux about using.NET as platform, and WMV as codecs. But mono has been putting a great effort into this, there are other codecs available.
if Microsoft makes a deal with Novell to release a good silverlight player for linux to compete with flash...
Leading right down the slippery slope to eventually putting a Microsoft tax on Linux?
Your argument is pure Company Line. Microsoft would be proud of you. Maybe if you talk to them you could get a little revenue stream going for yourself, planting M$ FUD on \. like others. I hear the pay is not too bad.
I thought is was pretty exciting news too. I had a friend who was some type of chemist many, many years ago who explained to me the concept of Islands of Stability for super heavy elements. It was his contention that such elements would be found one day. I hope this can be confirmed. It shouldn't be to hard to refine this from Thorium deposits - which the FA says are almost as abundant as lead. Perhaps we could smash nuclei of this material together and make black holes or antimatter or something. Imagine the mass such a nucleus could pack traveling at nearly the speed of light. Now I have one wish remaining - the creation/discovery of metallic hydrogen stable at room temperatures.
I found it to be very interesting, and I doubt that I am the only one, as his pages are nearly slashdotted at the moment. For some reason, my installation of WinXP Pro stopped accepting updates about 8 months ago, and I shudder to think about what unpatched vulnerabilities exist on it now. I really look forward to SP 3 resolving the problem and bringing my OS up to date, as I will continue running XP for a long time to come yet. I have no intention of upgrading to Vista. I certainly don't mind if the author chooses to adorn his web pages with advertising, which I am free to ignore.
I am sure we could, but why would we want to undermine a revenue model that brings us all the benefit of free (for us) content? Doesn't make any sense at all to me, as this content has to be paid for somehow. Would you prefer to personally pay for page views of information that would be important to you? I wouldn't, and therefore am quite happy to accept pages decorated with advertisements if it contains content interesting to me.
Duh... Got so excited to get first post that I didn't check the FA, which is all about Andy Updegrove's blog I linked to. Go ahead - mod me redundant. I deserve it.
Nonsense...there's no good reason to immediately jump to the conclusion that the problem mentioned in the study isn't a major or even dominant factor in colony collapse disorder.
I don't see how you so easily can say "nonsense". I see it differently - that there is no good reason to immediately jump to the conclusion that the problem of Colony Collapse Disorder is caused by pollution. Colony Collapse Disorder seems to happen in sporadic bursts, whereas I believe pollution can be graphed with long graceful curves.
Wikipedia says "...late in the year 2006 and in early 2007 the rate of attrition was alleged to have reached new proportions, and the term "Colony Collapse Disorder" was proposed to describe this sudden rash of disappearances." To me, that implies that there is no correlation between Colony Collapse Disorder and pollution, since I don't think there was a sudden spike in pollution that corresponds with declines in bee populations.
Interestingly, I was just reading Boeing 787 Dreamliner Delayed Again, which links to a Wired Science article, which points to a Dan Rather video, which has a segment at the end that states that the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder has been determined to be caused by some Israeli bee virus. First time I heard that. I am certainly no expert, nor do I pretend to be. I was merely stating that for me, on the surface, the conclusion does not bear up to close scrutiny. In fact, I was implying that one doesn't need to be an expert, or even to RTFA to formulate a plausible critique.
The finding could help explain why some pollinators, particularly bees, are declining in certain parts of the world.
I don't need to RTFA to point out how this conclusion does not bare up to even superficial examination. We have two types of bees in this world - domestic and wild. Bees in the wild are likely far from sources of pollution - by definition of "in the wild". Domestic bees are well known to be currently suffering a crises due a disease (or is it bee mites - or both?). What bees remain that are both not "in the wild" and not domestic are the only ones to potentially fit to the above conclusion. I would suggest that this is a very small group. I suppose other pollinators - like butterflies, etc, may find it a bit more difficult to find their flowers these days, but on the other hand, one would logically find these insects near flowers in the first place - their place of birth. Same goes for domestic bees, which are cultivated near flowering crops.
Haven't you heard of "Windows XP Embedded" It's a componentized version of Win XP Pro and is based on the same binaries as XP Professional. It's is marketed towards developers for OEMs, ISVs and IHVs that want the full Win32 API support of Windows but without the overhead of Professional. It runs existing Windows applications and device drivers off-the-shelf on devices with at least 32MB Compact Flash, 32MB RAM and a P-200 microprocessor. "XPe" was released on November 28, 2001. As of February 2007, the newest release is Windows XP Embedded SP2 Feature Pack 2007.
XPe is not related to Windows CE. They target different devices and they each have their pros and cons which make them attractive to different OEMs for different types of devices. For instance, XPe will never get down to the small footprint that CE works in. However, CE does not have the Win32 APIs XPe has (although CE has an API that is similar to the Win32 API), nor can it run the tens of thousands of drivers and applications that already exist.
The devices targeted for XPe have included ATMs, arcade games, slot machines, cash registers, industrial robotics, thin clients, set-top boxes, network attached storage (NAS), time clocks, navigation devices, etc. Custom versions of the OS can be deployed onto anything but a full-fledged PC; even though XPe supports the same hardware that XP Professional supports (x86 architecture), licensing restrictions prevent it from being deployed on to standard PCs:-(
I was just thinking as I was reading this topic of how I would love to be able to load only the components I want.
I'm a great fan of XP Pro and use it daily in my work. I hope I will never have to downgrade to Vista. These days I am developing software for Adobe Flex & Action Script 3. If I stay at this, I may just switch to Linux when full support for that comes out next year.
On Groklaw we learned today that Hewlett Packard participated in overt political interference along side Microsoft
"Here's the scoop from Les Echos.fr on France's sudden change from its No vote to Abstain. Microsoft France's President Eric Boustouller sent AFNOR a letter [PDF] in French, of course. He tells a tale about OOXML and ODF progressing side by side and how if OOXML is approved, a group will be working hard to make the two more interoperable. Attached was a HP statement of support for OOXML. HP sings the same song. And AFNOR?"
Take a look at HP's Ethics and Compliance Page and you will see how concerned HP is of public perceptions after recent events connected with HP's investigation into leaks of confidential information from the Board of Directors tarnished HP's reputation in this area.
HP tells us they have a long-standing commitment to conducting business with uncompromising integrity, which is core to everything they stand for as a company. I am sure that if they really understood that by supporting MSOOXML they are headed for another scandal, they would distance themselves from OOXML. Even more, since their ambition is to provide a leadership role in corporate ethics, they would help to turn the tide against OOXML.
In light of this, you may wish to help them understand the errors presented by the "HP Position Statement on Standardization of Office Document Formats" and you may comment directly to their Board of Ethics on the Comments page. That is where I just posted the following letter...
Dear members of the Board of Ethics and Compliance at HP
It is clear that your company is deeply concerned about conducting business with uncompromising integrity. In light of your commitment to being a leader in global citizenship and corporate ethics, I wish to direct your attention to a serious error in judgment by somebody there at HP who formulated the "HP Position Statement on Standardization of Office Document Formats".
I refer to the following statements...
"HP believes that the international standardization process is working."
It is now blatantly obvious that quite the contrary is true, specifically, that the standardization process was seriously flawed. Please see the current discussion on Groklaw about this at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080331212042460#c684749 and you will quickly realize that your statement is a serious error.
"additional evolution of it will take place under control of the global community"
...another error - in no way whatsoever could we conclude that the decision for MSOOXML to become an ISO standard was made by the "global community". I believe that decision was made by Microsoft and its partners who overwhelmed the ISO voting process, and AFAIK, additional evolution will be done by ECMA, who is controlled by Microsoft.
"Hewlett-Packard Company...believe[s] that the two standards will co-exist interoperably, and that customers should have the opportunity to select the standards which best fit their needs."
The phrase boggles the mind when you try to parse it. Let us imagine that the two standards, MSOOXML and ODF are interoperable - then why would we need both? Why would the end user choose one over the other if they both do the same job? Interoperability implies that we could easily convert from one to the other. If this were possible, than that in itself is a demonstration that MSOOXML is a duplication of an existing standard - ODF - and therefore should not be/have been approved.
The CNET blog linked to this post shows that the author, Martin LaMonica has a very poor grasp of the situation, and demonstrates the power of Microsoft's spin to confuse the issue...
There are three phrases in the blog that highlight the lack of competence of the author.
1.) "Andrew Updegrove, an advocate for rival standard OpenDocument..."
ODF is not a "rival standard". It is the standard for documents until we hear otherwise. Using the word "rival" implies that standardization is just a contest, whereas in fact it is supposed to be a sober evaluation of how best to formulate and document a specification. There was no contest and this is not supposed to be a game. ODF was adopted as the standard for documents long before OOXML. Perhaps Microsoft would prefer us to have a revisionist view of things?
2.) "Some countries, including Venezuela, even changed from supporting the standardization to opposing it, an unusual move that underscores the political nature of the process."
How does voting "no" underscores the political nature of the process? The author of the blog gives no insight or justification for that interpretation. Why is a "no" assumed to be a political response? Couldn't it be that voting "no" simply reflects the outcome of technical evaluation of a very flawed proposal?
3.) "If confirmed by the ISO, the vote is a victory for Microsoft and other industry backers of Open XML at Ecma..."
Again, creating a standard is not about winning or losing or victory or defeat. I have said it all in my first point above.
When I began this comment, I didn't want to imply anything about the author's motives since I have no way of knowing his motivations for writing this piece. However, now after reading my own comment I have to come to the conclusion that Martin LaMonica is either a very poor journalist or in fact, a very skilled spin doctor for Microsoft - take your pick.
I understand what you are saying here... while there is no reason for concern about promises not sue on the ODF side, there is deep and well deserved mistrust of any "promises" that come from Microsoft because of their blatant underhanded dealings in the past, for which they have been convicted and fined in courts of law. I agree with you on that.
I believe that Microsoft has miscalculated. I am sure they developed their strategy a long time ago when they decided to embark upon this misadventure with OOXML. At that time, "standards" was a pretty obscure and esoteric topic that few people besides the experts ever considered. Of course they must have calculated that they may upset a few people in the regular course of things, but I am sure they never predicted the scrutiny by hundreds of thousands of non-experts the world over as they are receiving now. Who would have?
Corporations, even evil ones, are very conscious of public perception. Why else would they spend millions of dollars on public relations? Make no doubt about it - Microsoft must be very concerned right now about how this has turned out, in regards to the negative publicity and ill will it has garnered. It will be a hollow, Pyhrric victory for them if OOXML gains ISO status.
I have no doubt they may have even factored the cost of potential fines from the EU. What's another billion dollar fine when the stakes of the game for Microsoft are so much higher than that? However, I bet they never figured on the massive outrage that they have generated. That can not be so easily fixed by simply paying a fine and being done with it. On top of their misfortunes with Vista and a pending class action suite and the bad publicity that will bring, they must be very concerned. There is no telling where all this bad karma will lead them. Such uncertainties are very bad for business. Microsoft miscalculated when they embarked on the "Vista Ready" program, and they miscalculated when they embarked up the OOXML campaign. Their leadership is floundering. With threatening technological changes on the horizon like growing storm clouds, they are in navigating in troubled waters without a moral compass to guide them.
Indeed, why should the rules be different OOXML? You raise a good point. I heartily agree with you. OOMXL should have taken the same route through the rigorous standards process that ODF was subjected to, instead of being placed on the totally ineffective fast-track process with the preferential treatment it was given.
Authored by: grokker59 on Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 08:27 AM EDT
Item 1: If DIS29500 is not approved, *national bodies* will loose a forum to
work on DIS29500 - circular reasoning. If DIS29500 is not approved, NBs won't
*NEED* a forum to work on DIS29500 !
Item 2: Microsoft-only vendors may lose contracts because Microsoft failed to
get "their" format approved. Circular reasoning. By not standardizing
on a proprietary, lock-in document format, those companies that only sell
proprietary lock-in document software no longer have a guarantee of continuing
sales to locked-in customers. They might need to support an additional product
or two to continue getting contract awards.
Item 3: If OOXML is disapproved, then ODF loses because it has no ISO-based
formula definitions to insure compatibility between ODF and the complete lack of
formula documentation in OOXML ? How is this a comparison and why do I care
whether ODF shares formulas with OpenXML ? Microsoft's Office 2007 does not use
OpenXML. Neither are Excel formulas documented in OOXML to the extent that
translation can take place. What's important is that ODF interoperate to the
greatest extent possible with Office 2007 and future versions - not that it
interoperate with a format that Microsoft has already abandoned and/or never
implemented.
Item 4: OOXML/OpenXML does not define legacy features, nor does OOXML/OpenXML
provide a mapping for legacy features. Furthermore, all legacy features were
moved to 'deprecated' status in the BRM, so there is no requirement to support
them in either OOXML or ODF. OpenOffice already supports MS legacy features
better than MS products, so I fail to see the gain of supporting DIS29500 to
provide something that ODF products (OpenOffice.org) already does better than MS
products.
Item 5: "ODF has no ISO-based definition of the current MS format for
mapping purposes." Since MS products do not implement DIS29500, this is is
a non-issue. MS has already stated they do not feel bound to support future
DIS29500 versions in future products, so ODF MSOffice mappings are
never going to be ISO-based. Nor should we expect MS to open their file format
protocols in future versions.
There is *certainly* no reason to expect that MS will "offer a seat at the
table" to any public organization during the planning/implementation of
their next version of MSOffice since they've already stated that they do not
feel bound by DIS29500 or its successors in ISO.
...and the response from the one and only Rob Weir in the same thread
Another view from the ODF TC
Authored by: rcweir on Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 06:38 PM EDT
As Co-Chair of the ODF TC, let me say that Mr. Durusau's views in no way
represent the position of OASIS or the ODF TC.
Of course, he is entitled to his personal views, and so am I.
Patrick makes 5 assertions in his latest letter, and these are easily rebutted:
1) National bodies lose an open and international forum for further work on DIS
29500.
*Is Patrick implying that Ecma is not open and international? That would be a
good thing to to know in those places where Microsoft is currently pushing for
adoption of OOXML, arguing that it is an open standard.
One does not approve a standard in ISO in order to be more open. Openness
should be there from the beginning. Patrick's argument appears to be
"Let's give OOXML the highest level of approval and then it will be a
better standard". But ISO standardization is not done
We know about you and your buddy Miguel. What's your agenda, you guys - anyhow? Your support for Microsoft flies in the face of all logic. You think this world will somehow be a better place when there is only One Microsoft Way? - for document formats, on the desktop, on the Net? I'm not going to take the bait, and I don't have the detailed knowledge to rebut this. Nor will I call you a Microsoft shill or a troll. I don't know who you are, and for all I know, if I met you, maybe I would like you. You are welcome to your point of view and any advantages you gain from from this. This world is big enough for us all. Live long and prosper!
Stéphane Rodriguez lost all credibility when he edited an OOXML spreadsheet file by hand, changed the XML so that it was no longer legal according to the schema, and then proclaimed that it was a flaw in OOXML that Excel found an error in the document.
Brilliant piece of misrepresenting an experiment made to illustrate a point, then dismissing everything this man has said. Congratulations on your rhetoric! Or perhaps you aren't that brilliant, and simply did not understand the article. For those who don't know what the parent is referring to, he is most likely referring to original Aug. 2007 article "Broken by Design", where Rodriguez demonstrates how badly engineered the design of OOXML is. There are so many interdependencies that a tiny change will require a complete "recompilation" of the document to be done by the code parsing the XML.
These blogs are at the same level of depth as Rob Weir's latest blog, and demonstrate that Microsoft's policies as detailed below continue to this day.
From OOXML is defective by design...
"Mr Bill Gates in person sent in 1998 a memo to the Office product group (led by Steven Sinofsky at the time), memo undisclosed to the public thanks to the IOWA consumer case:"
From: Bill Gates
Sent: Saturday, December 5 1998
To: Bob Muglia, Jon DeVann, Steven Sinofsky
Subject : Office rendering
One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company.
We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.
Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destroy Windows.
I would be glad to explain at a greater length.
Likewise this love of DAV in Office/Exchange is a huge problem. I would also like to make sure people understand this as well.
-----------
Clearly the word is getting out about the problems in OOXML. Stéphane Rodriguez notes at the bottom of OOXML - Defective by design:
Update : this article was Slashdotted on Sunday 26 of August.
Update2 : this article is taking 300,000 hits a day, and is making it all around the world in all kinds of sites. My web host provider was so angry at the peak in traffic that he threatened to cut me off, so I had to redirect to a blog site such as Google's blogger to host the article.
Update3 : wednesday august 29, added a new section on Document security
Update4 : friday august 31, added more content to sections US English and Windows dates
Update5 : sunday september 2, added a quick comparison between ODF and ECMA 376
Slashdot Mirror
I've convinced my wife to let me buy a Mac Mini and a copy of Adobe Design Premium CS3.
It's OK - you don't need to apologize. Go for it! Be happy - don't worry.
I heard that Windows 7 is supposed to get a new API. Old programs would run in a sort of virtual machine designed to support backward compatibility, while new apps could be developed directly for "native mode". I think this is a great idea.
On the other hand, if the API is going 100% .Net like was suggest in the FA, I'm gone from developing on Windows. I generally work in C/C++ or even assembler and I like being close to the bare metal. I don't want to program wearing a condom like the .Net people do. Beyond that, to me 100% .Net means 100% lock-in and a non-portable skill set
Their population is around twice that of Canada. Canada has nuclear power plants. Heck, Canada sells nuclear power plants. You were saying?
I was saying that if you read the following, you would immediately regret making any comparisons between Ian and Canada....
Economy of Iran
Iran also has the world's second largest reserves of natural gas (15% of the world's total); these are exploited primarily for domestic use.
Ahmadinejad's Achilles Heel: The Iranian Economy "Some 30,000 Gigawatt hour electricity equal to the total electricity generation of some 30 Boushehr-like nuclear power plants is wasted annually in Iran. Some 18.5 percent of the electricity produced in Iran is wasted before it reaches to consumers due to technical problems and mismanagement in the Energy Ministry, a former supervisory body in the ministry told BAZTAB.
...lavish spending has increased the double digit inflation rate even more and has caused concerns among politicians and economists that [Ahmadinejad's] economic policies coupled with his hard-line stance on nuclear dispute and approach to foreign policy may damage the country.
As inflation is rapidly approaching critical levels, economists and politicians have began to sound the alarms. There are now open calls for impeachment of several government ministers and although not openly mentioned, the moderates and some conservatives would like nothing more than impeaching the president himself.
One of the most pressing issues in Iran today is the mushrooming energy use and the amount of hard currency that is going into subsidies. The government imports over $7 billion dollars worth of petrol per year. Yet the price of a gallon of petrol is only 33 cents. This subsidy does nothing more than encourage smuggling of petrol to the neighbouring countries where prices are higher. It also removes any incentive for the consumers to save on their energy consumption.
it is calculated that each year over one billion dollar worth of electricity is wasted due to the inefficiency of the Ministry of Energy.
"Some 30,000 Gigawatt hour electricity equal to the total electricity generation of some 30 Boushehr-like nuclear power plants is wasted annually in Iran. Some 18.5 percent of the electricity produced in Iran is wasted before it reaches to consumers due to technical problems and mismanagement in the Energy Ministry, a former supervisory body in the ministry told BAZTAB.
Bazzaries (Traditional merchants) seldom declare their true net worth or income to the authorities, and the authorities have no system of finding out the true income of these individuals and companies. Another problem is the informal economy. For example, major part of Tehran's economy, a city of almost 12-15 million people, runs on an informal, off-the-book system, making taxation extremely difficult. Then we have the various tax exempt charity foundations that are involved in almost all aspect of the economy.
In Iran, by some estimates, the Bonyads (charity foundations) control over 30% of the economy and yet pay no taxes at all [[3]]. They are involved in everything from vast Soybean and cotton fields to hotels to soft drinks to auto-manufacturing to shipping lines to..... These foundations represent vast economic empires that are neither taxed nor are directly under government control.
As charity organisations they are supposed to provide social services to the poor and the needy. Yet since there are over 100 of these organisations operating independently, the government doesn't know what, why, how and to whom this help and assistance is given. Lack of proper oversight and control of these foundations has also hampered the government's efforts in creating a comprehensive social security system in the country.
Corruption is usually the result of three things, lack of transparency, lack of regulations or too m
I'm sorry but I don't find your premise very convincing at all. I really don't have the interest (or to be completely honest - the knowledge) to give it a proper rebuttal - I'll leave that to others. I will point out a few things, however.
A prime reason would be diversification of their energy base. Oil might be cheap and plentiful now but it won't always be.
Come on now - didn't you notice? This country is downing in oil reserves. They'll never run out if they manage it properly.
As clean as "clean burning" is, there is still pollution generated and you can't avoid the CO2 emissions
Who says you can't avoid CO2 emissions, eh? Have you ever considered what a nuclear energy program costs? It must be billions upon billions of dollars. What if you spent all that money on being a world leader in clean oil burning technology with practical CO2 capture? Nuclear energy is a terrible investment for such a small country, where they should be diversifying their economy. They could trade for nuclear technology some day if deemed necessary to conserve their oil - say 500 hundred years from now.
it makes plenty of sense for them to invest in a nuclear program
I contend just the opposite - that it makes no sense! Oh, by the way - I am a Canadian - as you can tell my my use of the word "eh".
What is your evidence for implying that their purpose is anything other than power generation?
Maybe this?
"Iran claims to have the world's third largest reserves of oil at approximately 136 billion barrels (21.6×109 m3) as of 2007, although it ranks second if Canadian reserves of non-conventional oil are excluded. This is roughly 10 percent of the world's total proven petroleum reserves. Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer and is OPEC's second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia."
You tell me why Iran needs nuclear energy for power generation? They could invest all that money in clean oil burning technologies and still have plenty left over to advance a very broad range of research on industries that would diversify their economy. It makes no sense at all for them to invest so much money in nuclear energy, unless perhaps it's not really nuclear energy that they are after?
It just happens that you believe Adobe is better than Microsoft, but they are just the same, and will do anything at all costs to crush the opponent.
Come on - you're kidding, right? Adobe competes in the niche market with Pdf and Flash, whereas Microsoft p0wns 85% of desktop computers in the world, and is a convicted monopolist? That is typical M$ party line, where they try to say the "enemy" is no different. They tried that in the M$OOXML scandal, rationalizing their unscrupulous tactics by saying Open Source companies were just as bad. How come they are always in such a position? everybody does it - we are no worse that them - that is the meme they keep pushing both directly, and indirectly via their proxies we encounter on \. Pretty pathetic, I think. How about not behaving badly in the first place, instead of all these rationalization?
Of course there are problems for linux about using .NET as platform, and WMV as codecs. But mono has been putting a great effort into this, there are other codecs available.
if Microsoft makes a deal with Novell to release a good silverlight player for linux to compete with flash...
Leading right down the slippery slope to eventually putting a Microsoft tax on Linux? Your argument is pure Company Line. Microsoft would be proud of you. Maybe if you talk to them you could get a little revenue stream going for yourself, planting M$ FUD on \. like others. I hear the pay is not too bad.
I thought is was pretty exciting news too. I had a friend who was some type of chemist many, many years ago who explained to me the concept of Islands of Stability for super heavy elements. It was his contention that such elements would be found one day. I hope this can be confirmed. It shouldn't be to hard to refine this from Thorium deposits - which the FA says are almost as abundant as lead. Perhaps we could smash nuclei of this material together and make black holes or antimatter or something. Imagine the mass such a nucleus could pack traveling at nearly the speed of light. Now I have one wish remaining - the creation/discovery of metallic hydrogen stable at room temperatures.
I found it to be very interesting, and I doubt that I am the only one, as his pages are nearly slashdotted at the moment. For some reason, my installation of WinXP Pro stopped accepting updates about 8 months ago, and I shudder to think about what unpatched vulnerabilities exist on it now. I really look forward to SP 3 resolving the problem and bringing my OS up to date, as I will continue running XP for a long time to come yet. I have no intention of upgrading to Vista. I certainly don't mind if the author chooses to adorn his web pages with advertising, which I am free to ignore.
I am sure we could, but why would we want to undermine a revenue model that brings us all the benefit of free (for us) content? Doesn't make any sense at all to me, as this content has to be paid for somehow. Would you prefer to personally pay for page views of information that would be important to you? I wouldn't, and therefore am quite happy to accept pages decorated with advertisements if it contains content interesting to me.
Duh... Got so excited to get first post that I didn't check the FA, which is all about Andy Updegrove's blog I linked to. Go ahead - mod me redundant. I deserve it.
Check out the blog at Consortium Info on this
The choice was to delete it.
I think deleting OOXML would be a far less painful decision than deleting the cure for the disease found by immoral research methods. Let's do it.
Nonsense...there's no good reason to immediately jump to the conclusion that the problem mentioned in the study isn't a major or even dominant factor in colony collapse disorder.
I don't see how you so easily can say "nonsense". I see it differently - that there is no good reason to immediately jump to the conclusion that the problem of Colony Collapse Disorder is caused by pollution. Colony Collapse Disorder seems to happen in sporadic bursts, whereas I believe pollution can be graphed with long graceful curves.
Wikipedia says "...late in the year 2006 and in early 2007 the rate of attrition was alleged to have reached new proportions, and the term "Colony Collapse Disorder" was proposed to describe this sudden rash of disappearances." To me, that implies that there is no correlation between Colony Collapse Disorder and pollution, since I don't think there was a sudden spike in pollution that corresponds with declines in bee populations.
Interestingly, I was just reading Boeing 787 Dreamliner Delayed Again, which links to a Wired Science article, which points to a Dan Rather video, which has a segment at the end that states that the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder has been determined to be caused by some Israeli bee virus. First time I heard that. I am certainly no expert, nor do I pretend to be. I was merely stating that for me, on the surface, the conclusion does not bear up to close scrutiny. In fact, I was implying that one doesn't need to be an expert, or even to RTFA to formulate a plausible critique.
The finding could help explain why some pollinators, particularly bees, are declining in certain parts of the world.
I don't need to RTFA to point out how this conclusion does not bare up to even superficial examination. We have two types of bees in this world - domestic and wild. Bees in the wild are likely far from sources of pollution - by definition of "in the wild". Domestic bees are well known to be currently suffering a crises due a disease (or is it bee mites - or both?). What bees remain that are both not "in the wild" and not domestic are the only ones to potentially fit to the above conclusion. I would suggest that this is a very small group. I suppose other pollinators - like butterflies, etc, may find it a bit more difficult to find their flowers these days, but on the other hand, one would logically find these insects near flowers in the first place - their place of birth. Same goes for domestic bees, which are cultivated near flowering crops.
Haven't you heard of "Windows XP Embedded" It's a componentized version of Win XP Pro and is based on the same binaries as XP Professional. It's is marketed towards developers for OEMs, ISVs and IHVs that want the full Win32 API support of Windows but without the overhead of Professional. It runs existing Windows applications and device drivers off-the-shelf on devices with at least 32MB Compact Flash, 32MB RAM and a P-200 microprocessor. "XPe" was released on November 28, 2001. As of February 2007, the newest release is Windows XP Embedded SP2 Feature Pack 2007.
XPe is not related to Windows CE. They target different devices and they each have their pros and cons which make them attractive to different OEMs for different types of devices. For instance, XPe will never get down to the small footprint that CE works in. However, CE does not have the Win32 APIs XPe has (although CE has an API that is similar to the Win32 API), nor can it run the tens of thousands of drivers and applications that already exist.
The devices targeted for XPe have included ATMs, arcade games, slot machines, cash registers, industrial robotics, thin clients, set-top boxes, network attached storage (NAS), time clocks, navigation devices, etc. Custom versions of the OS can be deployed onto anything but a full-fledged PC; even though XPe supports the same hardware that XP Professional supports (x86 architecture), licensing restrictions prevent it from being deployed on to standard PCs :-(
I was just thinking as I was reading this topic of how I would love to be able to load only the components I want. I'm a great fan of XP Pro and use it daily in my work. I hope I will never have to downgrade to Vista. These days I am developing software for Adobe Flex & Action Script 3. If I stay at this, I may just switch to Linux when full support for that comes out next year.
The above is directly quoted from Wikipedia.
On Groklaw we learned today that Hewlett Packard participated in overt political interference along side Microsoft
"Here's the scoop from Les Echos.fr on France's sudden change from its No vote to Abstain. Microsoft France's President Eric Boustouller sent AFNOR a letter [PDF] in French, of course. He tells a tale about OOXML and ODF progressing side by side and how if OOXML is approved, a group will be working hard to make the two more interoperable. Attached was a HP statement of support for OOXML. HP sings the same song. And AFNOR?"
Take a look at HP's Ethics and Compliance Page and you will see how concerned HP is of public perceptions after recent events connected with HP's investigation into leaks of confidential information from the Board of Directors tarnished HP's reputation in this area.
HP tells us they have a long-standing commitment to conducting business with uncompromising integrity, which is core to everything they stand for as a company. I am sure that if they really understood that by supporting MSOOXML they are headed for another scandal, they would distance themselves from OOXML. Even more, since their ambition is to provide a leadership role in corporate ethics, they would help to turn the tide against OOXML.
In light of this, you may wish to help them understand the errors presented by the "HP Position Statement on Standardization of Office Document Formats" and you may comment directly to their Board of Ethics on the Comments page. That is where I just posted the following letter...
Dear members of the Board of Ethics and Compliance at HP
It is clear that your company is deeply concerned about conducting business with uncompromising integrity. In light of your commitment to being a leader in global citizenship and corporate ethics, I wish to direct your attention to a serious error in judgment by somebody there at HP who formulated the "HP Position Statement on Standardization of Office Document Formats".
I refer to the following statements...
"HP believes that the international standardization process is working."
It is now blatantly obvious that quite the contrary is true, specifically, that the standardization process was seriously flawed. Please see the current discussion on Groklaw about this at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080331212042460#c684749 and you will quickly realize that your statement is a serious error.
"additional evolution of it will take place under control of the global community"
...another error - in no way whatsoever could we conclude that the decision for MSOOXML to become an ISO standard was made by the "global community". I believe that decision was made by Microsoft and its partners who overwhelmed the ISO voting process, and AFAIK, additional evolution will be done by ECMA, who is controlled by Microsoft.
"Hewlett-Packard Company ...believe[s] that the two standards will co-exist interoperably, and that customers should have the opportunity to select the standards which best fit their needs."
The phrase boggles the mind when you try to parse it. Let us imagine that the two standards, MSOOXML and ODF are interoperable - then why would we need both? Why would the end user choose one over the other if they both do the same job? Interoperability implies that we could easily convert from one to the other. If this were possible, than that in itself is a demonstration that MSOOXML is a duplication of an existing standard - ODF - and therefore should not be/have been approved.
...and if they do
The CNET blog linked to this post shows that the author, Martin LaMonica has a very poor grasp of the situation, and demonstrates the power of Microsoft's spin to confuse the issue...
There are three phrases in the blog that highlight the lack of competence of the author.
1.) "Andrew Updegrove, an advocate for rival standard OpenDocument..."
ODF is not a "rival standard". It is the standard for documents until we hear otherwise. Using the word "rival" implies that standardization is just a contest, whereas in fact it is supposed to be a sober evaluation of how best to formulate and document a specification. There was no contest and this is not supposed to be a game. ODF was adopted as the standard for documents long before OOXML. Perhaps Microsoft would prefer us to have a revisionist view of things?
2.) "Some countries, including Venezuela, even changed from supporting the standardization to opposing it, an unusual move that underscores the political nature of the process."
How does voting "no" underscores the political nature of the process? The author of the blog gives no insight or justification for that interpretation. Why is a "no" assumed to be a political response? Couldn't it be that voting "no" simply reflects the outcome of technical evaluation of a very flawed proposal?
3.) "If confirmed by the ISO, the vote is a victory for Microsoft and other industry backers of Open XML at Ecma..."
Again, creating a standard is not about winning or losing or victory or defeat. I have said it all in my first point above.
When I began this comment, I didn't want to imply anything about the author's motives since I have no way of knowing his motivations for writing this piece. However, now after reading my own comment I have to come to the conclusion that Martin LaMonica is either a very poor journalist or in fact, a very skilled spin doctor for Microsoft - take your pick.
I understand what you are saying here... while there is no reason for concern about promises not sue on the ODF side, there is deep and well deserved mistrust of any "promises" that come from Microsoft because of their blatant underhanded dealings in the past, for which they have been convicted and fined in courts of law. I agree with you on that.
I believe that Microsoft has miscalculated. I am sure they developed their strategy a long time ago when they decided to embark upon this misadventure with OOXML. At that time, "standards" was a pretty obscure and esoteric topic that few people besides the experts ever considered. Of course they must have calculated that they may upset a few people in the regular course of things, but I am sure they never predicted the scrutiny by hundreds of thousands of non-experts the world over as they are receiving now. Who would have?
Corporations, even evil ones, are very conscious of public perception. Why else would they spend millions of dollars on public relations? Make no doubt about it - Microsoft must be very concerned right now about how this has turned out, in regards to the negative publicity and ill will it has garnered. It will be a hollow, Pyhrric victory for them if OOXML gains ISO status.
I have no doubt they may have even factored the cost of potential fines from the EU. What's another billion dollar fine when the stakes of the game for Microsoft are so much higher than that? However, I bet they never figured on the massive outrage that they have generated. That can not be so easily fixed by simply paying a fine and being done with it. On top of their misfortunes with Vista and a pending class action suite and the bad publicity that will bring, they must be very concerned. There is no telling where all this bad karma will lead them. Such uncertainties are very bad for business. Microsoft miscalculated when they embarked on the "Vista Ready" program, and they miscalculated when they embarked up the OOXML campaign. Their leadership is floundering. With threatening technological changes on the horizon like growing storm clouds, they are in navigating in troubled waters without a moral compass to guide them.
Why should the rules be different for OOXML?
Indeed, why should the rules be different OOXML? You raise a good point. I heartily agree with you. OOMXL should have taken the same route through the rigorous standards process that ODF was subjected to, instead of being placed on the totally ineffective fast-track process with the preferential treatment it was given.
deeply flawed meetings with deeply flawed decisions about a proposed deeply flawed standard
I am deeply concerned about this...
From the thread on Groklaw
I reproduce here the response from grokker59 and below Ron Weir's response.
Authored by: grokker59 on Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 08:27 AM EDT
Item 1: If DIS29500 is not approved, *national bodies* will loose a forum to work on DIS29500 - circular reasoning. If DIS29500 is not approved, NBs won't *NEED* a forum to work on DIS29500 !
Item 2: Microsoft-only vendors may lose contracts because Microsoft failed to get "their" format approved. Circular reasoning. By not standardizing on a proprietary, lock-in document format, those companies that only sell proprietary lock-in document software no longer have a guarantee of continuing sales to locked-in customers. They might need to support an additional product or two to continue getting contract awards.
Item 3: If OOXML is disapproved, then ODF loses because it has no ISO-based formula definitions to insure compatibility between ODF and the complete lack of formula documentation in OOXML ? How is this a comparison and why do I care whether ODF shares formulas with OpenXML ? Microsoft's Office 2007 does not use OpenXML. Neither are Excel formulas documented in OOXML to the extent that translation can take place. What's important is that ODF interoperate to the greatest extent possible with Office 2007 and future versions - not that it interoperate with a format that Microsoft has already abandoned and/or never implemented.
Item 4: OOXML/OpenXML does not define legacy features, nor does OOXML/OpenXML provide a mapping for legacy features. Furthermore, all legacy features were moved to 'deprecated' status in the BRM, so there is no requirement to support them in either OOXML or ODF. OpenOffice already supports MS legacy features better than MS products, so I fail to see the gain of supporting DIS29500 to provide something that ODF products (OpenOffice.org) already does better than MS products.
Item 5: "ODF has no ISO-based definition of the current MS format for mapping purposes." Since MS products do not implement DIS29500, this is is a non-issue. MS has already stated they do not feel bound to support future DIS29500 versions in future products, so ODF MSOffice mappings are never going to be ISO-based. Nor should we expect MS to open their file format protocols in future versions.
There is *certainly* no reason to expect that MS will "offer a seat at the table" to any public organization during the planning/implementation of their next version of MSOffice since they've already stated that they do not feel bound by DIS29500 or its successors in ISO.
Another view from the ODF TC
Authored by: rcweir on Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 06:38 PM EDT
As Co-Chair of the ODF TC, let me say that Mr. Durusau's views in no way represent the position of OASIS or the ODF TC.
Of course, he is entitled to his personal views, and so am I.
Patrick makes 5 assertions in his latest letter, and these are easily rebutted:
1) National bodies lose an open and international forum for further work on DIS 29500.
*Is Patrick implying that Ecma is not open and international? That would be a good thing to to know in those places where Microsoft is currently pushing for adoption of OOXML, arguing that it is an open standard.
One does not approve a standard in ISO in order to be more open. Openness should be there from the beginning. Patrick's argument appears to be "Let's give OOXML the highest level of approval and then it will be a better standard". But ISO standardization is not done
We know about you and your buddy Miguel. What's your agenda, you guys - anyhow? Your support for Microsoft flies in the face of all logic. You think this world will somehow be a better place when there is only One Microsoft Way? - for document formats, on the desktop, on the Net? I'm not going to take the bait, and I don't have the detailed knowledge to rebut this. Nor will I call you a Microsoft shill or a troll. I don't know who you are, and for all I know, if I met you, maybe I would like you. You are welcome to your point of view and any advantages you gain from from this. This world is big enough for us all. Live long and prosper!
Stéphane Rodriguez lost all credibility when he edited an OOXML spreadsheet file by hand, changed the XML so that it was no longer legal according to the schema, and then proclaimed that it was a flaw in OOXML that Excel found an error in the document.
Brilliant piece of misrepresenting an experiment made to illustrate a point, then dismissing everything this man has said. Congratulations on your rhetoric! Or perhaps you aren't that brilliant, and simply did not understand the article. For those who don't know what the parent is referring to, he is most likely referring to original Aug. 2007 article "Broken by Design", where Rodriguez demonstrates how badly engineered the design of OOXML is. There are so many interdependencies that a tiny change will require a complete "recompilation" of the document to be done by the code parsing the XML.
You'll remember Stéphane Rodriguez who gave us Microsoft Office XML formats? Defective by design back in August, 2007?
Since then, in February, 2008 he produced The truth about Microsoft Office compatibility and Typical B.S. in technical articles about OOXML and now Bad surprise in Microsoft Office binary documents : interoperability remains impossible Thursday, March 13, 2008.
These blogs are at the same level of depth as Rob Weir's latest blog, and demonstrate that Microsoft's policies as detailed below continue to this day.
From OOXML is defective by design...
"Mr Bill Gates in person sent in 1998 a memo to the Office product group (led by Steven Sinofsky at the time), memo undisclosed to the public thanks to the IOWA consumer case :"
From: Bill Gates
Sent: Saturday, December 5 1998
To: Bob Muglia, Jon DeVann, Steven Sinofsky
Subject : Office rendering
One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company.
We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.
Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destroy Windows.
I would be glad to explain at a greater length.
Likewise this love of DAV in Office/Exchange is a huge problem. I would also like to make sure people understand this as well.
-----------
Clearly the word is getting out about the problems in OOXML. Stéphane Rodriguez notes at the bottom of OOXML - Defective by design:
Update : this article was Slashdotted on Sunday 26 of August.
Update2 : this article is taking 300,000 hits a day, and is making it all around the world in all kinds of sites. My web host provider was so angry at the peak in traffic that he threatened to cut me off, so I had to redirect to a blog site such as Google's blogger to host the article.
Update3 : wednesday august 29, added a new section on Document security
Update4 : friday august 31, added more content to sections US English and Windows dates
Update5 : sunday september 2, added a quick comparison between ODF and ECMA 376