Hot News Global

Linux Developer On Trial For Murdering His Wife

2007-11-29T04:25:00.000-08:00

Hans Reiser, the owner of Namesys, which offers file systems for Linux, is on trial for murder charges related to his wife's disappearance last year.

Reiser developed ReiserFS, the default file system on Suse Linux/openSUSE, Slackware, Xandros, Yoper, Linspir, and Kurumin Linux. Free software advocates hold Reiser's work on the program, which manages files on hard drives with Suse Linux Enterprise systems, in high regard.

Reiser's defense lawyer characterized the developer, during an ABC television interview, as an exceptionally intelligent man who can read 9,000 pages of court documents and recite portions back, complete with the pages and line numbers he references.

Reiser married a Russian woman who advertised in a mail-order bride catalogue. The woman, Nina Reiser, had two children with the developer, obtained citizenship, and filed for divorce. During the couple's separation, she obtained restraining orders and complained that Hans Reiser had shoved her. Nina Reiser also complained of her son, who was 4 or 5 at the time, being exposed to violent video games and movies.

Nina Reiser was last seen dropping off her children at Hans Reiser's mother's home, where the developer was living, in September 2006. Police found her car, full of groceries, in a grocery store parking lot not long before the couple was scheduled to appear in court for a child support dispute.

Police never found a body. Hans Reiser's attorney argued in an Oakland, Calif., court that Nina Reiser fled to Russia and is in hiding, possibly because her estate stands to benefit financially from a murder conviction, according to published reports on the trial. Nina Reiser's divorce lawyer said that Hans Reiser's company, Namesys, has no value.

Police did find Hans Reiser's car missing a seat, blood spots in his home and car, and books on murder investigations, which they contend the accused bought days after his wife disappeared.

People who knew Nina Reiser said the 31-year-old mother, who had full custody, would never disappear without her children. The children now live in Russia under their maternal grandmother's care, and the son has returned to testify in the murder trial.

In court on Tuesday, Nina Reiser's divorce lawyer read e-mail messages the woman had turned over. Hans Reiser's attorney disputed the authenticity of the documents, which appeared to contain statements from Hans Reiser about therapists implanting his children with false memories. The attorney portrayed Nina Reiser as promiscuous and asked the divorce lawyer if the woman had discussed her sexual preferences or attempts to find male companions on Craigslist.

Nina Reiser's lawyer said that Hans Reiser owed more than $50,000 in child support and learned he would face trial on contempt charges, one week before Nina Reiser disappeared.

Judge Says SCO, Novell Trial Can Proceed

2007-11-29T04:22:00.002-08:00

A judge overseeing The SCO Group's bankruptcy proceedings has ruled that a trial to determine how much the company owes to Novell for improperly selling Novell's Unix software may proceed prior to the completion of SCO's Chapter 11 hearings.

Acting on a request from Novell, District of Delaware bankruptcy court judge Kevin Gross on Tuesday ruled that the trial may proceed.

The trial was originally scheduled to begin in September in Utah federal court -- but was postponed pending the outcome of SCO's bankruptcy petition. In ruling, Gross effectively agreed with Novell's contention that further delaying the trial could harm its interests.

SCO recently asked the bankruptcy court for permission to sell off certain UnixNovell and IBM told the court that SCO's ownership of the assets is questionable. IBM called SCO's description of the assets it has agreed to sell to York "impenetrably vague." IBM also contended that it holds copyrights in some of SCO's Unix-based products and that SCO, therefore, does not have the right to sell them. assets to York Capital Management, a private investment group, but withdrew the request after

Following a long running legal dispute between the two companies, a Utah federal court judge in August ruled that Novell, and not SCO, owns the copyrights to the Unix operating system. As a result, the judge further ruled that SCO must remit to Novell revenues it earned from selling Unix licenses through a program known as SCOSource.

The total could exceed $25 million -- more than the combined worth of SCO's current assets. SCO filed for bankruptcy shortly after the August ruling.

Law Center Steps Up GPL Defense, Seeks First U.S. Test Case

2007-11-29T04:22:00.000-08:00

Software Freedom Law Center is again seeking a test case of the provisions of the GPLv2. It's filed suit against two firms, High-Gain Antennas and Xterasys Corp. for not disclosing the code included in their antenna and signal booster devices.

Both firms embed the BusyBox tools and utilities that are frequently used to create wireless and set-top box products. BusyBox is produced by independent developers Erik Andersen and Rob Landley under GPLv2. Dan Ravicher, legal director of the center, said his non-profit organization tries to resolve differences with commercial companies to bring them into compliance with the GPL. "If they are unwilling to work with us, then our only choice is to go to court," he said in a statement announcing the suits.

Xterasys produces broadband and Wi-Fi boosters, Ethernet cards, and Bluetooth transmitters. The SFLC announcement didn't name the products in which BusyBox is used. High-Gain produces multi-directional antennas and signal detection devices for wide and local area networks.

The Software Freedom Law Center previously challenged the use of BusyBox by Monsoon Multimedia for its use of BusyBox in a set of products sold directly to consumers by Best Buy, Fry's Electronics and CompUSA. They were also in products resold by Intel, Microsoft, Panasonic, Nokia, HP, Dell, Siemens and Toshiba.

That case was settled out of court Oct. 30, with Monsoon paying an undisclosed sum to the plaintiffs and agreeing to make its modifications of the code available to other developers.

The two suits, filed Nov. 19, are the second and third issued on behalf of the GPL in the U.S. So far, no GPL case has gone through the courts in the U.S.

The GPL requires an adopter of GPL code to publish to the public or "give back" to the developer community any changes or modifications to GPL code. GPLv3 was issued at the end of June with provisions written more expressly to ban the practice of embedding GPL code in a device without disclosing the changes made to it. Richard Stallman, head of the Free Software Foundation which issues the GPL license, said the practice amounted to the "Tivo-ization" of the GPL, or the undermining of its intent to keep code public.

The Software Freedom Law Center makes legal resources available to free software developers to defend their work. It is headed by Columbia law professor Eben Moglen.

GroundWork: Something old, something new

2007-11-29T03:54:00.000-08:00

San Francisco - Zenoss Core isn't the only open source monitoring tool making waves. GroundWork Monitor Open Source is an excellent example of Zenoss' competition from other open source players.

ADVERTISEMENT
&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.hk.doubleclick.net/adj/N1405.YahooIndonesia/B2407833.6;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;dcopt=rcl;click=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h1f5up8/M=619400.11487179.12132695.1442997/D=news/S=96742458:LREC/_ylt=AhbMWzwon9SzTMaVZXuCCn86LMQF/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1196344915/A=4972583/R=1/*;ord=1196337715029266?"&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/SCRIPT&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;NOSCRIPT&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;A HREF="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h1f5up8/M=619400.11487179.12132695.1442997/D=news/S=96742458:LREC/_ylt=AhbMWzwon9SzTMaVZXuCCn86LMQF/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1196344915/A=4972583/R=2/SIG=13mtjtd03/*http://ad.hk.doubleclick.net/jump/N1405.YahooIndonesia/B2407833.6;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=1196337715029266?"&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;IMG SRC="http://ad.hk.doubleclick.net/ad/N1405.YahooIndonesia/B2407833.6;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=1196337715029266?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT="Click Here"&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/A&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/NOSCRIPT&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

Although GroundWork and Zenoss have similar business models, their products are quite different. GroundWork is built around the very popular Nagios monitoring system, an excellent monitoring and alerting platform that can monitor anything you want it to. Its one glaring drawback is that it is incredibly time-consuming to configure unless you use a third-party configuration tool or write your own configuration management scripts. There are several tools available that provide a graphical, Web-based means to add and remove devices, but these typically have serious limitations in flexibility.

GroundWork has taken the concept of supercharging Nagios much further, by wrapping Nagios within an entirely new Web interface that covers both viewing Nagios output data and managing the Nagios back end. The result is a nice blend of an already successful monitoring package, a feature-rich Web front end, and the availability of a more capable professional edition with commercial support. Although GroundWork may not have been engineered from scratch as Zenoss was, these three factors together make GroundWork a strong player in the open source monitoring arena.

All Eyes on Japan - Solving the Underpopulation Crisis

2007-11-22T17:43:00.000-08:00

Japan has a problem that is likely to face most of the developed world soon enough – underpopulation. That’s not to say that there aren’t enough people in Japan, there are plenty. The problem the Japanese face is not having enough children. They have the lowest young-to-elderly population ratio in the world.

With the current population hovering around 150 million people, Without an abundance of young people in the work place, a crucial factor in the stability of social programs providing assistant to the elderly, Japan will have to choose between the dangerous path of humanely phasing out those government assistance program or finding a way to increase birthrates amongst native Japanese (like Poland and Russia are attempting) while battling to assimilate immigrants into one of the least welcoming populations in the world.

However they decide to go about solving their population crisis, and many local governments in Japan have already begun to take steps to battle it, it would serve the Western world to watch them carefully. The West, after all, will be confronted with the same set of problems a decade or two after Japan, with many of the same stumbling blocks.

With birthrates falling across Europe, government assistance and pension programs already beginning to strain the fiscal solvency of government budgets, and record numbers of immigrants struggling to find a place to fit into countries like France, Britain and Italy, Western Europe will have to find some way to restore a more sustainable proportion of youths.

Most Western European countries have birthrates well below 2.05 children per woman, the necessary rate to sustain a steady population as the elderly make their way off this mortal coil. Some dip as low as 1.5. Europe’s solution, by and large, has been to bring in immigrants from either Turkey or from former colonies. The resulting tensions have been displayed front and center, from the angry complaints of immigrants and immigrants’ children to the resurfacing of neo-Facists in countries like Germany, aiming to “keep Germany German”.

Even if Japan can’t solve its current population problems, the rest of us can learn from their mistakes, and hopefully their successes, as we spend the next century trying to square the problems confronting the modern, developed nation state.

Soap Updates for November

2007-11-22T17:38:00.000-08:00

Due to the Thanksgiving Holidays all the soaps were not aired today. Here are today’s updates for Days of Our Lives and yesterdays updates for As The World Turns. Today’s show on The Young and The Restless was a repeat of the day of the collapse.

Days of Our Lives

Doug tells Shawn that Bo and his grandma had to take Big Shawn to the hospital with chest pains but they are sure he is ok. He tells Shawn that Bo said to tell him he will get back there for the wedding as soon as he can.

In the brides’ room, Belle is getting dressed. Hope and Sami and Marlena are in there with her. Belle asks Hope to check her phone because she was waiting on Brady to call her. When Marlena gives Belle the gifts she is giving her Belle’s phone rings. Thinking it will be Brady calling her she answers and it is Phillip. She pretends that it is Me-Me and when everyone walks out the room she tells him she is not going to do this today. She says she is going to marry Shawn and he can’t stop her. Hope comes back in and asks for the truth, who was that really on the phone.

Lucas is ready to announce the name of his and Sami’s daughter to everyone. He says they named the baby Alice Caroline Horton. Everyone is so happy to hear it.

Billie meets Phillip at the bar and she tells him she wanted to be with her little brother because she knew he would be down today knowing that he is still in love with Belle. He tells Billie he would be upset if he thought she was going to go through it. Billie asks what does that mean. He says when Belle walks down that aisle she will be thinking of him not Shawn.

As it happens as Belle is walking down the aisle and she is thinking back of times with Phillip. Marlena assumes Belle’s hesitation is because she misses her father, so she assures Belle that John is right there with them. She continues down the aisle to Shawn and notices the new watch he has on his arm. She whispers, New Watch? To him, he says it’s a present from Victor. They start saying their vows to one another. Shawn tells her that their love has always been pure to each other. She stops him and says she can’t do this. She then changes her mind again and says she can’t do this if he keeps interrupting her, she can’t remember what she was going to say. They finish their vows and are pronounced husband and wife.

Lucas comes in at the Pub and tells Billie and Phillip that the wedding is over, that Belle and Shawn are finally hitched. The wedding happened and everyone would be there for the reception soon. Phillip says that’s it, he is out of there.

Stephanie and Cordy are at Kayla and Steve’s apartment having a girl’s day out when suddenly Ford comes banging on the door wanting her to open the door. She tells him to go away and if he doesn’t she is going to call security. He tells her she better quit passing those fliers around town about him or she will be sorry.

At Stefano’s house Marlena shows up. Stefano asks her what took her so long coming there. He asks her why she has come to see him. She asks him to give Sami her freedom. Stefano asks her, Her Freedom? She says he knows what she means. Sami married EJ to protect her family. He says he heard Sami tell EJ how she feels about him. Marlena tells him he is wrong, Sami loves only one man. She wants him to set Sami free and let her alone. She tells him if he ever felt anything for her, he would do this for her. He says yes he will Marlena, but for a price. She asks him what his price is. He says the same thing he has always wanted, the Queen of the Night. He tells her she has brought him joy, she says he has made her his queen but he has also made her his killer.

At the reception Doug announces that Big Shawn is fine, turns out to be a little indigestion. He then goes on to make a toast to the new couple. He makes a mention of John, saying they all miss him, and the new twins in the family. And now he says they welcome John and Marlena’s daughter into the family, saying they couldn’t ask for a better addition. He asks that everyone raises their glass and join him in his toast.

At the reception Hope finds Belle’s phone knowing something is going on. She listens to her voice mail and it is from Phillip. He tells her she can’t marry Shawn, he knows she is still in love with him. He mentions that they were together the night before the wedding which really upsets Hope now.

As The World Turns

Katie goes to the diner where Kim is shooting a promo shoot for the TV station. She is furious with Brad for not telling her and Jack about Carly. She can’t hold in her frustration so she ends up pouring mashed potatoes and gravy all over him.

Carly goes home and imagines life with Jack and the kids. She daydreams of the kids coming in and all being happy wanting to start decorating for Christmas and then Jack comes in talking about them all having Thanksgiving Dinner together and how they all have so much to be thankful for. Then she comes to reality and realizes it was only a dream in her mind when her microwave goes off. She sits down to eat her TV dinner when Brad knocks at the door mad as hell at her, telling her Katie now knows he knew about her lies. She swears she didn’t tell Katie anything. He doesn’t want to accept any excuses from Carly. He tells her thanks for ruining the best thing that almost happened to him in his life, and then he leaves.

Jack goes to Katie’s hotel room and she yells at him to go away thinking it is Brad at the door. When he keeps knocking she opens the door telling him to go away and was shocked to see Jack standing there instead. He asks what Brad has done to her to make her so mad at him. She finally confesses to him that she found out Brad knew about Carly all that time and never told either of them.

Jack is furious with Brad now and goes back to the farm and ends up fighting with Brad outside. They both go back inside with black eyes and Emma is swatting them both with a spatula telling them they are both acting like children. They end up apologizing for interrupting everyone’s Thanksgiving Dinner and shake hands together.

Carly goes to see Katie. She explains to her that Brad begged her to tell the truth to Jack but she just couldn’t. She wants Katie to know that the only reason he didn’t tell them himself is because after it went so far he was afraid Katie would never forgive him and he would lose her forever.

When Carly goes home she notices a jacket in her living room that smells. She realizes someone is in her house. She takes a hockey stick out and screams for whoever is there that she has a gun and for them to come out right now. A woman comes out the back and it was Kit, asking Carly didn’t she remember her. Carly says yeah she is the woman who kidnapped her boy and wants to know why she isn’t in jail. They start talking after Kit asks where Jack is. Carly tells her they aren’t together. Kit doesn’t have anywhere to go and Carly starts feeling sorry for her so she offers her a TV dinner for Thanksgiving. As they are eating Kit explains to her how she wants to open a bar there but she doesn’t have the money it takes to open a new business. Carly thinks about it and then thinks of the money she has. She offers it to Kit to start the new business and tells her they can be partners.

Meg meets Craig at the bridge. He tells her she is too late, Paul is already gone. She tells him she didn’t come there for Paul. He asks her if she is happy that she is pregnant and she says yes. Then he says but she would be happier if it was Paul’s baby. She asks Craig to forgive her for being with Paul. She says this baby will love him and if he can forgive her for what she has done then they can be a family together. She tells him she wants him to make something for their baby. She wants him to make them a family. She turns and walks away after that.

Katie goes to the farm to talk to Brad. They go outside and she tells him she is not mad at him anymore. She says that even if he had told her the truth it wouldn’t have stopped Carly anyway. She says she is giving him a second chance, for the sake of the show of course, but warns him to never lie to her again.

Craig arrives at the farm to let Meg know he wants them to be a family and that he will forgive her. He wants to be a good father for their baby. Meg hugs him and tells him thank you. He then turns away and she asks him where he is going. He says it is her family gathering, he doesn’t want to interrupt. She tells him he is family now too and invites him to have dinner with them all as a family. Emma and all the rest welcome Craig and they all sit down to eat.a

Another shot at the Second Amendment

2007-11-22T17:34:00.001-08:00

In seemingly less time than it takes to say “ready on the firing line,” the U.S. Supreme Court will be embroiled in the firearms culture wars as it rules on what the Second Amendment really means when it comes to gun ownership. Six residents of the District of Columbia have filed suit to lift the ban on keeping handguns in their homes. Briefs are to be filed by January, arguments are set for March, a decision is expected by June.

Washington, D.C. has one of the most restrictive gun laws on the books. Handguns in the home are prohibited in the nation’s capital, and although rifles and shotguns are allowed, they must be unloaded, disassembled, and the triggers locked. In other words, if an intruder breaks into your home in D.C., you might as well defend yourself with a nine iron - if you happen to play golf.

Those who support the status quo say the Second Amendment [A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed] really doesn’t guarantee the right of an individual to have a gun. It only guarantees a collective right to have a gun in a militia - the military force that has evolved into today’s National Guard. But Judge Lawrence Silberman said in his opinion that since militias of the colonial era no longer exist, gun ownership based on “a well-regulated Militia” is meaningless.

Keep in mind that Washington, D.C. has one of the highest and most violent crime rates in the country. It has held the title of “murder capital of the nation” on more than one occasion. A recent phenomenon is the practice of a felon shooting a victim whether he or she complies with the felon’s demands or not. If you don’t hand over your wallet, you are shot. If you hand over your wallet, you are shot. And the shootings are frequently execution-style: several shots to the head at close range.

So given the likely outcome of a confrontation with a criminal, what is the rationale for prohibiting possession of handguns and other firearms for private use in the home? So far, no one has addressed this question directly. Instead they have played philosophical games with the meaning of “militia” rather than discuss the right of individuals to privately possess and bear their own firearms. One should also remember that in colonial times members of the militia were “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” And when the states called these individuals to serve, they were often expected to show up bearing arms supplied by themselves. In these instances the state did not provide weapons for the militiamen.

No one is quarreling with the practice of prohibiting felons and the mentally deranged from owning guns. To use a timeworn example, we have freedom of speech, but are prohibited from shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Most who favor private gun ownership also agree that certain types of guns - military weapons mostly - should also be strictly regulated, and have indeed been so since 1934.

Those who have examined the tendencies of the Supreme Court justices to vote one way or another believe the outcome of the upcoming Second Amendment vote will tend to be on the conservative side. That is, the justices, for certain Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, will interpret the amendment as embracing individual rights rather than the rights of states or the militia.

One legal scholar, Leonard W. Levy, has even proposed in his book, Origins of the Bill of Rights, that a new Second Amendment be proposed. The current Second Amendment would be repealed, and in its place the following language would be substituted: The right of the people to keep arms reasonably for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed. Note that the term “militia” is removed from the resolution. The rewritten amendment would more accurately reflect how firearms have become an ineradicable part of our history and culture through their lawful use in personal defense and sport.

It is also well to remember that every other section of the Bill of Rights deals with individual liberties. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the Second Amendment also focuses on the self-protection rights of the individual as well. Perhaps, at a later date, the court might consider whether the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to make certain that the people had the wherewithal to confront a tyrannical government. In view of some of the recent machinations of the current regime, the accession of executive power, and the suppression of certain freedoms, their fear doesn’t seem that far-fetched.

Another consequence, intended or not, is that the upcoming ruling by the Supreme Court, expected, as we noted, in June occurs just months before the 2008 presidential election. So like it or not, whoever has survived as a contender in the race at that time will be faced with yet another “third rail” issue. Because the Supreme Court’s review is both rare and noteworthy (the first such review in 70 years), no candidate will be able to sidestep their way out of reporters’ questions. On the other hand, the D.C. government did its own soft-shoe dance by declaring that having a handgun in the home “comes at the expense of the safety of those who may be victims.” Whatever rights the Second Amendment guarantees, the Washington officials continued, “it does not require the District to stand by while it citizens die.” The affront and insult of that statement are evidenced by the first three stories on every evening TV newscast: another citizen gunned down by thugs in the victim’s home or nearby neighborhood.

It should be noted that the spokesman for Handgun Control, Inc. - also known as the Brady Campaign - urged the District of Columbia government not to appeal the issue of its restrictive gun control laws because it was feared the issue would be defeated. So the individual right to keep and bear arms, all but outlawed in D.C., will have its day on the national stage of the Supreme Court. Depending on the outcome, other cities that have restrictive gun laws, such as Chicago, will be watching closely, for obvious reasons.

Some presidential candidates have already jumped on the gun control bandwagon. Rudy Giuliani praised the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, saying the D.C. law should be reversed. Barack Obama says he believes the existing gun ban in Washington is constitutional and that local communities have the right to enact gun control laws. Whatever candidates are still in the race in January will also have to take a stand. It could just be the most decisive issue of the campaign.

Enabling Directx 9.0 in Linux using Wine

2007-11-22T17:34:00.000-08:00

It is a foregone conclusion that Linux has made deep inroads into the Windows arena and has succeeded in providing a robust user friendly Desktop which any lay person can use. But there are still a few areas where Linux lags way behind Windows.One of them is Games.

The problem is that most commercial games worth their name are developed using a proprietary technology developed by Microsoft called DirectX. It is a collection of application programming interfaces for handling tasks related to multimedia, especially game programming and video. And as with all things Microsoft, DirectX too runs only on the Windows platform.

The latest version of DirectX is ver 10. But there is hope around the horizon for those die-hard gamers who would love to run their favorite game in Linux. Now it is possible to install DirectX libraries albeit version 9.0 in Linux using Wine.

The Wine review blog has an elaborate article giving step-by-step details of how to install DirectX 9.0c in Linux under Wine. Finally you will be able to play those fabulous games which you have stored in your attic by installing them in Linux.

Hungarian railway workers stage nationwide strike

2007-11-21T03:18:00.000-08:00

BUDAPEST, Nov. 21 (Xinhua) -- Hungarian railway workers went on a six-hour nationwide strike on Wednesday against the planned closure of 38 spur lines and the ensuing layoffs, state-run news agency MTI reported.

Inter-city bus drivers joined the strike in Bekes county, southeastern Hungary and Vas county in the country's west.

The strike, which began at 6 a.m. local time (0500 GMT), was initiated by the Liga trade union's alliance led by Istvan Gasko, head of the Railway Workers' Free Union.

Railway workers were also protesting against the planned privatization of healthcare facilities and new pension rules which are to take effect early next year, Gasko said.

About 10,000 railway workers were involved in the work stoppage on the lines of National Railways MAV and Gyor-Sopron-Ebenfurth Railway.

Some 1,200 to 1,300 passenger trains were being affected by the strike, MAV spokesman Imre Kavalecz said.

Freight train operations were also disrupted and international trains were being held up at the border stations.

As many as 136 organizations have voiced support for the strike against the government's reforms on healthcare and pension systems, Liga spokesman said a day earlier.

A total of 82 Liga members and 20 other organizations would stage strikes on Wednesday, as well as trade unions, civil organizations and some political parties, the spokesman added.

The strike came in the wake of a two-hour warning strike on Nov. 7 and abortive talks between management and the unions on a viable compromise.

Emerging Young Artist Pratul Dash

2007-11-21T03:06:00.000-08:00

When I asked the most debated emerging young artist Pratul Dash about his artistic journey, he replied me with a quote ‘There will be a vital role of an artist to uplift the society’. He said although I live with my family with all responsibility, I always well aware of my real mean of living and Standing between the Heaven and the ground , Wanting to move forward and to stay down. Yes, he was absolutely right with his word, this year he has exhibited his works at several major exhibitions worldwide,and also become a happy father with a very sweet and cute baby girl, besides many exhibitions at India, his works are exhibited at USA and UK thrice this year with a great response. Every time works are just sold out at the first day of opening. His works are filled with fine detail, looks at life through various different levels, his bird, living in the hollows of the scaffolding claims this space as much as his home as any human does. Pratul Dash graduated with a BA & MA in Fine Art and was awarded an art Scholarship. He was also awarded by the Industrial Literature Society, Italy, won the M F Hussain Award, Delhi, Silver Jubilee award Orissa to name a few. His works are amongst many prestigious collections, both private and corporate throughout the world.Once he said,” i am a response, a series of other colors strung together tied by reaction and emotion, memory and experience, resisting or embracing, based on my days on earth....” Pratul works and lives in New Delhi, India.

IR in EU, Japan, US & other Global Economies, 2005-2006

2007-11-21T02:30:00.000-08:00

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin Foundation)
European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO)
COMPARATIVE STUDY

Industrial relations in the EU, Japan, US and other global economies, 20052006 [15 November 2007]
November 2007
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn0706028s/index.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn0706028s/tn0706028s.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/docs/eiro/tn0706028s/tn0706028s.pdf
[full-text, 42 pages]

This report gives an overview of the main industrial relations developments in the European Union, Japan and the US in 2005 and 2006. The findings are the result of an initiative by the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO), in the context of a research project started in 2000 to compare and 'benchmark' elements of industrial relations in these three major economic areas. The second part of the report investigates two elements of the social and economic environment which have recently gained greater relevance in the debate on the characteristics and impact of growing global competition: Temporary agency work (TAW) and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). While the study mainly covers the EU Member States, Japan and the US, it also includes data on emerging economies, notably Brazil, China and India.

The study was compiled on the basis of individual national reports submitted by the EIRO correspondents. The text of each of these national reports is available below. The reports have not been edited or approved by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The national reports were drawn up in response to a < http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/docs/eiro/tn0706028s/2006_IR_in_US_and_Japan_%28final_draft%29.doc > questionnaire and should be read in conjunction with it.

GLOBAL PERSONAL TAXATION COMPARISON SURVEY--Market Rankings

2007-11-21T02:26:00.000-08:00

Global personal taxation comparison survey market rankings [19 November 2007]
http://www.mercer.com/pressrelease/details.jhtml/dynamic/idContent/1287670

Includes the following TABLES--
Tables: Global Rankings Net Salary/Overall Taxation Rate (Taxes & Social Security), Percentage of Gross for managers (single, married and married with 2 children) Based on an average salary of $91,000

From
2007 - Global - Worldwide Individual Tax Comparator
http://www.mercer.com/summary.jhtml/dynamic/idContent/1272875

UK
London, 19 November 2007

* Belgium, Denmark and Hungary have least attractive personal tax environments
* United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong and Russia have most attractive environments
* UK is middle-ranking at joint position 14
* Married employees with two children better off than single employees

The United Arab Emirates (UAE), Russia and Hong Kong are amongst the world's most benign personal tax environments while Belgium, Denmark and Hungary are the least attractive according to a global survey of expatriate hot spots by Mercer. The data also shows that, in general, married employees are better off than single employees while married employees with two children fare the best.

Mercer's Worldwide Individual Tax Comparator Report analysed the tax and benefits systems across 32 markets focusing on personal tax structures, average salaries and marital status. This data is used by multinational companies to structure pay packages for their expatriate and local market employees.

For single managers, the UAE is the most attractive tax environment according to percentage of net income available. The UAE ranks highly as it does not assess any income tax and the country's social security contributions amount to only 5% of an employee's gross salary. Russia, ranked 2, applies a flat tax of 13% across all income levels, while Hong Kong reaches rank 3, with taxes and social security contributions at 14.2% of gross base salary.

Excluding Russia, in general, European countries have less attractive tax environments and dominate the bottom of the rankings. The UK ranks 14=, followed by Ireland (18), Spain (19), and Switzerland (21). France and Germany are ranked 22 and 29.

At the bottom of the rankings, single managers in Hungary (30), Denmark (31) and Belgium (32) pay, respectively, 48.5%, 48.6% and 50.5% of their gross income in taxes and social security contributions.

Brian Waite, a senior consultant specialising in international issues, commented: "Local taxation is one of several factors that multinationals take account of when deploying staff across the globe. It has an obvious impact on take-home pay, and in some markets with low or zero tax rates it is an important incentive for employees to work abroad. In other high-tax destinations, multinationals need to create compensation packages that at least match their expatriates' purchasing power in the home market.

"Other important considerations for expatriate allowances are housing, private schooling and local cost of living adjustments, and there are additional complications around contributions to the home market pension plan. These factors can all contribute to the high cost of a global expatriate workforce."

Markus Wiesner, Mercer's head of operations in Dubai, added: "We often find that the UAE's zero taxation is a strong draw for expatriates on short-term assignments. For three to five years, young professionals can fast-track their savings to afford a mortgage when they return home, while senior executives can maximise their savings potential ahead of retirement. It's in these particular groups that we get a really good mix of expatriate talent in Dubai."

Asian markets dominate the top of the rankings with Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea and China (Beijing) ranked 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The lowest ranked Asian market is India at 14=. In the Americas, Mexico (8), Brazil (9) and Argentina (10) outrank the United States (14=) and Canada (20).

According to Niklaus Kobel, researcher at Mercer's Geneva office, "Marital status is still a major factor in determining local tax rates. The data highlights the fluctuation in tax rates applied according to an employee's income level and marital status. It is important to note that high tax rates do not necessarily mean less affluence."

Not all taxation systems vary according to marital status, however. Married employees in Brazil, India and Turkey have similar tax rates to single employees.

Relative progress in Iraq

2007-11-21T01:29:00.000-08:00

The usual suspects are all aglow this morning over a NYT report on some families who have moved back into their neighborhoods in Baghdad. The piece features Mrs. Aasan, 45, a Shiite librarian who returned with her family to Dora. Don't get me wrong. It's a heartening development and I think the Aasans are brave souls, but let's look at what else the story tells if you take off the rose colored glasses.

Dora was a neighborhood that was made a chief focus under the surge strategy. This was the market that all the politicians toured, while under heavy guard, and proclaimed as a sign of surge success. The Aasans live in an empty apartment building and their 10 year old son never leaves his mother's side. In the end they are one of small handful of intrepid souls willing to test the limits of the 'new security.'

About 20,000 Iraqis have gone back to their Baghdad homes, a fraction of the more than 4 million who fled nationwide, and the 1.4 million people in Baghdad who are still internally displaced, according to a recent Iraqi Red Crescent Society survey.

Most refugees are still saying they want to leave Iraq, not come back in and those in mixed marriages don't see enough progress to go back to their homes, assuming someone else hasn't already moved into them.

...Baghdad would be truly safe only when the Iraqi forces were mixed with Sunnis and Shiites operating checkpoints side by side — otherwise the city would remain a patchwork of Sunni and Shiite enclaves. “The police, the army, it has to be Sunni next to Shiite next to Sunni next to Shiite,” Abu Nebras said.

Meanwhile, how secure is the security when "Mrs. Aasan said she was thrilled and relieved just a few days ago, when her college-aged son got stuck at work after dark and his father managed to pick him up and drive home without being killed." The husband felt like a hero for surviving a trip across town at 8:00pm. I would hate to call that normal myself.

And how is security outside of Dora? Not so great.

[O]n Monday, the governor of Muthanna province said U.S. troops were no longer welcomed in the town of Samawa after U.S. troops opened fire on civilians there Sunday. Two people were reported dead in that incident on Sunday; a hospital worker said a third died Monday.

According to police Capt. Nayef Salem Ali, who's responsible for checkpoints in the city, the U.S. convoy was traveling down a two-way street when it encountered traffic coming in the opposite direction. The U.S. troops opened fire on the oncoming vehicles, which included cars and trucks, striking five.

And hot on the heels of yesterday's celebration of juice bars in Karrada.

According to the Iraqi police, a private-security company opened fire on a woman as she crossed the street in the busy shopping district of Karrada. Two men also were injured, Iraqi police said.

Iraqi police chased down the perps and arrested 33 people. "It was the first time that Iraqi police had detained foreigners after such an incident."

The U.S. military identified the detained men as employees of ALMCO, a Dubai-based company that has contracts with the U.S. military to provide catering and life-support functions for the Multi-National Security Transition Command, as well as a contract with the Joint Contracting Command to build a courthouse.

And then there's this little incident.

Iraqi police in Babil province, south of Baghdad, also reported a shooting incident Sunday involving a U.S. military convoy. No details were available, but police said a taxi driver was killed and his wife wounded when U.S. soldiers opened fire.

As Devilstower reminds us, we're been here before. Every lull is treated like a major victory by the occupation cheerleaders only to fail in the long run. Contrary to the false accusations from the wingers, I hope and pray that this time the gains stick, but absent in their chest-thumping declarations of victory is any acknowledgement that the whole point of the surge was to give the government space to reconcile and they haven't made an inch of real progress.

Iraq's 'leaders' are still talking about talking about it while the majority of Iraqis and the Parliament that they elected want us to go home. I'd suggest we give them what they want. That would be a real victory.

Energizing Rural America

2007-11-21T01:26:00.000-08:00

Read the full report (PDF)

This year offers a rare historical opportunity for our nation to marry energy and agricultural policy objectives. The new 110th Congress will be revisiting the 2005 energy bill and reauthorizing the 2002 farm bill, giving congressional leaders the chance to link increased rural prosperity and energy security. The key ingredient in such a strategy: Maximize local ownership of the rapidly expanding biofuels and wind-energy industries.

Historically, policy makers have approached renewable energy as an energy security or environmental issue, with agricultural implications. This year, Congress needs to recognize the dramatic benefits of clean, renewable energy on rural communities and then ensure these benefits inform and guide our energy and agricultural policies.

Displacing a quarter of our nation’s vehicular transportation energy with biofuels—a key national security imperative—would require the cultivation and harvesting of substantial amounts of plant matter, massively benefiting American farmers. It would also require the construction of some 2,500 biorefineries throughout the nation, which, if predominantly locally owned, would utterly transform rural America. If wind energy then supplied 15 percent of the nation’s electricity, more than 100,000 new wind turbines might be required—an investment requirement exceeding $400 billion. If these wind-energy production facilities were mostly local-owned enterprises, then even more renewable energy profits would flow back into the American heartland.

Ensuring that these positive investments in rural America are realized, and the benefits widely shared, should be a high national priority. To date, however, public policy has focused principally on simply achieving the quantitative goal of expanding renewable energy production. Qualitative goals such as maximizing economic development in rural communities through the promotion of renewable energy have largely been overlooked.

One reason may be that policy makers assume a rising tide of renewable energy will lift all agricultural boats, but a century of empirical evidence reveals that farmers gain modestly, and in most cases, only temporarily from an increased demand for their crops. Until the end of 2006, no statistically significant correlation could be found between the increased demand for ethanol and the price of corn. The current frenzy of investment in ethanol plants clearly is affecting corn prices. But the price spike is also spurring a dramatic increase in corn acreage. This, coupled with increased yields, could dissipate the price spike in two years—unless Congress significantly boosts the level of the biofuels production mandate.

While the link between increased demand for biofuels and increased rural prosperity has been overstated, the link between local ownership and rural prosperity has been overlooked. Farmers gain handsomely and enduringly when they own a share in processing and manufacturing facilities. They may earn up to 10 times more per bushel from ethanol-related dividends than they do from the increased price of their crop resulting from the opening of an absentee-owned biorefinery.

The same correlation between ownership and rural prosperity may be seen in the harvesting of wind energy. Farmers can earn five-to-10 times more if they own a share of a wind turbine than they can from leasing their land for an absentee-owned wind turbine.

This paper will examine in detail why this link between local ownership and rural prosperity is so critical to the prosperity of America’s farming communities and then offer comprehensive policy prescriptions for Congress to consider. This progressive legislation offers a smart, pragmatic way to boost the incomes of traditional American farmers and secure our nation’s future energy needs in small communities across the heartland.

Read the full report (PDF)

Forecast: Storm Warnings

2007-11-21T01:21:00.000-08:00

Read the full report (PDF)

Their names are seared into the minds of those who lived through them. Andrew. Charley. Hugo. Ivan. Rita. And, of course, Katrina.

These and other major hurricanes ripped through United States coastal areas around the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic shoreline with 100-plus mile-per-hour winds and stinging sideways rain. These storms left devastation in their path, ripping roofs off houses, flattening whole buildings, tossing around cars as if they were toys, and taking lives.

The recipients of their wrath number in the tens of thousands, the damages in the billions of dollars. Recovery often takes years. Two years after Hurricane Katrina struck land on August 29, 2005, thousands of Mississippi and Louisiana residents have yet to restore their homes, businesses and lives. And some may never do so. Hurricanes gather and release nature’s fury, and the consequences are deadly.

And now the actions of humans since the dawn of the industrial age will only propel future hurricanes’ power. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere released by burning coal, oil, and other fossil fuels has begun to warm the planet. The surface temperature of the eastern Atlantic Ocean has increased by nearly one degree Celsius in the last century, and the temperature will likely increase in the future.1 Scientists have determined that warmer water can boost hurricanes’ ferocity, and may even increase their frequency.

In short, the global warming forecast is for severe storm warnings ahead.

Even if the United States and other nations were to severely slash their emissions today, the Earth will continue to warm in the coming years due to the pollution already in the atmosphere. It is imperative that we immediately adopt global warming pollution reductions to slow and eventually halt the warming that is underway.

In the meantime, coastal communities facing the greatest hurricane threat must take steps to increase their resilience to damage from these future, fiercer storms. Community-based mitigation efforts, supported by federal policies and resources, can dramatically reduce the effects of a future Andrew or Katrina. The urgency of this work grows every day as thousands of Americans return to their homes and communities to try to rebuild their shattered lives and others go about their daily lives a potential target for the next storm.

This report begins by detailing scientists’ current understanding of the effects of global warming on the severity and frequency of hurricanes and the need for more scientific research on the relationship between these phenomena. After all, as our globe warms, our understanding of long-term environmental consequences requires more than the analysis of annual weather patterns. Evidence is growing that future storms will be more severe and unpredictable. Future storms will also continue to be more costly as more Americans settle in coastal communities that are more vulnerable to natural disasters.

Just as importantly, though, this report also includes recommendations for proven steps that communities can undertake to significantly reduce the devastation that hurricanes can suddenly deliver to those in the paths of these storms. We also outline essential steps that the federal government must take to assist cities and towns on the frontline of global warming. With the best science, the best local preparation, and dedicated federal support, we can minimize the likelihood that future storms join the tragic roster of the deadliest hurricanes.

Read the full report (PDF)

Fueling a New Farm Economy

2007-11-21T01:18:00.000-08:00

Read the full report (PDF)

Watch Jake Caldwell discuss the 2007 Farm Bill (YouTube)

Complex problems require detailed solutions underpinned by a clear vision of the future. When each of those problems individually seems almost intractable, the need for an overarching view of the desired outcome becomes all the more important. Without a doubt that is the case today when policymakers confront global warming, global poverty, energy security, and global free trade.

All four issues boast numerous problems and challenges. Yet consider a vision of the world where renewable energy extracted sustainably from crops and agricultural wastes across the planet fuels a new farm economy that simultaneously produces food and fuel amid economically robust and environmentally sound rural landscapes. This new way of thinking about agriculture and rural communities worldwide offers a way past our world’s unsustainable reliance on fossil fuels and our inability to build a global trading community that enriches farmers worldwide. Once embraced, this new vision offers humanity a viable approach to help reverse the dire effects of climate change.

These are bold visions. The tools needed to craft this new rural economy, however, are within the grasp of the new 110th Congress, which this year must reauthorize our nation’s farm legislation. At the same time, the latest round of World Trade Organization negotiations remains on the brink of final collapse due to seemingly insurmountable disputes over farm subsidies and tariffs. Congress this year has the chance to hurdle past these obstacles by enacting agricultural policies that create a clean and prosperous countryside in the United States and around the world.

This paper will detail exactly how Congress can work toward this new vision. Specific policy recommendations are presented in each section of the report so that members of Congress can grasp what needs to be enacted in separate legislative vehicles. In short, this paper is a policymaking roadmap toward that larger vision of growing the world’s energy and moving forward constructively on global trade.

The first section, beginning on page 7, presents the current state of play in the U.S. biofuels marketplace and then offers detailed legislative proposals to further boost the burgeoning alternative fuels industry. The purpose: Rapidly and deliberately develop the next generation of advanced cellosic biofuels by:

Targeting “green payments” to farmers for performing environmental services on their working lands, including growing dedicated energy crops, while decreasing our reliance on commodity-based direct payment subsidies.
Rewarding farmers for agricultural practices that combat climate change.
Increasing funds in the new farm bill for existing renewable energy programs.
Encouraging farmer-owned-and-operated biorefineries and local-owned biofuel plant cooperatives.

The second section, beginning on page 12, analyzes in greater detail the advantages and some of the safeguards required in order to bring dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass, miscanthus, jatropha, and poplar to market as biofuels and bioproducts. The incredible potential of these dedicated energy crops to supplement and diversify our energy production, increase rural revenues, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions could allow the United States to substitute 25 percent of our petroleum energy needs with cellulosic biofuels, generate $700 billion of new economic activity on our rural communities and earn farmers $180 billion in new net income within two decades. To get there, detailed policy suggestions include:

Providing new tax credits and loan guarantees to bring this next generation of biofuels to commercial scale production now.
Boosting the Renewable Fuel Standard to ensure demand for new biofuels keeps pace with production capacity.
Lowering the current import tariff on foreign biofuels to further broaden the market for these new alternative fuels.
Reforming current federal support for biofuels to be more market responsive with a countercyclical federal subsidy that ensures that as oil prices rise, federal support for biofuels decreases, and vice-versa.
Extending current Renewable Energy Tax Credits for wind and biofuel production to encourage new investment.
Creating new tax and production incentives for private sector investments in biofuel production infrastructure and clean energy marketplaces.

The paper then turns to the complex state of current international trade negotiations in the next section of the paper, beginning on page 18. This section offers clear suggestions of ways to create flexibility in entrenched positions as a means to jumpstart the stalled Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations, among them:

Rewarding all U.S. farmers for environmental stewardship on their working lands, including growing dedicated energy crops, by implementing a WTO-compatible “green payment” program and encouraging modest reinvestment of current commodity-based subsidies. Other WTO-member nations must make similar farm tariff and subsidy reductions in their agricultural sectors.
Reducing gradually the current 54-cent-per-gallon U.S. tariff on imported biofuels to grow the global market in biofuels and take steps towards meeting the Doha Round’s overarching trade and development goals.
Supporting “development-friendly” agricultural support for the world’s poorest nations with specific capacity-building and “Aid for Trade” programs involving infrastructure, energy, and other sectors.

The final section draws upon the analysis and recommendations of the first three sections to presenta vision of a global agricultural economy fully engaged in alternative energy production. Thissection, beginning on page 20, walks readers through the role of biofuels in contributing to povertyreduction and combating climate change in the developing world and then details how this effort isinexorably linked to U.S. farm policy reforms and a successful conclusion to the Doha Round.

The paper makes a number of suggestions for the United States and our trading partners around the globe to consider, but then turns directly to the need for U.S. leadership at home and abroad to see this alternative energy vision translated into action. Without immediate legislative action by Congress to deliver biofuels to consumers, the overwhelming promise of alternative energy production will take decades longer to bear fruit, and in the process probably bypass the rural communities most in need of a fresh start. Accordingly, the recommendations in this section focus on:

Creating a nationwide network of service stations selling E85 fuel, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.
Promoting the sale of Flexible Fuel Vehicles that run on E85 fuel.
Encouraging public awareness of biofuel alternatives in the marketplace through a federal biofuels certification and labeling program.
Boosting research and development in advanced biofuels and biobased technologies through a variety of legislative funding avenues.

If all or most of the policy recommendations presented in this paper are acted upon by Congress and matched by our trading partners abroad then it is not hard at all to envision, three decades from now, a far wealthier global agricultural sector contributing strongly to a far cleaner global environment and a far more innovative and diversified energy future. It is a vision that transcends political parties and national boundaries. It is a vision that is within reach.

Read the full report (PDF)

Global Warming and the Future of Coal

2007-11-21T01:00:00.000-08:00

Read the full report (PDF)

Watch Bob Sussman discuss the report (YouTube)

Watch Ken Berlin discuss the report (YouTube)

Ever-rising industrial and consumer demand for more power in tandem with cheap and abundant coal reserves across the globe are expected to result in the construction of new coal-fired power plants producing 1,400 gigawatts of electricity by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency. In the absence of emission controls, these new plants will increase worldwide annual emissions of carbon dioxide by approximately 7.6 billion metric tons by 2030. These emissions would equal roughly 50 percent of all fossil fuel emissions over the past 250 years.

In the United States alone, about 145 gigawatts of new power from coal-fired plants are projected to be built by 2030, resulting in CO2 emissions of 790 million metric tons per year in the absence of emission controls. By comparison, annual U.S. emissions of CO2 from all sources in 2005 were about 6 billion metric tons.

Policymakers and scientists now recognize that the current growth of greenhouse gas emissions must be reversed and that emissions must be reduced substantially in order to combat the risk of climate change. Yet a dramatic increase in coal-fired power generation threatens to overwhelm all other efforts to lower emissions and virtually guarantees that these emissions will continue to climb. This would preclude any possibility of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at levels that would acceptably moderate the predicted rise in global temperatures.

In China and other developing countries experiencing strong economic growth, demand for power is surging dramatically, with low-cost coal the fuel of choice for new power plants. Emissions in these countries are now rising faster than in developed economies in North America and Europe: China will soon overtake the United States as the world’s number one greenhouse gas emitter. With the power sector expanding rapidly, China and India will fall further behind in controlling greenhouse gas emissions unless new coal plants adopt emission controls. Lack of progress in these countries would doom to failure global efforts to combat global warming.

The Promise of Carbon Capture and Storage

Fortunately, there is a potential pathway that would allow continued use of coal as an energy source without magnifying the risk of global warming. Technology currently exists to capture CO2 emissions from coal-fired plants before they are released into the environment and to sequester that CO2 in underground geologic formations. Energy companies boast extensive experience sequestering CO2 by injecting it into oil fields to enhance oil recovery. Although additional testing is needed, experts are optimistic this practice can be replicated in saline aquifers and other geologic formations that are likely to constitute the main storage reservoirs for CO2 emitted from power plants.

However, these so-called carbon capture and storage, or CCS systems, require modifications to existing power plant technologies. Today the prevailing coal-based generation technology in the United States is pulverized coal, with high-temperature (supercritical and ultrasupercritical) designs available to improve efficiency. It is possible to capture CO2 emissions at these pulverized coal units, but the CO2 capture technology currently has performance and cost drawbacks.

But there’s a new coal-based power generation technology, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, which allows CCS systems in new plants to more efficiently capture and store CO2 because the CO2 can be removed before combustion. Motivated by this advantage, some power plant developers have announced plans to use IGCC technology but very few have committed to installing and operating CCS systems.

The great challenge is ensuring that widespread deployment of CCS systems at new IGCC and pulverized coal plants occurs on a timely basis. Despite growing recognition of the promise of carbon capture and storage, we are so far failing in that effort. The consequences of delay will be far-reaching—a new generation of coal plants could well be built without CO2 emission controls.

Barriers to the Adoption of Carbon Capture and Storage Systems

Industry experts today are projecting that only a small percentage of new coal-fired plants built during the next 25 years will use IGCC technology. IGCC plants currently cost about 20 percent to 25 percent more to build than conventional state-of- the-art coal plants using supercritical pulverized coal, or SCPC, technology. What’s more, because experience with IGCC technology is limited, IGCC plants are still perceived to have reliability and efficiency drawbacks.

More importantly, IGCC plants are not likely to capture and sequester their CO2 emissions in the current regulatory environment since add-on capture technology will reduce efficiency and lower electricity output. This will increase the cost of producing electricity by 25 percent to 40 percent over plants without CCS capability.

These barriers can be partially overcome by tax credits and other financial incentives and by performance guarantees from IGCC technology vendors. Even with these measures, however, it is unlikely that IGCC plants will replace conventional coal plants in large numbers or that those plants which are built will capture and store CO2. There are two reasons for this.

First, even cost-competitive new technologies are usually not adopted rapidly, particularly in a conservative industry such as the utility sector, where the new technology is different from the conventional technology. This is the case with IGCC plants, which are indeed more like chemical plants than traditional coal-fired plants.

Second, there is now no business motivation to bear the cost of CCS systems when selecting new generation technologies even though the cost of electricity from IGCC plants is in fact lower than from SCPC plants once CCS costs are taken into account. This is because plant owners are not required to control greenhouse gas emissions and CCS systems are unnecessary for the production of power. The upshot: IGCC units (with and even without CCS capability) will lack a competitive edge over SCPC units unless all plant developers are responsible for costeffectively abating their CO2 emissions. No such requirement exists today.

A New Policy Framework to Stimulate the Adoption of CCS Systems

This paper considers how best to change the economic calculus of power plant developers so they internalize CCS costs when selecting new generation technologies. Five policy tools are analyzed:

Establishing a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program
Imposing carbon taxes
Defining CCS systems as a so-called Best Available Control Technology for new power plants under the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review program
Developing a “low carbon portfolio” standard that requires utilities to provide an increasing proportion of power from low-carbon generation sources over time
Requiring all new coal power plants to meet an “emission performance” standard that limits CO2 emissions to levels achievable with CCS systems.

Each of these tools has advantages and drawbacks but an emission performance standard for new power plants is likely to be most effective in spurring broad-scale adoption of CCS systems.

In the current U.S. political environment, a cap-and-trade system is unlikely to result in a sufficiently high market price for CO2 (around $30 per ton) in the early years of a carbon control regime to assure that all coal plant developers adopt CCS systems. At lower carbon prices, plant developers could well conclude that it is more economical to build uncontrolled SCPC plants and then purchase credits to offset their emissions. A carbon tax that is not set at a sufficiently high level likely would have the same consequences.

A low carbon portfolio standard would be complex and difficult to implement because of the wide variations in generation mix between different regions. Moreover, unless the standard sets stringent targets for low carbon generation, it would not preclude construction of uncontrolled coal plants.

Although the recent Supreme Court decision defining CO2 as a “pollutant” has opened the door to controlling new power plant emissions under the New Source Review program, legal uncertainties may prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from defining CCS systems as the Best Available Control Technology under current law. Individual states could also reject CCS systems during permitting reviews. Moreover, the New Source Review program would not allow flexible compliance schedules for installing and operating CCS systems, nor would it provide financial incentives to offset the increased cost of electricity.

How Emission Performance Standards for New Coal Plants Would Work

In contrast to other approaches, an emission performance standard that limits new plant emissions to levels achievable with CCS systems would provide certainty that new coal plants in fact capture and store

CO2. To provide a clear market signal to plant developers, this standard would apply to all new plants built after a date certain, although some flexibility would be allowed in the timing of CCS installation so that the power generation industry can gain more experience with various types of capture technology and underground CO2 storage. For example, all plants that begin construction after 2008 could be subject to the standard and would be required to implement carbon capture technology by 2013, and then to meet all sequestration requirements by 2016.

To provide additional flexibility while CCS technology is being perfected, plant developers during the first three years in which the new performance standard is in effect could have the option to construct traditional coal plants that do not capture and sequester CO2 if they offset on a one-to-one basis their CO2 emissions by taking one or more of the following steps:

Improving efficiencies and lowering CO2 emissions at existing plants
Retiring existing coal or natural gas units that generate CO2 emissions
Constructing previously unplanned renewable fuel power plants representing up to 25 percent of the generation capacity of the new coal plant.

In 2011, this alternate compliance option would sunset and all new plants subsequently entering construction would need to capture and sequester their emissions.

An emission performance standard for new coal plants should be accompanied by a cap-and-trade program for existing power plants, with the cap starting at 100 percent of emissions and progressively declining over time. A declining cap would encourage greater efficiencies in operating existing plants and incentivize the retirement of higher emitting existing plants. This would assure that an emission performance standard for new plants does not simply prolong the useful life of older plants. In addition, as the cap declines, retrofitting existing plants with CCS systems could become a viable option.

Mitigating Electricity Price Hikes

If legislation requiring an emission performance standard for new coal plants is enacted, then Congress should simultaneously take steps to offset the additional costs of installing CCS systems and provide relief from electricity price increases. This would prevent disproportionate costs from falling upon consumers who live in regions heavily dependent on coal for power generation. By reducing the financial risks and uncertainties of building power plants with CCS systems, it would also encourage investments in such plants by developers and their financial backers.

One approach would be to create a fund to “credit” utilities for all or part of the price increase that consumers would otherwise bear if they receive power from plants with CCS systems. Alternatively, financial incentives could be offered to plant developers which, in combination, offset a significant portion of the incremental costs of installing a CCS system as opposed to operating a coal-fired plant that does not control CO2 emissions. This new incentive program would replace current incentive programs for IGCC plants and other coal technologies that do not include CCS systems.

Assuming that government incentives cover 10 percent to 20 percent of total plant construction costs and that they apply to the first 80 gigawatts of new coal capacity with CCS systems built by 2030, these incentives could cost in the range of $36 billion over 18 years. Although $36 billion is a large sum, it is only a fraction of the $1.61 trillion that the International Energy Agency predicts will be invested in new power plants in the United States between now and 2030.

Building a Technical and Regulatory Foundation for CCS Systems

Once the nation commits to a rapid timetable for requiring CCS systems at all new coal plants under an emission performance standard, then all of our regulatory and research and development efforts should be focused on implementing CCS technology as effectively as possible. This would require:

An enhanced R&D program for capture technologies at both SCPC and IGCC facilities to reduce the costs of capture as quickly as possible
An accelerated program to gain largescale experience with sequestration for a range of geologic formations
A comprehensive national inventory of potential storage reservoirs
A new regulatory framework for evaluating, permitting, monitoring, and remediating sequestration sites and allocating liability for long-term CO2 storage.

Maintaining the Viability of Coal in a Carbon-Constrained World

Although an emission performance standard that requires CCS systems for all new coal plants would pose a daunting technological and economic challenge, it will ultimately assure coal a secure and important role in the future U.S. energy mix. Such a standard would establish a clear technological path forward for coal, preserving its viability in a carbon-constrained world and giving the utility industry confidence to invest substantial sums in new coal-fired power generation. In contrast, continued public opposition and legal uncertainties may cause investors to withhold financing for new coal plants, placing the future of coal in jeopardy.

If the United States is successful in maintaining the viability of coal as a cost-competitive power source while addressing climate concerns, our leadership position would enable U.S. industries to capture critical export opportunities to the very nations facing the largest challenges from global warming. Once our domestic marketplace adopts CCS systems as power industry standards, the opportunities to export this best-of-breed technology will grow exponentially.

This will be critical to combating the massive rise of coal-derived greenhouse gas emissions in the developing world. Boosting exports while also helping China, India, and other developing nations reduce emissions and sustain economic growth would be a win-win-win for our economy, their economies, and the global climate.

Read the full report (PDF)
Watch Bob Sussman discuss the report (YouTube)
Watch Ken Berlin discuss the report (YouTube)

The IPCC experts agreed that the rise in Earth's temperature observed in the past few decades was principally due to human causes, not natural ones, a

2007-11-21T00:59:00.001-08:00

Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, Pluto, and others share the fate of Earth

Jupiter

A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY sources explained yesterday. The temperatures are expected to change by as much as 10 Fahrenheit degrees at different places of the globe. At least close to the new spot and to the equator, nothing less than global warming is expected.

Neptune

The climate of Neptune - more precisely its reflectivity - was recently changing. Lockwood and Hammel argue in Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34 (2007) that the trends on Neptune reveal suggestive correlations of brightness of Neptune with the temperature trends on Earth, indicating their common solar origin - although I am not quite sure whether the sign is as expected.

Triton

Triton is Neptune's largest Moon. Some people believe that it used to be an asteroid. Global warming was detected on Triton. Between 1989 and 1998, the temperature jumped by 5 percent on the absolute (Kelvin) scale. The same relative increase would raise the Earth's temperature by 22 degrees Fahrenheit in 9 years. See thousands of other pages about the global warming on Triton.

Enceladus

Another moon of Saturn's, Enceladus, would be also expected to be frozen and cold. Suddenly, Cassini has informed us that Enceladus generates its own heat. Its high temperatures seem to be incompatible with calculations based on solar energy itself, according to existing models.

Saturn

Saturn itself has a rather warm southern pole, and the temperatures in that region suddenly jumped by 3-5 Kelvin degrees. Well, it's warm because it's been exposed to sunshine for quite some time but the magnitude of the temperature jumps is not trivial to calculate.

Pluto

What's going on with Pluto? Well, yes, your guess is right. There is global warming on Pluto. Pluto's atmospheric pressure has tripled in 14 years, and the associated increase of temperature is estimated to be around 3.5 Fahrenheit degrees, despite the motion of Pluto away from the Sun.

Mars

Of course, the global warming on Mars is a well-known story. Between 1975 and 2000, Mars warmed up by 0.65 Celsius degrees, much faster than Earth: see Nature 2007. The warming has been used by this blog to discover the Martians. More seriously, we have explained that the dramatic and speedy melting of the Martian icecaps is caused by the greenhouse effect. 95% of "their" atmosphere is made of carbon dioxide; that's slightly more than 0.038% of our atmosphere.

The warming trend on Mars is undeniable. Some people have tried to blame the global warming on NASA's rovers. Such accusations are pretty serious because NASA is already preparing plans to occupy Mars using the greenhouse effect, as ordered by George Bush. ;-)

Venus

This planet doesn't belong to this list of planets where recent warming has been demonstrated. But it is interesting to talk about the greenhouse effect there.

Venus, our planet's evil sister, has already been identified as unusable for life because of ... yes, because of the greenhouse effect that occured in the past. Last month, the Venus express gave us some new hints why Venus has such a thick atmosphere that generated global warming.

Venus' distance from the Sun is about 70% of the distance Sun-Earth. Because of the second power, this means that there is twice as much solar radiation per area over there. Because of the fourth power in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, it means that you expect about 20% higher temperatures in comparison with Earth on the Kelvin scale which would mean, if Venus were a black body, that the temperature would still be still below 100 Celsius. But they are about 470 Celsius on Venus.

Venus is clearly not a black body and the greenhouse effect is important for raising its temperature. But you should notice that Venus' atmosphere has 90 times higher pressure than the terrestrial atmosphere and 96% of it is carbon dioxide! The Earth only has 380 parts per million of CO2, and if you divided it by 90 to get the corresponding fraction of the Venus atmosphere, you get about 4 parts per million. There is more than 100,000 times less CO2 density here than on Venus! If you used a linear relationship between the CO2 concentration and temperature boost, you would see that the expected increase of the Earth temperature due to CO2 is 400 Celsius divided by more than 100,000 which is a few millikelvins - a totally negligible amount! The actual strength of the greenhouse effect on Earth will be stronger - because the first molecules matter more - but it won't be exceedingly stronger. At any rate, when numbers are taken into account, you shouldn't expect any substantial influence of CO2 on Earth.

But let us return to the planets that are known to be currently warming.

Earth

The Earth is currently experiencing warming, too, although a less dramatic one than the previous examples. However, there is apparently a huge difference. The warming on the previous planets and moons was natural. On the other hand, the warming on Earth couldn't evolve naturally: it is caused by the humankind, evil corporations, and their intelligent design, most left-wing scientists believe. The warming trends can't have anything to do with the Sun whose activity is now highest in the last 1000 years: it is unethical to propose that the Sun plays any role, consensus scientists argue.

A comparison

You may ask the consensus scientists: why is there such a difference between the explanations for the warming of the Earth and the other planets and their moons? It's because the Earth is the center of the Universe, they would answer. You could also ask: why do all these planets and moons indicate warming? Shut up, the consensus scientists would answer.

Some of them would tell you that your paradox is resolved by the anthropic principle: the people on Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Mars, Triton, and other celestial bodies cannot complain about the anthropogenic global warming because... because these people don't exist! :-)

The debate is over, Al Gore, our prophet, has announced. Terrestrial global warming, caused by the human sins, is no longer a political issue: it is now a spiritual issue. Now it's time to punish the heretics who deny that the Earth as the center of the Universe is special because of the humans who were created to the image of God - and because of their sins and SUVs.

This looks like a story about some silly priests from the 16th century Catholic Church - a story about the Dark Ages that most of us heard in the basic school. But unfortunately, what we are describing here are influential people in the 21st century such as one who delivers a speech on the picture above.

People who believe, much like the Church in the 15th century, that the divine truth is determined by consensus. People who believe that we should prefer awkward hypotheses if they support our spiritual values. People who believe that questions and independent thinking should be silenced. People who will almost certainly write dozens of unsubstantiated comments below this article.

More seriously, I don't claim that the trends observed on all these celestial bodies prove their solar or cosmic origin although the agreement of the signs is suggestive. But what these trends certainly do is to remind all rational people that there is always natural variability on any celestial body as long as it has any structure or internal dynamics and the only questions are the quantitative ones: how large this natural variability is and what effects are the most important ones in driving it. Denying that there is a lot of natural climate change would be extraordinarily silly.

Global warming could be irreversible: IPCC

2007-11-21T00:59:00.000-08:00

The UN's Nobel-winning panel on climate change completed a draft report that said the consequences of global warming could be "irreversible".

The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) encapsulates a massive review of the global warming issue, with the goal of guiding policy-makers for the next five years.

Human activities "could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts," the agreed text said.

The so-called synthesis report summarises the main points from three massive documents issued this year covering the evidence for climate change; the present and possible future impacts of it; and the options for tackling the peril.

After Saturday, attention will shift to a meeting in Bali, Indonesia, next month.

Governments will try to set down a 'roadmap' for negotiations that will end in a deal to cut carbon emissions and help developing nations adapt to climate change.
The IPCC experts agreed that the rise in Earth's temperature observed in the past few decades was principally due to human causes, not natural ones, as "climate skeptics" often aver.

The impacts of climate change are already visible, in the form of retreating glaciers and snow loss in alpine regions, thinning Arctic summer sea ice and thawing permafrost, according to predictions in the three IPCC reports issued earlier this year.

By 2100, global average surface temperatures could rise by between 1.1 C (1.98 F) and 6.4 C (11.52 F) compared to 1980-99 levels, while sea levels will rise by between 18 and 59 centimetres (7.2 and 23.2 inches), according to the IPCC's forecast.

Heatwaves, rainstorms, drought, tropical cyclones and surges in sea level are among the events expected to become more frequent, more widespread and/or more intense this century.

As a result, water shortages, hunger, flooding and damage to homes will be a heightened threat.

"All countries" will be affected, says the IPCC. Those bearing the brunt, though, will be poor countries which incidentally bear the least responsibility for creating the problem.

Yan Hong, deputy secretary of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), one of the IPCC's two parent bodies, warned on Monday that climate change bore "potential implications for world peace" by intensifying squabbles over water, food and energy.

"It could also lead to massive population resettlement, especially to urban areas that may not have capacity to shelter, feed and employ them," he said.

The IPCC won this year's Nobel Peace Prize alongside climate campaigner and former US vice president Al Gore.

The panel, comprising specialists in atmospheric chemistry, ocean biology, glaciation, economics and many other disciplines, issues regular reviews, called assessment reports, on global warming.

It has been widely praised for the impartiality and objectivity of its reports, although this year some experts have said its review process may be too conservative and slow-moving to assess what now transpires to be a fast-moving problem.

This year's is the fourth assessment report since the IPCC was established in 1988 by the WMO and UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

Mars Rover Mission - Why not Present Science with the Aid of Virtual Reality Software ?

2007-11-21T00:45:00.000-08:00

2004 started a new era in planetary exploration. Two Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity landed successfully on the surface of Mars and a short while later started to send lots of images and other data. The rovers were designed to work properly for only 90 days on the Martian surface but, believe it or not, they are still in a good health and do not seem to stop working. During over 3-year period NASA has received a huge amount of data that are hard to present for the wider public. The solution of this problem has been provided by Sciterian Technologies. Its VRPresents technology, especially designed for this purpose, gives astronomy lovers a new interesting way to introduce the planet. Now you can just take a virtual tour of Mars.

High resolution panoramic images of Mars are quite difficult to view in many similar VR technologies, which one can notice even at NASA's web sites, but VRPresents not only displays these panoramas warped correctly, but it provides also a lot of other useful features that make learning scientific results easy and enjoyable.

Virtual reality technology seems to be the answer to the question "how to present complex scientific data and not to bore the common man ?". In VR world you can just move in any available direction and see many places that were visited earlier by the rovers. It is you who decides where to go, what to watch, what to see closer or what information to read. If you want to see what is around you, just start turning round. If you would like to move somewhere in the virtual world – no problem, just click a hot spot which will take you to another panorama, and your direction in 3D space will not change like it does in many other VR technologies. You do not have to read any information to learn where a specific place is and you do not have to imagine all these fantastic places on the surface of Mars since you do not watch just panoramic images, which are introduced in different projections, but you see really something similar to what you would see standing on the surface of Mars, without distortions.

"VRMars-Spirit – The Red Planet Mars 3D" is the first VRPresents-based product that presents the results of Mars Exploration Rover Spirit Mission with the aid of virtual reality, released by Sciterian Technologies. The software is really interesting. I recommend it not only for scientists and hobbyists but for school teaching purposes as well. Science really can be fun.

GHG set to rise by 57 percent by 2030 — that's 3 degrees C

2007-11-21T00:33:00.000-08:00

Emissions of greenhouse gases will rise by 57 percent by 2030 compared to current levels, leading to a rise in Earth's surface temperature of at least three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit), the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Wednesday.

The IPCC said that to limit the average increase in global temperatures to 2.4 C (4.3 F) -- the most optimistic of any of its scenarios -- the concentration of greenhouse gases would have to stabilise at 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

To achieve the 450ppm target would mean that CO2 from energy sources would have to peak by 2012, and this would require a massive drive in energy efficiency and switch to non-fossil fuels, the report said.

"Exceptionally quick and vigorous action by all countries and unprecedented technological advances, entailing, substantial costs, would be needed to make this case a reality."

Microsoft's Bill Hilf Reveals Its Open Source Strategy

2007-11-21T00:30:00.000-08:00

InformationWeek: I'm curious as to where do these patent claims come from? Microsoft has said there's X numbers of patents that Linux may infringe. Where does that intellectual property come from? Is it based on ownership of Xenix back in the day, is it based on things that are currently in Windows?

Hilf: We published a patent map, which shows, literally, we listed out every number and we listed out every category it fits in and we published that so everyone can see it, because everybody kept asking us, well, what are the patents? (Note: a Microsoft spokesman later clarified Hilf was referring to a categorized tally of possibly infringed patents published earlier this year in a Fortune article, not a detailed list of every specific patent, which Microsoft declined to provide to InformationWeek.)

Classically, our preferred plan is to license our technology in a very proactive and productive way versus litigate. So what we try to do is say in a very, very nice way, there's a model here that allows us to be essentially paid some degree for our inventions in a way that says at least for all the money we invest, the $7 billion every year in research, there's a way to see some return on that if someone's using our technology.

Right now what we've been trying to establish with one to another from Novell to Linspire to Xandros, Turbolinux, a way to license technology so that's both cost effective and makes sense for us so we're protecting inventions that we have and move forward. It allows us to move forward and take that issue off the plate, versus have a rat hole of litigation nightmares and lawsuits.

InformationWeek: There are companies or organizations you've reached out to and they say no, we wouldn't like to do anything. If you talk about infringement there, but if you don't do anything, isn't that weakening your claim to hold valid patents?

Hilf: Would or could we ever litigate, yeah, sure, it's always an option. But it's the last option in the decision tree for us. Would we have to enforce it? Possibly yes.

The key to that is to separate, people's, individuals' and groups' belief about software patents as an issue and then what is the current way that we do patent law in at least the United States. You may disagree with it, but there's a law for how we deal with patents. They often get wrapped up together as the same issue, but they're not the same.

As a company, we're hyperactively involved with patent reform and trying to find models that work best for the industry. But it is key, as you have these conversations, particularly with the open source community, keep in the back of your mind, what is the current model for doing business, right, wrong or indifferent, and then what is the opinion about software patents as an issue.

InformationWeek recently interviewed Bill Hilf, Microsoft's leading light on open source issues. Since coming to Microsoft from IBM in 2003, Hilf has been inextricably involved with Microsoft's strategy for dealing with Linux. He's recently been appointed general manager of Windows Server marketing and platform strategy, which means he's taking on an expanded role, but open source is still one of his core issues.

InformationWeek: How is Microsoft's strategy toward open source and viewpoint about open source shifting?

Hilf: Years ago, Microsoft had a very specific interpretation of what open source is. Open source and Linux were sort of synonymous and it was sort of a specter-like ghost. A lot of what I've done over the past four years is help to parse out two issues: Where do we cooperate and where's the value for our company in participating, and where specifically do we compete head-to-head and make sure there's no grayness around that?

We compete specifically with things like Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The software that goes into Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we may or may not compete with at a feature level, but the real value of open source from Microsoft is understanding how community developed software can happen on our platform and help grow our business as well as the open source community, which is how we started off on this whole path of launching things like Port25 and CodePlex, and which is why I submitted the licenses to the OSI.

InformationWeek: Are there any specific areas where you would see Microsoft placing things in an open source development environment as a way to further its own products or to better interoperate with things?

Hilf: When people buy commercial software, really what they're buying is a guarantee. You're buying a guarantee that what you have will perform, and has been tested and there's someone you can call up, and if things go really bad someone's liable if something doesn't work. You're buying this ecosystem of accountability. One of the challenges of open source and really the challenge with the open source business model is: it's hard to replicate that ecosystem of accountability and that guarantee.

The first question that I ask, because I'm deeply involved with that decision chain is, what does this do to help or hinder that ecosystem of accountability, the testing model, the support model, the backstop? That has to be a counterbalance to any value that we might get out of a community software development model, and those are decisions that we kind of walk through.

Red Hat's been really the only proof that somebody can provide an overlay support service, and even then, I don't know that it's even that significant of a proof. The community itself is the value of open source, not any one vendor who's participating in it. I think a lot of people get lost in the software, the source code part of it. What we've been doing strategically is try to figure out how do we participate in that community as a good citizen so that we're in that sort of same value chain. We did the same thing at IBM. There's lots of participation of IBM in open source, but there's very little shared source code between IBM's shipping products and open source software.

InformationWeek: In order to participate in communities like that, how do you cut through the muddle of the Richard Stallmans of the world and overcome the popular resistance, and also cut through the resistance that you've gotten from people like Red Hat who you might want to partner with?

Hilf: We just had a bunch of our global account managers in with us, people who handle our super big customers, and they said, these customers don't even know who Richard Stallman is, they don't even care. They've chosen Linux or Apache or open source in general because of a few simple reasons: either price, or functionality, they want a more modular system or they want something that has a smaller footprint, there are certain needs that they have that are satisfied by that type of software.

Turning to the product that we're releasing, we said what do people really like about Linux servers, what do they really like about Unix servers? They like having a modular system that has a small footprint. They like having a great command line environment that allows a power user to do a lot of scripting and command line things that are not UI-based. That's what we built [Windows Server 2008] with Server Core and PowerShell and new technologies that support PHP better in IIS 7 [Internet Information Services]. For us, it's not a religion, there's literally feature requests from customers showing up in some of our competitive products, we said great, people want this stuff.

InformationWeek: Why not, say, broadly, well, let's do an interoperability agreement with the Linux community in general rather than saying, here's a deal with Xandros, here's a deal with Novell, etcetera?

Hilf: Customers are using distributions of Linux, because Linux the kernel is literally just a kernel and no one runs just a kernel, so they buy or are using distributions. That's why when we do these partnerships we want to use, we want to partner with the people who are distributing the product that customers use, the closest point of attachment to what the customer's using.

InformationWeek: Do you guys talk to the guys who are working on Samba at all?

Hilf: Yeah, I mean, I've known [Samba creator] Tridge [Andrew Tridgell] and [top Samba contributor] Jeremy Allison for many years and we have been and continue to be in active conversations with them on lots of things.

InformationWeek: But you haven't done anything deeply, you're not going to announce anything, partnerships, etcetera, at least publicly, right now?

Hilf: Not publicly right now. We're certainly, from all the activities in the EU, we've been -- they're obviously a principle project in open source related to interoperability, if not the premier open source interoperability project. So we've been talking very, very actively with them about what to do and how to do it, and things to improve things, and we're not announcing things, but I'll just say there's very, very positive conversations going on right now from both sides, and I think Jeremy would attest to that. We're still working through some issues, but it's in a very positive light.

InformationWeek: Anything closer, have you been talking to Red Hat any further?

Hilf: I'm not aware of anything that we're -- I mean, we still touch base with them every now and then, but I don't think there's anything specific that we've done.

Google Mulls Bid for Wireless Spectrum

2007-11-21T00:22:00.000-08:00

Google is getting ready to bid alone on wireless spectrum being auctioned in January, according to news reports that come on the heels of the search giant's recent launch of an open-source platform for mobile phones.

Reuters reported that Google is preparing to bid by itself at the FCC's 700-MHz spectrum auction, although no final decision has been made. The news service cited company sources, who also said that executives had met with FCC officials, including Chair Kevin Martin, to discuss the bidding.

The cited sources indicated that Google has talked with several possible partners, including carriers. The key issue for Google, according to the sources, is creating more openness in the wireless networks.

'Buy, Create, or Partner'

A partner is essential if Google is going to use the bandwidth, noted Bill Ho, an analyst with industry research firm Current Analysis. "It is not a telecommunications service company," he noted, and so will either have to "buy, create, or partner with a company."

Ho said he didn't "have a good sense yet" whether Google will actually bid by itself, but he said that the 700-MHz spectrum is "the chance of a lifetime." He pointed out that Google has become the default champion for open access, and has positioned itself as a nontraditional telecom player.

During the summer, Google announced that it would participate in the bidding, although it said its participation would depend on the FCC providing "a framework requiring greater competition and consumer choice." The federal agency has not approved all of the open-access provisions that Google and others had sought, such as a provision requiring the winning licensee to sell access to the bandwidth on a wholesale basis to resellers.

However, the FCC did vote in July to approve a Google-backed plan requiring that any compatible mobile device or any nonmalicious software be able to use a portion of the bandwidth to be auctioned.

Jumpstarting the Mobile Web

That nontraditional positioning as an open-access champion was further bolstered earlier this month when the Google-led Open Handset Alliance announced Android, a software stack for mobile devices. Android includes a Linux-based operating system, middleware, and some initial applications, such as a browser.

Such a platform, coupled with a fertile ecosystem of small developers, would be especially valuable to Google if the company owned wireless spectrum. Industry observers have noted that it's in the company's interests to jumpstart the mobile Web, which is used regularly only by a small portion of the more than three billion mobile device owners around the world.

The January auction of the 700-MHz spectrum could result in a big boost to the mobile Web, as those frequencies penetrate walls and various obstacles more effectively than other frequencies.

Virtual Classrooms

2007-11-20T23:07:00.000-08:00

A virtual classroom or VCR is a learning environment that exists exclusively in the form of digital content that is stored, and accessed through network of computers and information systems like PDAs, notebooks, mobiles etc. Physical or Virtual Classrooms? The main difference between the physical classroom and the virtual classroom is those of location, time and spaces required by students and teachers to access and partake in classroom activities. In the physical classroom a physical location must be visited at a fixed time in order to participate, while a virtual classroom is not physically accessed and has no real fixed time or location which is a great boon. The manner in which a teacher delivers educational material remains an important factor in the success of both classrooms. Though both the classrooms employ similar learning theory, curriculum design and pedagogy, live face-to-face interaction is missing in the VCR method, which may have a negative influence. May be the solution is the blended method where physical classroom training is combined with the virtual classroom training, thus accommodating a wider range of student needs. As teaching in both the physical and virtual classroom is learner-centered, students learn by engaging in group work, projects, discussions, and other content relating to real-world contexts. The VCR is used to provide additional communication and material, along with the learning that occurs in the physical classroom. VCR Tools The important communication/participation VCR tools are * E-mail * Discussion boards * Chat rooms * Whiteboards * Video/audio conferencing * Instant messaging * Podcasting/vodcasting * Teleconferencing * Weblogs * Wikis These tools can be further divided into two methods of learning Synchronous and Asynchronous learning. Synchronous VCR Learning Synchronous learning is communication or exchange of information at the same time between two or more people i.e. in real time. In virtual classrooms, synchronous communication is used by students to communicate with fellow class members and their teachers. This provides real time interaction and encourages group discussions. Chats, Video/audio conferencing, Podcasting/vodcasting, Teleconferencing are all Synchronous learning tools. Asynchronous VCR learning Asynchronous learning or communication does not occur in real-time, students or teachers are not present in the same space and time as each other. The instructions are delivered at one time and the work is done at a different time. Asynchronous learning allows the student to study at their own space and in their own time, plus both the teacher and the student benefit from because the entire discussion is recorded and can be repeated continuously. E-mail, discussion groups, whiteboards, wikis, weblogs, and forums are all Asynchronous learning tools. Conclusion The virtual classroom transcends the boundaries of location, time and space providing a flexible learning environment for all. Schools, universities and corporate organizations benefit form Virtual classrooms because it provides an excellent way for experts to teach a geographically dispersed group of students without hassle.

Interview: On a mission to silence the doubters

2007-11-20T22:54:00.000-08:00

How can a bunch of "hackers" create an operating system that can run mission-critical applications?" This is a question that Jim Zemlin is proud and relieved to say is no longer asked of Linux, the open source software that is increasingly becoming a force in corporate computing.

It is now used by, among others, the banks Credit Suisse First Boston and Bank of America (NYSE:BAC). The internet retailers Amazon and Ebay both use Linux as does Tivo, the innovative personal video recorder group. Motorola (NYSE:MOT) has used a version in the Razr mobile phone; and IBM is a prominent supporter of Linux, as are Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) and Oracle (NASDAQ:ORCL).

All of which persuades 37-year-old Mr Zemlin that the first, acceptance, stage of the Linux development model is now over. "This is a pervasive operating system," he says. "You no longer hear questions about whether a 'hacker' OS can run mission-critical systems."

Mr Zemlin is the first executive director of the Linux Foundation, formed at the beginning of this year through a merger of the Open Source Development Labs and the Free Standards Group (of which he was executive director), both of which were promoting the adoption of Linux.

Derived from Unix, Linux was and continues to be developed by the Finnish software engineeer, Linus Torvalds, and a worldwide army of independent developers. Mr Torvalds, whose independence is guaranteed by the Foundation, retains his power of veto over the technological developments that define the Linux kernel, the functional heart of the software. Mr Zemlin's job is to act as a combination of standard bearer, evangelist and defender for the operating system.

His taste for the last role was tested within a few months of taking office, when Microsoft claimed open source software, including Linux, violated a large number of its patents and could expose users to inherent risks. "It's all hogwash," Mr Zemlin says.

"The fact is that Linux does provide better price performance than Windows. There is no greater risk in using open source software than proprietary software from a legal perspective. If you want choice as a consumer of technology, open source and Linux is a far better path than, over time, being locked into a proprietary platform."

At the time of Microsoft's complaints, Mr Zemlin suggested the software giant was indulging in old fashioned FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). Just looking at the numbers" he told the magazine Computerworld, it is easy to see that if the scare campaign merely delays an average large business's migration from Windows to Linux by a single day, Microsoft is $34m better off.

You would expect no less from the man leading the Linux charge, but Mr Zemlin has no illusions about the resilience of the opposition or the need to strengthen Linux's hand in the fight for market share. Windows controls the desktop and has a 40 per cent share of the server market. Linux is in second place on about 25 per cent, with the rest made up of Unix variants.

"Linux needs to up its game to compete with its primary competition, which is Windows. To do this, it needs to look at the reasons it was successful in the first place and analyse its weaknesses," he reasons.

Its principal strength is the speed and power of its innovation model, the consequence of simultaneous progress by thousands of software developers across the globe. "People use Linux because it provides a rapid innovation model. It provides an incredible time-to-market advantage.

"The Linux kernel releases every three months with new functionality. There are 2,000 lines of code added to the kernel every day; 2,900 lines of code are changed every day. There are more than 2,900 core contributors to the Linux kernel. The world has never seen such a sophisticated, broadly spread, rapid development model."

He points out that "distributions" of Linux - the Linux kernel together with complementary software to create complete operating systems and which are packaged by commercial companies - are released every six months compared with the seven years it took Microsoft to release Vista, the latest version of Windows.

Linux's principal weakness is the fact that, unlike Microsoft Windows, where the symbol on the box is a guarantee that the bits will work together, Linux is not an easy platform for application developers. "This does not really exist in Linux outside some specific distributions such as Red Hat and Novell. To get the whole platform to compete effectively," Mr Zemlin says, "we ne ed to take a federated approach to that kind of interoperability."

The approach being taken by the Linux Foundation is to create a standard, the Linux Standard Base, that will allow the companies who create Linux distributions to have a specific set of components that make up what is thought of as Linux. If that is consistent from one version of the operating system to the next, it will provide that reliable development platform.

Individual developers would compete on the quality of innovation they add to the standard. "Where files are stored is not a differentiator; a new security module is. Competing on these higher levels of technology is what is going to thrust Linux ahead."

Mr Zemlin points out that what motivates open source developers is not just the freedom to do more or less what they want but the desire to win. "These guys have devoted their lives to writing this software. For them, it's a 24-hour-a day job. I get e-mails at 3am from guys who have some new thing they want to talk about for Linux."

Before joining the Free Standards Group and the Linux Foundation, Mr Zemlin was a member of the founding management team of Corio, an enterprise application service provider, and vice-president of marketing for Covalent Technologies, which developed products and services for the Apache web server.

Educated at the University of Minnesota, Mr Zemlin read political science and Japanese: a long way from information technology, some might think, but his grandfather was a co-founder of the Cray supercomputer company and his father worked for Control Data Corporation, so supercomputing is in his veins. And significantly enough, three quarters of the world's top 500 supercomputers use Linux.

So what should the IT director be thinking about Linux? "What you are going to see from the Linux platform is better hardware utilisation, better price performance, better security. These are all things any IT organisation should be considering.

"You will also get choice, because Linux is not locked in to any single vendor like Microsoft. This is a great advantage to an IT organisation that wants to drive down cost and purchase competitive components.

"New technologies from Linux will include power management. Power is becoming a dominant cost in the data centre. One development is the 'tickless kernel' which cycles down the processor when it is not in use. This was an idea that was accepted and now is being rolled out to everyone," Mr Zemlin says.

And has the Foundation a secure future? Mr Zemlin smiles: "We are extremely well funded. We have a diversity of stakeholders. The platform itself represents a multibillion dollar marketplace in hardware and services related to Linux. It would be hard to imagine Linux disappearing any time in the near future - or the Foundation for that matter."