Vivanco writes...........

An eclipse of U.S. in East Asia

2007-01-27T00:19:00.000+01:00

The "future direction" of the East Asia Summit, spelt out recently, does not mention the U.S. as a potential member.

EAST ASIAN countries, bracing for economic cooperation, are slowly relegating the United States to the margins of the region. The current eclipse of the U.S. in East Asia is far more evident behind the scenes than in the public domain.

Yet Japan and Australia, allies of the U.S., are privy to its latest marginalisation by the East Asia Summit (EAS). On January 24, Japanese Defence Minister Fumio Kyuma asserted that U.S. President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 was "wrong." And, Japan, which recently pulled out its troops sent to Iraq on a non-combat mission, could not be bound by his latest moves. So, up in the air now was the issue whether Tokyo should continue its ongoing air-logistics support for the U.S.-led forces in Iraq, Mr. Kyuma hinted.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has distanced himself from Mr. Kyuma's "personal" thoughts. But the emerging reality is that the U.S. is being ignored and criticised in some respects despite its continuing "forward deployment" of military forces in East Asia, widely expected to become the centre of gravity in world politics sooner than later.

Now, the "future direction of the EAS," spelt out after its summit in Cebu (Philippines) in mid-January, does not mention the U.S. as a potential member of this one-year-old forum The open-ended omission of the U.S. is heightened by the fact that some key EAS members — India, Australia, and New Zealand — are not from geographical East Asia at all. China, Japan, and South Korea are the major EAS players, while the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) is the "driving force."

The irony is that Asean, by and large a U.S.-friendly institution in the 40 years since its inception, is making no apologies for Washington's conspicuous exclusion from the EAS.

Asean secretary-general Ong Keng Yong has told The Hindu that the EAS, a "leaders-led" forum, wants to focus its immediate attention on "functional cooperation" over such issues as energy security and counter-terrorism. The "geographical and ideological issues" concerning any expansion of the EAS have, therefore, been set aside for now.

For Washington, too, an unproven EAS may not be better than the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation network, which includes the U.S. and spans a wider area than East Asia. The U.S. is also a member of the Asean Regional Forum that focusses on strategic issues.

China's rise

The U.S. lobby in East Asia, nonetheless, portrays China's growing influence across the region as the main cause of Washington's current fate at the hands of the EAS.

Authoritative Chinese sources and other East Asian diplomats say, in this context, that Beijing, while being committed to the EAS, values two other entities very much. These are the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Asean Plus Three forum, re-named APT in Cebu. The U.S. does not figure in these two as well.

While China and Japan are the prime movers within the APT, Beijing and Moscow are the lead players in the SCO. The SCO has recently taken on board India and Pakistan as observers. The message, according to sources, is that China and Russia want the SCO to play a creative role in re-shaping the pan-Asian political order over time. And, after the recent "turning point" in China-Japan engagement, Beijing has also signalled its willingness to coexist with Tokyo within the APT.

Two factors may help define these trends. First, a Chinese analyst Qin Yongchun emphasised several years ago that partnership, in Beijing's lexicon, "is another name for friendly relationship" and not for any anti-hegemony alliance. And, partnership is the key to these fora that China is in.

Secondly, China has now reaffirmed that its space programmes are for peaceful purposes. This follows the latest alarm in the West over Beijing's suspected destruction of one of its own ageing satellites. Western critics see this as proof of China's growing prowess for a possible space-age war with the U.S.

For India, the EAS is not the only platform for re-shaping Asia. India is already in a forum of dialogue with China and Russia. And, Tokyo is exploring the possibility of inviting India to interact with the existing Trilateral Strategic Dialogue that involves the U.S., Australia, and Japan itself.

Russia's foreign policy imperatives

2007-01-24T19:27:00.000+01:00

THE FIELD for international confrontation is becoming narrower as the standoff between the blocs is progressively overcome. Globalisation of the potential for and challenges to security and steady development is making it clear the world community can resolve today's key problems only by a concerted effort. This results in reduced demand for unilateral leadership, and devalues commitments based on ideological and cultural affinity.

At the same time, the world has not become a safer place to live in. The main reason is the cost we pay for globalisation — the growing gap in development engenders social, economic, ethnic, and religious conflicts. Recurrent unilateral use of force is also creating a feeling of insecurity. Stagnation in disarmament is increasing the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The lack of a clear vision on the future world order was largely caused by Russia's weakening after the break-up of the Soviet Union. Its other source is a western Cold War `victory' syndrome, which is rooted in a black-and-white perception of the world, a desire to revive old dogmas and to re-militarise international relations.

Therefore, Russia's consolidation has become a catalyst for positive changes. Now it is capable of taking part in the development and implementation of the global agenda on a par with other countries. No international problem can be resolved without Russia or against its interests. The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan graphically illustrates the problems with unilateral use of force and attempts to monopolise conflict resolution.

The system of international relations is unstable and becoming increasingly imbalanced. Bloc-based, ideological motives cease to function, while the new ones have not been established yet. Under the circumstances, many countries are beginning to revise their interests.

Development of new global centres of influence and growth, a more even distribution of resources and of control over natural wealth are laying the foundation for a multi-polar world arrangement.

Under the circumstances, the trend in the face of the challenges and threats of the 21st century is towards asserting collective and legal principles in world politics. Russia made the right choice in 2000, when it chose pragmatism, multi-vector diplomacy, and firm, albeit confrontation-free, upholding of national interests. Russia has left many countries behind in learning from the Cold War and in giving up ideology for common sense. This is why Moscow is able to take an unbiased view of international realities and to suggest unconventional solutions to the most intricate problems.

Russia is open to constructive dialogue and equitable cooperation with all states. With many countries, including our CIS neighbours, China, India, Egypt, Brazil, and the G8, we have already established or are developing a strategic partnership. The forces interested in a powerful, independent Russia are gaining strength. Russia's foreign policy independence is an implicit imperative. Not every country can afford this in the globalising world. But for us it is a key issue, a question of our sovereignty. This country or its foreign policy cannot be controlled from the outside. We are not trying to please everyone, as at the end of the Soviet era, but simply proceed from our own clear pragmatic interests. There is no reason to conceal or dramatise the existing contradictions with our partners. We have a great deal to do together in the future. This includes cooperation in the United Nations and the G8, Russia-EU partnership, and the NATO-Russia Council. What are the obstacles to this cooperation?

Regrettably, some countries find it extremely difficult to conduct affairs with Russia on an equitable basis. This is not our fault. But this fact is turning into a major problem for global politics, because it is designed to preserve a certain status quo — that is, the privileged position of individual countries in the developing international system. First, all claims to leadership should be supported by actions and add value to the "common good." So far, unilateral responses have not facilitated the settlement of problems; instead, they have created new ones.

We believe that there are positive examples of real collective and equitable multilateral efforts, which show that our vision of the modern era is correct. This is supported by the resolutions of the G8 summit in St. Petersburg on international energy security and the Middle East. In the first case, global energy policy rests on a fair balance of the interests of energy producers and consumers. In the second case, the sides reached conceptual agreement that the region's problems are rooted in the lack of settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict in all its aspects.

Finally, while undergoing unprecedented changes, Russia simply cannot take part in the efforts to preserve the current transitional status of the international system. We can afford less than others to risk the growing confidence in our foreign policy, which, in turn, is a major factor in the overall predictability of global development. We insist only on well-grounded, open, and free debates, without preset outcomes. In politics, like in everyday life, it is very important to hear and consider what others have to say. Furthermore, in a number of cases this ability could help save lives and material resources, which are wasted as a result of irrational policy. We are resisting the attempts to make us accept as a fait accompli a policy on certain issues, which has already proved to be insolvent even in the eyes of the electorate of the countries concerned. If Russia makes mistakes, it pays for them itself. Meanwhile, sometimes we are called upon to support a faulty line that creates problems for the entire world community. We do not claim to know the absolute truth, but our foreign policy is succeeding in standing the test of time.

We hope our American partners have not had their final say on a settlement in Iraq. It is high time to involve the U.N., all of Iraq's neighbours, including Iran and Syria, and leading regional organisations in the effort to support genuine national reconciliation of all Iraqis. Realistic adjustment of the coalition's course in Iraq would help Washington and Tehran to pursue their common interests there. This could pave the way for normalising U.S.-Iran relations, which would, in turn, create a favourable background for the resolution of Iran's nuclear predicament. This would mean progress in settling the problems of the Middle East, and in strengthening the non-proliferation regime. These objectives cannot be achieved with zero-sum logic.

Today, it would not be possible to find those who claimed just four years ago that "the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad." Practically everyone, including the anti-Iraqi coalition members, agrees on the need to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Any attempts to obviate this fundamental reality, including efforts to play the card of inter-Muslim and inter-Arab conflicts, would have the most destructive consequences.The Iraqi experience suggests addressing the problem of sanctions. Haphazard sanctions and their use, contrary to U.N. Security Council resolutions, for regime change created the groundwork for the situation in Iraq. In principle, as an instrument of the Security Council, sanctions may be useful because they facilitate settlement of a problem through negotiations. When programmed for the use of force, sanctions become a smokescreen for power politics. However, unilateral sanctions in circumvention of the Council can only undermine chances for settlement, antagonise partners, and weaken the unity of the world community. We believe that only bona fide multilateral efforts can lead to political and diplomatic settlement, if they are not accompanied by any preconditions.

Needless to say, any transgression of international law, not to mention crude violations of its fundamental standards, such as the immunity of diplomatic missions, will lead to deplorable results. NATO and EU expansion has given food for thought. As a result of expansion, both the EU and NATO are losing flexibility and ability to achieve their fundamental goals. Some may welcome their expansion, while others would see it as a prelude to NATO's self-liquidation and the weakening of the European project. Neither meets the interests of Russia, which is ready to promote the positive development of pan-European cooperation along existing lines. Any arrangement is better than chaos. We think that a comprehensive approach to the problems of the Euro-Atlantic region is the best choice.

I am convinced that neither a remake of the Cold War nor a Cold Peace are sensible choices for the world community if only because choices no longer have to be made behind closed doors by a select few.

Sometimes, Russia is accused of trying to live in several cultural dimensions. But it has always existed at the juncture of civilisations by virtue of its geography and history. Our historical destiny is rooted in a diversity of cultures and civilisations, which should be reflected in globalisation. Russia will facilitate the solution of this problem at home and abroad by pursuing a vigorous, open, and predictable foreign policy.

source :-
http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/24/stories/2007012404441200.htm

Ahmadinejad on the way out?

2007-01-21T21:26:00.000+01:00

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears to be in such deep trouble that it might only be a matter of time before Iran's theocratic leadership moved against him. Many of his former right-wing supporters were among the 150 out of 290 members of parliament who signed a letter criticising his economic policies on the ground that they have not addressed high rates of unemployment and inflation. However, domestic issues alone did not trigger the political attack. The MPs also criticised the President's approach to the standoff with the United Nations Security Council over Iran's nuclear programme. The loss of parliamentary support might be the least of Mr. Ahmadinejad's worries. It is unlikely that the criticism on a sensitive foreign policy issue came without some kind of signal from the country's Supreme Religious Leader, Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei. In turn, he appears to have taken on board the import of recent elections. Candidates backed by Mr. Ahmadinejad's party fared poorly in the elections to local bodies and his main rival, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, handily won the leadership of the Assembly of Experts.

Politically, Iran is more pluralistic than many of its Arab neighbours. The theocratic component of the country's leadership knows it cannot afford to ignore the popular will on bread-and-butter issues as well as on matters concerning Iran's international status. It appears to have realised that it needs to rein in a President whose over-heated rhetoric on the nuclear issue has complicated matters, especially in a context where nobody seriously believes the country is close to acquiring nuclear weapon capability. A commentator who is believed to reflect Ayatollah Khamenei's views has alleged that global alarm over Mr. Ahmadinejad's fiery speeches was a major factor behind the Security Council's decision to impose sanctions. The United States has announced plans to send an additional carrier task force into the Persian Gulf, supply Patriot anti-missile defence systems to its regional allies, and move several squadrons of military aircraft to Turkey. Washington also seems bent on damaging the legitimate interests Iran has in Iraq. In a provocative move, U.S. forces overrode the objections of the Shia-dominated Baghdad regime and took into custody six persons alleged to be members of the Revolutionary Guards. Iran's top leadership has earned an international reputation for standing up spiritedly to superpower bullying, but it might be willing to jettison Mr. Ahmadinejad if it concludes that his maverick presidency and quixotic style are diminishing its freedom of action.

Europe's Warm Winter

2007-01-19T23:47:00.000+01:00

Frogs have started mating, wild hamsters can't sleep, and the mild climate intimates spring. How dangerous is Europe's warm winter for animals and plants? A look at the miracle of biological clocks.

People with allergies were stunned this winter by the earliest pollen alert anyone could remember -- alder and hazel had aready started to bloom. Roses blossomed, titmice chirped; it was shortly before Christmas, and spring was starting in central Europe, before winter had even arrived.

Fall was barely worth mentioning. Temperatures at the end of November, normally known for nasty wet cold, had broken all known records for warmth. The unseasonable temperatures gave a second lease on life to many forms of flora and fauna. Insects like mosquitos, moths and ticks that would normally be dead by now have survived. Brown bears in Norway and Sweden were still wandering the woods in January -- instead of hibernating -- and Japanese cherry blossoms added patches of pink to rain-gray cities. On Wednesday last week, people in Munich sunbathed in parks and public squares. Temperatures in Germany rose as high as 16°C (61°F) -- it was warmer in some parts of the country than on the Mediterranean island of Mallorca.

Europe is basking in a phony spring, which for all anyone knows might still give way to winter. What if the baby birds hatch too early? What if the frost comes after all and kills the offspring of hamsters that woke up too early from hibernation? What if flowers freeze?

The short answer is: No problem. Nature can cope. Biology anticipates mild winters, and animals and plants in European latitudes adjust to changing seasons with incredible flexibility. Flower bulbs can sprout twice if necessary, and the animals can bear to miss part of their hibernation since they can still find plenty of seeds and worms in the ice-free soil. If hamsters do mate prematurely, from a biological point of view the first litter might as well die. "They can easily produce a second and third litter," says hibernation expert Franziska Wollnik from the University of Stuttgart.

Cranes and other birds can adapt too: Plentiful food is what keeps them from migrating south. "That's how it is with migrating birds that take rest stops," John Dittami from the University of Vienna explains. "As soon as winter really hits, they will be gone."

The incredible, universal, internal clock

Animals and plants have developed a fascinating system to navigate seasonal change -- a universal "internal clock," which sets the rhythm for each individual life. The study of this phenomenon is called chronobiology. Molecular and behavioral biologists, zoologists, botanists, psychologists and neurologists all try to understand the complex function of the natural pacemaker seemingly built into every cell. Chronobiologists have managed to describe in detail the complex dance of DNA-snippets, protein molecules and light sensitivity that tells, say, a crocus when to blossom.

Internal clocks cause leaves to lift and lower in daily cycles; they also make migrating birds restless at the same time every year. The rhythms are passed on from generation to generation. Even plants kept in the dark move their leaves according to a pre-set cycle.

The inner clock runs on certain genes and the proteins they produce. They oscillate in a predetermined rhythm. At one point in the cycle a maximum number of proteins collects in the cells; at another point, also precisely timed, there is a minimal concentration of proteins.

The daily and annual clocks are somewhat imprecise, though. Humans follow a roughly 25-hour daily rhythm, for example, but environmental stimuli like light and food adjust our inner clocks to a conventional day. Plants are sensitive to temperature as well as nutrition and light, and this constant calibration with the environment lets creatures know whether it's currently fall or spring.

A key signal for both animals and plants is the length of days and nights. The duration of daylight can stimulate molecular signals which align with the body's genetic rhythm, letting the body know if the days are getting shorter or longer.

The European hamster, for example, will notice a difference when days shorten from 16 hours in late June to 15.5 hours in late July, according to Dr. Wollnik. The message, even in mid-summer, is: "Winter's coming." In the hamster's hypothalamus -- in its brain -- the genetic clock interacts with light stimuli to set a rhythm. The longer nights become, the more the brain's pineal gland produces melatonin. This substance communicates with the inner clock, and the hamster starts preparing, instinctively, for winter.

The exact molecular process is still unknown, but complex metabolisms will ready the hamster's body for hibernation. Reproduction, for example, becomes impossible. In females, the vagina closes; in males, the testicles withdraw into the body. The animals hoard food, cower in their dens, and finally start to hibernate.

Fates worse than spring

Even if mild temperatures shorten hibernation or a deep frost prolongs it, though, the hamster's internal clock will still prepare him at the appropriate time for spring fever. "It's a kind of safety mechanism," Wollnik says. Natural rhythms keep the animal from sleeping through spring, and also guide its fertility cycle. The same rhythms prevent crows and cranes from mating prematurely and exposing their eggs, potentially, to cold.

Migrating birds wintering near the equator rely heavily on their internal clocks because equatorial daylight changes so little. A built-in calendar is essential to get the birds started on their return journey.

Plants are also strictly timed. In temperate latitudes many so-called "long day" plants blossom only when the duration of sunlight exceeds a certain number of hours. There are also "short day" plants, which don't bloom until the nights last long enough.

"The measurement of the length of days is the best thing plants and animals have," says John Dittami. "The temperature, the available food, all of that gives them a certain degree of flexibility in their actions, but the cornerstone is set by an internal calendar."

So the cosy temperatures this winter have -- for the most part -- just changed the blooming time in plants that can afford the leeway. Hazel and alder are wind pollinators, which means they don't have to wait for the real spring to draw bees out of their hives and spread their pollen. The Japanese cherry, which did in fact bloom dangerously early, is a foreigner from the Far East -- evolution hasn't prepared it for the drama of central European weather.

Dittami trusts that nature will ride out this year's tepid mid-winter spring. He says humans present tougher challenges on a daily basis for animals as well as plants. "Street lights, for example -- and all that other light we send out into the world," he says. "That throws off all of their measurements."

source:- http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,460744,00.html

CLEANING THE GLACIER OF BLOOD TOGETHER

2007-01-17T21:54:00.000+01:00

From Asoka the Great in third century BC to Sher Shah Suri in the sixteenth century, the idea of linking the great Indian landmass across time and space has always obsessed some people. After the Kalinga war, Buddhism established itself as a crucial ingredient in the melting pot of the north-west frontier lands with Taxila as its fountainhead Similarly, for Sher Shah, the Grand Trunk road was the equivalent of building an Indo-Gangetic artery of the mind. Where men went and goods travelled, a hundred diverse ideas bloomed.

The partition of India resulted in turning the country into a state of catatonic schizophrenia. Ever since the bloodbaths in Punjab, Bengal, Kashmir, Siachen and Kargil, India and Pakistan have been on a mindless roller-coaster ride for much of their 60 years of coexistence.

Clearly, though, the stakes for peace are so high for a few people in New Delhi and Islamabad that they cannot stomach the idea of losing control over their stamp-sized bureaucratic kingdoms.

One such rebellion by South Block two years ago over the issuing of “travel documents”, and not “passports”, to passengers on the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus across the line of control, was temporarily put down by the late J.N. Dixit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s redoubtable national security advisor, who wielded the strategic whip with courage.

The passengers got their travel documents on April 7, 2005, in open admission that “Kashmiris” had special privileges within the Indian union. Two years later, though, South Block seems to have won that battle hands down, with the majority of cross-LoC buses going almost empty. Turns out that the procedure for filling up that “travel document” is so tough that most of the people who apply can hardly pass the bureaucratic test.

Something similar seems to be happening with the Siachen story these days. Each time India and Pakistan talk Siachen, army officials —located in the other half of South Block— break out in a nervous sweat. Thereby begins the not-so-subtle attempt to influence the flow of information.

Last time around, on the eve of the defence secretary-level talks between the two countries in August 2006, the army flew journalists to the Siachen base camp. There, amidst spectacularly icy landscapes, army officials issued the dreaded warning that if India did a deal on Siachen, and if something like Kargil happened in the near future, they could not be called upon to perform ungodly acts of heroism as they did in 1999.

Small wonder then that at the end of the first day of the defence secretary-level talks between India and Pakistan, the then defence minister, Pranab Mukherjee, announced that the talks had failed.

Six months later, Mukherjee has become the external affairs minister. Recently, he was on a visit to Pakistan for the very first time. There, Mukherjee is believed to have submitted an unusual proposal on Siachen. Even as the two sides debated on the pros and cons of authenticating the ground positions of Indian troops on the Saltoro ridge and a schedule of troop disengagement and redeployment to their respective base camps, Mukherjee came up with the idea that the two countries could begin to build trust by jointly cleaning up the Siachen glacier.

We don’t know what Pervez Musharraf said to Mukherjee in reply, but within 48 hours, J.J. Singh, the Indian army chief, was heard issuing indirect warnings to the government. Singh told journalists that he had conveyed the army’s views to the political leadership on Siachen, and he hoped that “these would be taken into account.”

The army chief’s message was crystal clear. Also clear was the fact that the Indian army — so far subservient to its political masters — was now intended to expand its command and control. Perhaps, the Indian army is not quite like the Pakistani army next door, which is quite used to being the master of all it surveys. But it is clear that the army is not very happy with its limited role and influence.

So much so that in Islamabad and in Lahore, the Pakistani intelligentsia is already commenting on the Indian army’s extraordinary energies these days. “India was always proud of the political control over the army,” one wag was heard saying in Islamabad a few days back. “But it seems that you are beginning to get more and more like us”, he added.

During the bilateral talks last November, Islamabad had given New Delhi a detailed “package” on Siachen. It said that Pakistan was ready to authenticate the ground positions of Indian troops if New Delhi did not “claim” the territory it was withdrawing from.

Under the circumstances, it cannot be denied that the army is entitled to its own point of view. After all, wasn’t it called upon to defend Indian territory during the war in Kargil under extraordinary circumstances? Moreover, Indian troops had taken the strategic heights at the Saltoro ridge in May 1984, not because they wanted to go on a picnic on the mountains, but because they were ordered to do so by none other than their political masters. So, a little over two decades later, has the strategic reasoning behind that decision changed? And if so, what is the reason behind the change?

On the other South Block flank, where Pranab Mukherjee and foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon sit — the latter recently returned from Pakistan as high commissioner — they are already beginning to think beyond antediluvian matters such as war and conflict. Instead, they have been focussing on what Manmohan Singh has been saying these days: Clean the glacier of blood and tonnes of toxic waste. Siachen is the highest battlefield in the world. Let India and Pakistan, jointly convert it into a mountain of peace.

Clearly, when nations sign deals, they must take the wishes of the people and their armies into serious consideration. Similarly, Pranab Mukherjee and Manmohan Singh must hear what the army chief has to say on this matter. After that, they can proceed to do what they believe is politically correct under the given circumstances.

If the prime minister and the foreign minister fail to do this, they may as well give General Musharraf the right to involve his own army in the country’s affairs. At least, he does not make any excuses about the fact that it is soldiers like him that run the country

Student Loan

2007-01-17T07:02:00.000+01:00

Student loans are loans offered to students to assist in payment of the costs of professional education. These loans usually carry lower interests than other loans, and are usually issued by the government. Often they are supplemented by student grants which do not have to be repaid.

Overview of student loan in different countries :-

Australia

In Australia, students can pay for university courses using the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). The selection criterion for HECS is based on the rank achieved in the secondary school final examination. HECS fees are government-subsidised, and are substantially cheaper than full-fee paying places which have lower entry requirements.-

Courses are ranked into three bands, with a year's tuition costing around $4000-$6000 AUD. Students have the option of deferring the HECS fee until they start earning above a certain threshold, whereupon they will repay the government through the tax system; the amount owed is indexed to inflation. Alternatively, students can pay upfront at the beginning of the semester; this option provides a 25% discount (2004).

Recent legislative changes that allow a high proportion of full-fee paying places, and lower upfront payment discounts have been a source of controversy.

Canada

Canadian students are normally eligible for loans provided by the federal government, through the Canada Student Loans Program, in addition to loans provided by their province of residence. Loans issued to full-time students are interest free while a student is in full-time studies. Part-time students must make interest payments while in study and begin payments of principal and interest when they cease to be a part-time student. Grants may supplement loans to aid students that face particular barriers to accessing post-secondary education, such as students with a permanent disability or students from low-income families.

Students must apply for the Canadian and provincial loans through their province of residence. The rules for what determines your province of residence vary, but normally the province or territory of residence is defined as where you have most recently lived for at least 12 consecutive months, not including any time you spent as a full-time student at a post-secondary institution. In most cases, the province of residence is the province one lived in before they become a post-secondary student.

Canada Student Loans (CSL) of up to $210 per week of full-time study or 60% of the student's assessed need (the lesser of these) can be issued per loan year (August 1 to July 31). Loans issued through provincial programs will normally provide students with enough funding to cover the balance of their assessed need. Part-time loans of up to $4,000 can be made but a student can not be more than $4,000 in debt on part-time loans at any one time. All Canadian students may also be eligible for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation Bursary (CMS Grant), and other grants provided by their province of residence.

For example, students in British Columbia may be eligible for a maximum of $14,300 combined loan and grant funding per year.

History

Some text from the Department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada:
The CSLP was created in 1964. Since its inception, the Program has supplemented the financial resources available to eligible students from other sources to assist in their pursuit of post-secondary education. Between 1964 and 1995, loans were provided by financial institutions to post-secondary students who were approved to receive financial assistance. The financial institutions also administered the loan repayment process. In return, the Government of Canada guaranteed each Canada Student Loan that was issued, by reimbursing the financial institution the full amount of loans that went into default.[1]
In 1995, several important changes were made to Canada Student Loans. First, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act was proclaimed, replacing the existing Canada Student Loans Act (which still remains in force to this day) reflecting the changing needs of the parties involved in the loan process, including the conferred reponsibility of the collection of defaulted loans to the banks themselves. The Government of Canada developed a formalized "risk-shared" agreement with several financial institutions, whereby the institution would assume responsibility for the possible risk of defaulted loans in return for a fixed payment from the Government which correlated with the amount of loans that were expected to be, or were, in default in each calendar year. During this period, the weekly federal loan amount was increased to a maximum of $165.

On July 31, 2000, the risk-shared arrangement between the Government of Canada and participating financial institutions came to an end. The Government of Canada now directly finances all new loans issued on or after August 1, 2000. The administration of Canada Student Loans has become the responsibility of the National Student Loans Service Centre (NSLSC). There are two divisions of the NSLSC, one to manage loans for students attending public institutions and the other to administer loans for students attending private institutions. Defaulted Canada Student Loans disbursed under this new regime are now collected by the Canada Revenue Agency which, by Order in Council dated August 1, 2005, became responsible for the collection of all debts due under programs administered by Human Resources and Social Development Canada.

Students in Professional Programs

Most charter banks in Canada have specific programs for students in professional programs (eg medicine) which can provide more funds than usual in the form of a line of credit, sometimes with lower interest rates as well. Students may also be eligible for government loans that are interest free while in school on top of this line of credit, as private loans do not count against government loans/grants. -

Denmark

Student grants and student loans in Denmark are administered by the Danish State Educational Grant and Loan Scheme Agency, a Danish government agency. All students above the age of 18 are entitled to a free grant regulated partly by the income of their parents if they are below the age of 20. The basic rate for students living on their own and above the age of 20 is 4,724 DKK (about $ 810) a month. If needed, the student may supplement this with a student loan of 2,418 DKK (about $ 415) which has to be repaid when the student has completed his education. Thus a student will normally receive about 56,688 DKK (about $ 9,735) a year in grants with an optional 29,016 DKK (about $ 4,985) in loans, making a total of 85,704 DKK (about $ 14,720). High schools as well as universities are free of charge for students, requiring no tuition or similar fees.

Germany

German universities are usually free of charge for students (although many Federal States of Germany plan to introduce a student fee of about €1000 per year in 2007). Giving out student loans is seen as a means to pave the way to higher education for lower class children whose parents couldn't afford to fund their children's education otherwise. The federal law that regulates student loans is called "Bundesausbildungsförderungsgesetz" (Federal Education and Trainings Assistance Act) or "BAföG" for short, and student loans are usually referred to simply as "BAföG" by students (as in "I'm getting BAföG"). Eligible groups include high school students, part-time and full-time university students, second path education students (i.e. those starting to study after having been in the work-force before) and students of schools for professional training.

Eligibility dependent on parent income

The eligibility for BAföG-Loans is (usually) dependent from parent income, as parents are required by law to fund their children's education (including higher education), and therefore students could theoretically sue their parents for funds for their education (although this is rarely done for obvious reasons.) For low-income families, BAföG-loans take over when these obligations can not reasonably be met by parents.

BAföG-loans are usually given out half as zero-interest loan (to be repaid only after the receiver exceeds a certain income level after graduation), and half as grant money to university students. High school students get the full amount as grant money if they are eligible. The current maximum amount per month (for a university student) is 521 Euros. This can be lowered gradually if student or parent income or student assets exceed certain amounts. Thus the amount paid out can be lower than the maximum amount and even loans of 1 Euro per month are given out if the calculation returns that amount. Such low grants seem nonsensical at first, but they are usually accepted by students (loans can be refused by the student), because eligibility for a BAföG-Loan (even of 1 Euro per month) makes the student eligible for some other benefits like cut-rate telephone service or waiving of public television licence fees (which otherwise have to be paid by everyone who owns a working TV-Set.)

Generally, BAföG-loans are independent from student intelligence or grades at least for two years, after that a certain minimum grade level has to be met, and proof of participation in required but ungraded courses is to be provided to stay eligible. Change of field of study is allowed once during the first two years without becoming ineligible. For university studies, every field of study has predefined a maximum study duration (usually around 5 years), after which the student becomes ineligible for BAföG. Further funds can be granted as low-interest loan for another two years if certain criteria (like reasonable likelihood that the student will graduate during that time) are met.

Eligibility independent from parent income

In some cases, like most notably if the student has worked full time for a number of years before returning to student status, BAföG eligibility is calculated independent from parent income, because parents' obligation to fund their children's education ends once the children enter the work-force full-time. In those cases only student income and assets are consulted for BAföG eligibility and amount calculation.

Republic of Ireland

Although third-level tuition has been free in the Republic of Ireland since 1997, for other student expenses most of the major banks offer interest-free or cut-rate loans to students. There has been discussion on re-introducing fees, as recommended by the OECD, with deferred payment similar to the Australian system; i.e. a loan from the government repaid after graduation. The suggestion has however, been quite unpopular.

India

Loans for education are mostly available from nationalized banks. also if you want to pursue higher studies abroad you can apply for loan to any bank at a very nominal interest rate.

New Zealand

The New Zealand state provided student loans and allowances are available to tertiary students who satisfy the funding criteria. Full-time students can claim loans for both fees and living costs while part-time students can only claim training institution fees. A non-refundable means-tested student allowance for living expenses can be claimed by students who are over 25 years old or whose parents have a low income.

Loans are repaid by a 10% tax surcharge on income, once the student graduates and is in employment. There is a minimum income level, roughly equivalent to the unemployment welfare benefit payment rate, that is exempt from assessment and an interest rebate that can be claimed for low income and while the student is studying full-time. Loan recipients who leave New Zealand are assessed on their world-wide income for repayment purposes, with a minimum annual payment being required.

In recent years, large student loan debts have meant that many recent graduates have sought higher paying overseas work in preference to remaining in New Zealand. This has led to skill shortages in some professions as local employers have been unwilling or unable to match international salaries. Medical-related professions have been particularly hard hit due to recent graduates, having high loan debts and health employers, having tightly controlled government funding.

In the 2005 general election one of the election policies from the Labour Party was:

During our next term in govt, we will abolish all interest charges on student loans for all students and NZ based graduates from 1 April 2006.

Sweden

Student grants and student loans in Sweden are administered by the Swedish National Board of Student Aid, a Swedish government agency. Students living with their parents often only take the student grant, while other students tend to take both the student grant and the student loan. A full-time student gets SEK 2,492 (about $370) a month in student grant, and can borrow up to SEK 4,764 (about $700) a month, which equals a total of SEK 7,259 (about $1,070). During the summer months, the student gets no student grants or student loans unless undertaking a summer course. Thus a full-time student gets SEK 24,920 (about $3,700) a year in student grant, and can borrow up to SEK 47,640 (about $7,000) a year, which gives a total of SEK 72,590 (about $10,700). No income tax is paid on student grants and student loans. In Sweden, university studies are free of charge.

United Kingdom

British undergraduate and PGCE students can apply for a loan through their local education authority (LEA) in England and Wales, the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) or their local education and library board in Northern Ireland. The LEA, SAAS or education and library board then assesses the application and determines the amount that the student is eligible to borrow, as well as how much tuition fees, if any, the students' parents must pay. The family's income, whether the student will be living at home, away from home or in London, disabilities and other factors are taken into account. 75% of the full loan (around £3,000) is available to all students in England and Wales, with only the final 25% being means-tested (taking the total available up to as much as £4,000). There is also extra money (currently roughly another £1000) if you go to university in London, where it is deemed the extra cost of living necessitates a higher loan. Scotland has a slightly different assessment method where more of the loan is means tested with a minimum loan of only £840. However much you get, it is paid in three installments during each year of the student's course (one per term). Special rules apply for some courses and for part-time courses.

Loans are provided by the Student Loans Company and do not have to be repaid until students have completed their course and are earning £15,000 a year (£10,000 until April 2005). The interest rate is updated annually and is tied to inflation (currently 2.6%), making the loan interest-free in real terms. The loan is normally repaid using the PAYE system, with 9% of the graduate's gross salary over £15,000 automatically being deducted to pay back the loan. There is no particular schedule for clearing the debt, but, if it has not been cleared 25 years after repayment began, or the student turns 65 years old, the remaining debt will be cancelled. For students beginning courses before 1998, the arrangements for repaying and deferring are different. Although Scottish students have their tuition fees covered by the SAAS during their time of study, much of this is actually repaid in a Graduate Endowment.

The Higher Education Act 2004 will make significant changes to the loans system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from 2006. Up front tuition fees will be abolished, with the fee being added to students' loans for them to pay back after their course is finished. However, instead of the tuition fee being fixed at around £1,150 for all universities (which, due to means-testing, not all have to pay), universities will be able to charge variable fees of up to £3,000. For students who have already started their courses, and as such are still paying the up-front fees, can now add these fees to their loans if they want. Critics claim these top-up fees will create tiers of "expensive" and "cheap" universities, and make university financially inaccessible to many students. As a result, there have been national demonstrations and protests by students' unions.

United States

Loans for Higher Education

While included in the term "financial aid" higher education loans differ from scholarships and grants in that they must be paid back. They come in several varieties in the United States:
Federal student loans made to students directly: No payments until after graduation, but amounts are quite limited
Federal student loans made to parents: Much higher limit, but payments start immediately
Private student loans made to students or parents: Higher limits and no payments until after graduation, although interest will start to accrue immediately.

FEDERAL LOANS TO STUDENTS

See Perkins Loan, Stafford loan, Federal Family Education Loans, Ford Direct Student Loans and College Consolidation Loan

Federal student loans in the United States are authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act as amended.

The first type are loans made directly to the student. These loans are available to college and university students and are used to supplement personal and family resources, scholarships, grants, and work-study. They may be subsidized by the U.S. Government or may be unsubsidized depending on the student's financial need.

Both subsidized and unsubsidized loans are guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Education either directly or through guarantee agencies. Nearly all students are eligible to receive them (regardless of credit score or other financial issues). Both types offer a grace period of 6 months, which means that no payments are due until 6 months after graduation, or 3 months after the borrower becomes a less-than-full-time student without graduating. Both types have a fairly modest annual limit. The limit in January 2007 is $2,625 per year for freshman undergraduate students, $3,500 for sophomore undergraduates, and $5,500 per year for junior and senior undergraduate students.

Subsidized federal student loans are offered to students with a demonstrated financial need: generally requiring a low family income. For these loans, the federal government makes interest payments while the student is in college. For example, those who borrow $10,000 during college will owe $10,000 upon graduation.

Unsubsidized federal student loans are also guaranteed by the U.S. Government, but the government does not pay interest for the student, rather the interest accrues during college. Those who borrow $10,000 during college will owe $10,000 plus interest upon graduation. For example, those who have borrowed $10,000 and had $2,000 accrue in interest will owe $12,000. Interest will begin accruing on the $12,000. The accrued interest will be "capitalized" into the loan amount, and the borrower will begin making payments on the accumulated total. Students can choose to pay the interest while still in college.

Federal student loans for students of medicine have higher limits: $8,500 for subsidized Stafford and $30,000 maximum for unsubsidized Stafford. Many students also take advantage of the unsubsidized Perkins loan. For medical students the limit for Perkins is $6,000.

FEDERAL STUDENT LOANS TO PARENTS

Usually these are PLUS loans (formerly standing for "Parent Loan for Undergraduate Students"). Unlike loans made to students, parents can borrow much more — usually enough to cover any gap in the cost of education. However, there is no grace period: Payments start immediately.

Parents should be aware that THEY are responsible for repayment on these loans, not the student. This is not a 'cosigner' loan with the student having equal accountability. The parents have signed the master promissory note to pay and, if they do not do so, it is their credit rating that suffers. Also, parents are advised to consider "year 4" payments, rather than "year 1" payments. What sounds like a "manageable" debt load of $200 a month in freshman year can mushroom to a much more daunting $800 a month by the time four years have been funded through loans. The combination of immediate repayment and the ability to borrow substantial sums can be expensive.

Under new legislation, graduate students are eligible to receive PLUS loans in their own names for studies. These Graduate PLUS loans have the same interest rates and terms of Parent PLUS loans.

Parents should also be aware that legislation raised the interest rate on these loans significantly — to 8.5% on July 1, 2006.

Private student loans

These are loans which are not guaranteed by any governmental agency, and are made to students by banks or finance companies. Advocates of private student loans suggest that they combine the best elements of the different government loans into one: They generally offer higher loan limits than direct-to-student federal loans, ensuring the student is not left with a budget gap. But unlike to-the-parent government loans, they generally offer a grace period with no payments due until after graduation. This grace period ranges as high as 12 months after graduation, though most private lenders offer 6 months.

Rates and interest Private student loan rates are lower than non-specialized private loans (e.g. "signature" loans) but slightly higher than government loan rates. That may be changing, as pending legislation would raise government student loan rates to similar rates as private student loans.

Most private loan programs are tied to one or more financial indexes, such as the Wall Street Journal Prime rate or the BBA LIBOR rate, plus an overhead charge. Because private loans are based on the credit history of the applicant, the overhead charge will vary. Students and families with excellent credit will generally receive lower rates and smaller loan origination fees than those with less than perfect credit. Beginning a few years ago, money paid toward interest is now tax deductible.

Fees Private loans often carry an origination fee. Origination fees are a one-time charge based on the amount of the loan, they can be taken out of the total loan amount, or added on top of the total loan amount, often at the borrower's preference. Some lenders offer low-interest, 0-fee loans; but these are usually available only to those with high credit scores of 800 or more. It is a fact that each percentage on the front-end fee gets paid once, while each percentage point on the interest rate is calculated and paid throughout the life of the loan. Some have suggested that this makes the interest rate more critical than the origination fee.

In fact, there is any easy solution to the fee-vs-rate question: ALL lenders are legally required to provide you a statement of the "APR - Annual Percentage Rate" for the loan before you sign a promissory note and commit to it. Unlike the "base" rate, this rate DOES include any fees charged and can be thought of as the "effective" interest rate including actual interest, fees, etc. When comparing loans, it may be easier to compare APR rather than "rate" to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison. APR is the best yardstick to compare loans which have the same repayment term; however, if the repayment terms are different, APR becomes a less-perfect comparison tool. With different term loans, consumers often look to 'total financing costs' to understand their financing options.

Eligibility Private student loan programs generally issue loans based on the credit history of the applicant and any applicable co-signer/co-endorser. This is in contrast to federal loan programs which deal primarily with need-based criteria, as defined by the EFC and the FAFSA, For many students, this is a great advantage to private loan programs, as their families may have too much income or too many assets to qualify for federal aid, but insufficient assets/income to pay for schooling without assistance.

Additionally, many international students studying in the United States can obtain private loans (they are ineligible for federal loans in many cases) with a co-signer that is a United States citizen/permanent resident.

The terms for alternative loans vary from lender to lender, and a common suggestion is to shop around on ALL terms, not just respond to "rates as low as..." tactics that are sometimes little more than bait-and-switch. Examples of other borrower terms and benefits that vary by lender are: Deferrments (amount of time after leaving school before payments start) and forebearences (a period of time where payments are temporarily stopped due to financial or other hardship). These policies are solely based on the contract between lender and borrower and not set by Department of Education policies.

Federally subsidized consolidations are not available for alternative student loans, though several lenders offer private consolidation programs. Borrowers of privately subsidized student loans may face the same restrictions to bankruptcy discharge as for government based loans: new legislation makes clear that these loans are, like federal student loans, not dischargeable under bankruptcy. However, even before the legislation was passed, private student loans that were guaranteed 'in whole or in part' by a non-profit entity are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy (and most private loans, regardless of the lender, were indeed guaranteed by a non-profit).

Types Private loans generally come in two types: school-channel and direct-to-consumer. School channel loans offer borrowers lower interest rates but generally take longer to process. School channel loans are 'certified' by the school, which means the school signs off on the borrowing amount, and the funds for school-channel loans are disbursed directly to the school.

Direct-to-consumer private loans are not certified by the school; indeed, schools don't interact with a direct-to-consumer private loan at all. The student simply supplies enrollment verification of one sort or another to the lender, and the loan proceeds are subsequently disbursed directly to the student. While direct-to-consumer loans generally carry higher interest rates than school-channel loans, they do allow families to get access to funds very quickly - in some cases, in a matter of days. Some argue that this convenience is offset by the risk of student over-borrowing and/or use of funds for inappropriate purposes, since there is no third-party certification that the amount of the loan is appropriate for the education finance needs of the student in question.

Direct-to-consumer private loans are the fastest growing segment of education finance, and as such, a number of providers are introducing products. Loan providers range from large education finance companies to specialty companies that focus exclusively on this niche. Such loans will often be distinguished by their indication that "no FAFSA is required" or "Funds disbursed directly to you."

Disbursement: How the money gets to student or school

There are two distribution channels for Federal student loans. The channels are identified by their names: Federal Direct Student Loans and Federal Family Education Loans. Federal Direct Student Loans, also known as Direct Loans, or FDLP loans are funded from public capital originating with the U.S. Treasury. FDLP loans are distributed through a channel that begins with the U.S. Treasury Department, and from there passes through the U.S. Department of Education, then to the college or university and then to the student. Federal Family Education Loan Program loans, also known as FFEL loans or FFELP loans, are funded with private capital provided by banking institutions (i.e., banks, savings and loans, and credit unions). Because the FFELP loans use private capital as their source, students who use FFELP loans are able to take advantage of payment options that are similar to those available to customers who take out a home loan or a consumer loan. For example, some institutions will allow a discount for automatic payments, or a series of on-time payments. In 2005, approximately two-thirds of all federally subsidized student loans are FFELP.

According to the U.S. Education Department, more than 6,000 colleges, universities and technical schools participate in FFELP, which represents about 80 percent of all schools. FFELP lending represents 75 percent of all federal student loan volume.

The maximum amount that any student can borrow is adjusted from time-to-time as Federal policies change. A study published in the Winter, 1996 edition of the Journal of Student Financial Aid, titled “How Much Student Loan Debt is Too Much” suggested that the monthly student debt payment for the average undergraduate should not exceed 8% of total monthly income after graduation. Some financial aid advisors have referred to the 8% level as “the 8% rule.” Circumstances vary for individuals, so the 8% level is an indicator, not a rule set in stone. A research report about the 8% level is available on the internet at [3] Follow links to --> Reports and presentations --> How Much Student Loan Debt is Too Much?

For private loans it is far simpler - the lender generally disburses the money directly to the school. More and more private loan companies are offering so-called 'direct-to-consumer' private loans. With these products, loans are not certified by the school, and the funds are disbursed directly to the borrower rather than to the school.

The Eternal Windows-Linux Battle: No Winner, Just Duopoly

2007-01-15T23:23:00.000+01:00

“Vista is the best $6 billion I have ever spent” said Bill Gates at this year’s CES. Is that enough for Microsoft to finally defeat the open source threat? Definitely NOT.

More than 10,000 people involved, more than $6 billion invested in research and testing for about 6 years (which makes it the most expensive piece of software ever built)- these are just a few features of Microsoft’s next-gen OS, Windows Vista.

During the numerous interviews Bill Gates offered to news agencies at CES he particularly focused on Vista’s capabilities as a next generation operating system. The majority of us had the chance of testing its many builds since May 2006, and honestly I cannot say Vista . When I asked my friends who have also used Vista (at least for while), they said the same thing: “Vista is definitely better than XP, but I wouldn’t recommend it (yet), because it’s unstable; moreover, despite the fact that it’s better than XP, it actually looks like an XP with Service Pack 3 and fresh, shiny UI; and it forces you to upgrade”.

Considering what we’ve witnessed at CES 2007, Vista is trying to become more of a Media Center OS rather than a truly reliable OS, focused more on the entertainment needs of the user - apparently because of Bill Gates' plan with “connected entertainment”. Jason Seuss, the Media Center evangelist at Microsoft, described this important feature of Vista as “a unified interface for consuming your digital media”. Consuming, not including- which is quite suggestive for Microsoft’s policy towards consumers: the Redmond behemoth aggressively promotes its standards and rarely opens for dialogue with other platforms (no, I do not want to think about the Novell-MS agreement right now…)

But Vista should be more than just playing videos, games or music. Unfortunately, one of its major improvements from the early stages of development, the WinFS, was buried some time ago, and this could be another argument for Vista not being a next-gen OS.

Plans for WinFS have been made since Windows Vista was known as Longhorn. Since the beginning it was meant to become one of Longhorn’s strong points in the battle against Linux and/or MacOSX. Everyone would appreciate a Windows OS with a strong file system, object-oriented, with a lot of search capabilities that would ease day-to-day routines.

In 2003, Microsoft founder and chairman Bill Gates said: “WinFS-this is unified storage. Some of you here have heard me talk about unified storage for more than a decade. The idea of taking the XML flexibility, database technology, getting it into the file system: that's been a Holy Grail for me for quite some time. And here it is. Thank goodness we have got the powerful systems to be able to do this thing. Thank goodness we have the evolution around XML and user interface capabilities, so that this can all come together."

Well, it was a beautiful dream and only a thing of the past. Or maybe we might just get lucky to see it in some sort of uncompromised new version of Microsoft SQL Server or ADO.NET. All we know for now is that the next version of SQL Server would support unstructured data and that entities from WinFS got adopted in ADO.NET.

Many are disappointed by Microsoft’s decision. Comments have been made that the Redmond giant killed a project that has lasted for more than 10 years, and a strong point for Vista. Actually, when Longhorn was first presented as the next big-thing for Microsoft, WinFS and the Aero interface were the first two things that company officials used to lure and attract public’s interest.

Up until now, only Aero is certitude, with WinFS “split” into a lot of other applications. But the main problem is still being neglected: large amounts of information, stored on larger and faster devices, still need an efficient method to deal with. WinFS could have been a splendid solution, but now it’s out of the question. Which brings another “pillar” down for Vista (Aero might be an eye-catching UI, but it doesn’t match Novell’s XGL Desktop…could that be a reason for the two companies’ close-up?). People were enchanted by what WinFS was doing from the beginning, because of its new relations between files, common schemas for things like contacts that could have been shared between applications or synchronization features that made life easy while searching for something on one’s PC. And what is even more intriguing is that WinFS was on of Gates’ most beloved projects for Vista….

By contrast, Linux has an advanced system of file storage that makes it look “fresh” even after years of intense usage, without needing the usual “6-months-reinstall” that XP needs.

Let’s have one thing straight before really entering the Linux-Windows fight: they are both strong platforms. Neither of them will ever disappear, despite each side’s hopes. Each of them has advantages and disadvantages; and in the end it’s actually a good thing that we have a choice.

First of all, Microsoft’s main advantage towards OSS (open source software) is the immense market share accumulated over the years. On the other side, OSS is much richer in alternatives and the fact that it’s (almost) completely free makes it appealing to the great majority of users. The GNU license says that OSS comes with no guarantee, but let’s face it: what guarantee does Bill offer against BSODs?

OSS offers users the chance to directly modify the source code of an application, thus improving the development cycle and shortening time. By contrast Microsoft (which is also involved in vaster areas than software) has a monthly Patch-Tuesday, a not very convenient interval to fix security problems for its own code.

If we also take a look at the internal architecture of the OSS, most of the applications that come out of the hands and minds of Linux programmers have a better architecture than that of the applications built for Windows, consuming fewer resources and delivering superior output- an argument which makes open source adherents triumphantly proclaim the future death of the Windows platform. An example: Aero vs. XGL. To be able to run Aero on Vista, your computer has to be upgraded to a much powerful configuration and if you also decide to have Vista Ultimate Extras, that will consume even more of your processor and RAM (about 5-10%, according to Microsoft’s Barry Goff, Client Management at Windows Client Team and mainly responsible for Windows Vista). Linux’s XGL runs smoothly even on three-year old PCs, without “eating” your hardware and delivering more options for “eye-candy” effects like burning windows, water-ripple desktop or 3D-cube desktop.

The disadvantages of the open source software are mainly linked to its popularity or market share. Microsoft controls with its Windows platform more than 90% of the world’s PCs, which in terms of installed base means stronger direct and indirect network effects, enhanced value of the operating system to current and potential users and more feedback on bugs and more suggestions for new features.

The Linux-Windows battle is not necessarily fought on the software ground but on an economic ground. In an economic model, the absence of cost asymmetries and as long as Windows has a first-mover advantage (a larger installed base at time zero), Linux never displaces Windows of its leadership position. That means that the enthusiasm of its adherents and the appeal given by its free status are not enough for Linux to surpass Windows.

There is also one more important aspect: the governments’ preference for Linux. Most European countries are now Linux-powered/on track of adopting Linux, because it’s much safer, it’s (almost) costless and having access to the source code allows them to verify that sensitive data is treated securely. Windows’ binary code and Microsoft’s secrecy upon the source code subject have not only repelled governments, but also attracted hundreds-of-millions euros fines from the EU Commission. Facing both the Linux and the fines threat, MS was forced to reveal parts of Windows’ code to officials, hoping to kill two rabbits with one bullet. But that was not enough.

IBM and other major companies have announced their support for Linux, in part for its advantages, in part for diminishing Microsoft’s dominance. That is called in economic language strategic buyer. The more strategic buyers one of the two platforms has, the more likely it will be for it to win.

Paradoxically, the long discussed Windows piracy is actually an enemy of open source and a precious help for Microsoft. In countries where piracy is registering high rates (like China, Russia or Brazil) the OSS has the lowest levels of market penetration and the Windows platform rules. Moreover, Microsoft can even turn (and be sure that it is already doing that) the piracy into profit.

There are of course other reasons to discuss here (like the social desirability of Linux vs. Windows or the gaming), but I preferred the general frame of the Linux-Windows battle because this frame comes first. Open source community should rest assured though that the only way Windows is ever going to beat Linux is by making the price equal to zero, which is of course impossible. And as long as there are Linux developers, Vista (or any other future OS emanating from Microsoft) will always face a threat.

For us, the end-users, the Linux-Windows battle has of course the advantage of giving us choices.

Globalisation and trade for development

2007-01-13T13:22:00.000+01:00

"GLOBALISATION" REMAINS controversial. It has produced increasing economic interdependence of the world through growing volume and variety of cross-border flows of finance, investment, goods and services, and the rapid and widespread diffusion of technology. Its primary dimension concerns the expansion of economic activities across state borders. Other dimensions include the international movement of ideas, information, legal systems, organisations, people, cuisines (on any given day, more Westerners are likely to eat Chinese and Indian food than Chinese and Indian consumers eating Western food), cultural exchanges, etc. But the movement of people, even in this age of globalisation since the 1970s, is restricted and strictly regulated; in the aftermath of 9/11, even more so.

A World Bank study, Global Economic Prospects: Managing the Next Wave of Globalisation contains information about much of the upside of globalisation. Driven by globalisation, since 1974 exports have doubled as a proportion of world economic output to over 25 per cent and on existing trends will rise to 34 per cent by 2030. World income has doubled since 1980, and almost half a billion people have climbed out of poverty since 1990. On present trends, the number of people living on under one purchasing power dollar a day will halve from today's one billion by 2030. This will result from growth in South and East Asia, whose share of the poor will halve from 60 per cent while Africa's will rise from 30 per cent to 55 per cent. Of course, a linear extrapolation from today's trends could prove wrong with rise of protectionist measures, pandemic diseases or environmental limits to growth.

The scale, benefits, and vilification of globalisation can all be exaggerated. Contrary to popular mythology, especially by the high priests of globalisation, compared to the immediate post-war period, the average rate of growth has steadily slowed down during the age of globalisation: from 3.5 per cent per annum in the 1960s to 2.1 per cent, 1.3 per cent, and 1.0 per cent in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s respectively.

The growing economic interdependence is highly asymmetrical: the benefits of linking and the costs of delinking are not equally distributed. Industrialised countries (the European Union, Japan, and the United States) are genuinely and highly interdependent in their relations with one another. But developing countries are largely independent in economic relations with one another, and highly dependent on industrialised countries.

Globalisation creates losers as well as winners, and entails risks as well as providing opportunities. An International Labour Organisation (ILO) blue-ribbon panel noted a couple of years ago that the problems lie not in globalisation per se but in the deficiencies in its governance.

Deepak Nayyar, one of the ILO panel's commissioners, former Vice-Chancellor of the Delhi University and now back as professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, argues that under the impact of globalisation, there has been a growing divergence, not convergence, in income levels, both between countries and peoples. Inequality among and within nations has widened. Assets and incomes are more concentrated. Wage shares have fallen while profit shares have risen. Capital mobility alongside labour immobility has reduced the bargaining power of organised labour. The rise in unemployment and the accompanying casualisation of the workforce, with more and more people working in the informal sector, has generated an excess supply of labour and depressed real wages.

The rapid growth of global markets has not seen the parallel development of social and economic institutions to ensure their smooth and efficient functioning, labour rights have been less assiduously protected than capital and property rights, and the global rules on trade and finance are unfair to the extent that they produce asymmetric effects on rich and poor countries.

The deepening of poverty and inequality — prosperity for a few countries and people, marginalisation and exclusion for many — has implications for social and political stability, again among as well as within nations. It is in this context that the plight and hopes of developing countries have to be understood in the Doha Round of trade talks. Begun in 2001, the Doha Round was supposed to be about trade-led and trade-facilitated development of the world's poor countries. After five years of negotiations, the talks collapsed because of unbridgeable differences among the EU, the U.S. and developing countries led by India, Brazil, and China.

Each of the three groups, not surprisingly, defends its position and each has its favourite villain.

From the developing country perspective, the problem is that the rich countries want access to the poor countries' resources, markets, and labour forces at the lowest possible price. Some rich countries were agreeable to deep cuts in agricultural subsidies but resisted opening their markets, while some others reversed this. Developing countries are determined to protect the livelihood of their farmers — farmer suicide has been a terrible human cost and a political problem for State and Central governments in India for some years already — and rural development. This is essential for social stability as well as the political survival of governments.

The rich countries' pledges of flexibility failed to be translated into concrete proposals during the negotiations. They effectively protected the interests of tiny agricultural minorities. By contrast, in developing countries, farming accounts for 30-60 per cent of GDP and up to 70 per cent of the labour force. This is why labour rights protection is at least as critical for developing countries as intellectual property rights protection is for the rich.

More broadly, developing countries are not unmindful of more than a century of Western history during which democracies relied on public regulation and social investment to compensate for market failures and extremes of income inequality. Even the successful East Asian economies like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan included government help to local business to develop new technologies and markets and shelter fledgling firms from international speculation.

Developing countries were promised a new regime that would allow them to sell their goods and trade their way out of poverty through undistorted market openness. This required generous market access by the rich for the products of the poor, and also reduction-cum-elimination of market-distorting producer and export subsidies, with the resulting dumping of the rich world's produce on world markets. Thus Europe launched its "Everything but Arms" initiative whereby it would open its markets to the world's poorest countries. The initiative foundered on too many non-tariff barriers, for example in the technical rules of origin. The U.S. seemed to offer EBP — everything but what they produce. Under its proposals, developing countries would have been free to export jet engines and supercomputers to the U.S., but not textiles, agricultural products or processed foods.

Elimination of rich country production and export subsidies and opening of markets, while necessary, would not be sufficient for developing countries to trade their way out of underdevelopment. They also desperately need to institute market-friendly incentives and regulatory regimes, increase their farmers' productivity and may require technical assistance from international donors to achieve this through investment in training, infrastructure, and research. Similarly, they will require additional social safety nets, for example to cushion them against price and market volatility for their products.

The failure of the Doha Round is also, finally, symptomatic of a much bigger malaise, namely the crisis of multilateral governance in security and environmental matters as well as trade. We risk a proliferation of bilateral and regional preferential trading arrangements and a retreat into protectionism. This would be a lose-lose outcome. This is why at the APEC summit in Hanoi and the G20 Finance Ministers' meeting in Melbourne in November, emphasis was placed on resurrecting and concluding the Doha round of trade talks. In agriculture as in other sectors, problems without passports require solutions without borders.

Australia v England: The Ashes

2007-01-10T23:17:00.000+01:00

The build up in the months leading up to the Ashes was like nothing the game had ever seen before. Whole days and even whole matches were sold out five or six months in advance. Personally it took me a day and half of constant attempts online and by phone to get four tickets for Boxing Day in a stadium that holds over 90,000. I never thought that I'd have to book six months in advance for a day of cricket at the MCG!

After the memorable series in 2005 which saw England end 16 years of humiliation, fans in both corners of the globe were once again enamored with the Ashes. If the 2006/07 series had been anywhere near as good as 2005, fans of both sides and cricket lovers in general would have been very happy. Sadly what we got was one of the great anticlimaxes in the history of sport.

Australia won the five match series in a clean sweep against a team that is supposed to be second only to the Aussies in terms of world ranking. What we saw was one of the best teams in international sport devour an ill-prepared and tactically inept opposition.

Sure England had their patches where they had the better of the play, but the tourists would soon drop the ball and give the home team an opening to take control, which they did without fail.

England had caught the Aussies napping in 2005, the result genuinely shocking Australian cricket but instead of falling apart as many may have hoped, the Aussies came back harder, meaner and even more determined than they had been. England on the other hand appeared to be regressing to the dark old days of the 1990s.

Some of the luster of the series was starting to wear off even before the first ball had been bowled. England's poor form in the Champions Trophy and in tour games against the Prime Minister's XI, New South Wales, and South Australia were cause for concern. It was a sign of things to come.

If there was any indication that England were not ready for the challenge it came at the selection table for the first test in Brisbane. Both sides had some tough calls to make, Australia got them right, England got them horribly wrong. Michael Clarke initially found himself out of the side, only getting his chance after Shane Watson injured a hamstring in a match for Queensland. Clarke grabbed his chance hands, cementing his spot in the Australian XI with his best series since arriving on the international scene in India in 2004. Stuart Clark also had to fight for his spot, seeing off stiff competition from up and coming young quicks Mitchell Johnson and Shaun Tait. It was a smart move by the selectors as Clark was the clear standout of the bowlers taking 26 wickets at 17 apiece.

England's hierarchy left even their most ardent fans scratching their heads with the selection of Ashley Giles ahead of Monty Panesar, who performed so well in the previous English summer, and Geraint Jones behind the stumps ahead of the superior Chris Read. They were selections that wreaked of the conservatism that has dominated the English in the past couple of decades and has taken them nowhere for much of that time. It wasn't until England shook off this thinking and dare I say it, started playing like the Australians, that the cricket world started to take them seriously as a world force again, a point that must have been forgotten somewhere between Heathrow and Sydney.

Giles and Jones were selected ahead of their counterparts for their alleged superiority with bat. Unfortunately for the tourists both were pretty much useless with the bat and Giles proved to be a dead weight with the ball as well. By the time Panesar and Read finally did make an appearance, the decision not to play them in the first place looked even more ridiculous than it did in the first place. Panesar at least looked likely to take wickets and Read showed in Melbourne and Sydney that he is the better of the two keepers. Sure Read is not much with the bat, but keepers should be selected for their ability with the gloves first and foremost.

Tactically England were found seriously wanting. It was quite clear that the planning that was such a feature of their 2005 campaign was missing this time around, and for what plans that they did have, there appeared to be little confidence in them. Executing team plans is difficult when your bowlers struggle as much as England's did. Matthew Hoggard was easily their best and most consistent bowler, Andrew Flintoff battled bravely but struggled. James Anderson and Sajid Mahmood leaked runs and Steve Harmison was a massive disappointment.

Australia's bowlers were far more even across the board, not giving the batsmen relief and a chance for cheap. Even Andrew Symonds in his role as the fifth bowler kept a clamp on the runs.

Harmison, the Durham quick, was always going to be a key factor in deciding who would win the series. Harmison arrived in Australia unfit and seriously out of form and a return of six wickets in the three "live" games was simply unacceptable for a man that has been in the system for coming close to five years.

Not just Harmison but the whole England squad looked unprepared for the long tour ahead. Questions have to be asked why when England were knocked out of the Champions Trophy in India, the brains trust of English cricket thought it appropriate that the player travel back home for 10 days R&R instead of continuing onto Australia to acclimatise, especially to the humid conditions of Brisbane. In the modern professional era such sloppy preparation is unforgivable.

The biggest difference between the two was in their psychology. The Australians believe they are the best side in the world and were determined to show that last years Ashes loss was just a slip up. On the outside Australia never showed any concern that they could lose a match, even during periods of dominance from the tourists such as the Collingwood/Pietersen partnership in Adelaide, or when England had the Aussies five down cheaply in Melbourne. Australia always felt they were one wicket or partnership away from control.

England were almost defeatist in their attitude, lacking the killer edge they had under Michael Vaughn. Against hard-edged teams like Australia if you go into the match believing you will lose, you will lose and heavily. Despite all the talk from Flintoff about showing pride, the body language and lack of confidence on display from the tourists made a whitewash inevitable. There seemed to be a lack of pride in performance from the tourists in their capitulations in Melbourne and Sydney. Australia faced tougher opposition from minnow Bangladesh earlier this year than they received at times from England, at least Bangladesh looked like winning a test.

Despite the lopsided result, there were many highlights for the fans. The individual battle between Pietersen and Warne was intriguing, Panesar ripping through the home side in Perth, Gilchrist's 57-ball century, the mastery of Ricky Ponting, and Warne's historic 700th test wicket, will all live in the memory of those who witnessed them.

Melbourne also saw Andrew Symonds play the type of innings many thought he was capable of and Alastair Cook showed that he is a player of real talent with his second innings century at Perth. It was a tough tour for Cook but if he is a player of quality he will learn a lot from this experience.

This Ashes series has also drawn down the curtain on a number of careers on both sides. Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath both retired on their terms and to much applause. Even Damien Martyn was the master of his own fate, deciding to jump mid-series before he was pushed. There will be a few English players who won't have that luxury. Jones seems to have run out of chances, even if he is coach Duncan Fletcher's preference. After being dropped for the third test Ashley Giles was always going to face an uphill battle to return to the test team, but the end to his international career may have been sealed with the shocking news that his wife had been diagnosed with a brain tumor, forcing the spinner to leave the touring party. Even if cricket does take priority again, with the time out of the game Giles will find it nearly impossible to reach the elite level again.

International cricket may have also seen the last of the talented but troubled Marcus Trescothick. Trescothick played no part in the test series after a relapse of his recent mental health concerns during the tour game against New South Wales. England erred not in sending Trescothick home but selecting him in the first place. When Trescothick withdrew from the Champions Trophy it should've told the selectors that he was not yet ready to return to the cut and thrust of test cricket, especially against a side so adept at getting inside their opponent's head.

As critical as I've been of England, and with just cause, credit must be given to the Australians. They were simply magnificent and everyone made a valuable contribution at some point in the series. There was almost a fanatical zeal in the way they went about reclaiming the holy grail of Australia in sport.

It was one finest performances from one the great sides in modern sport, and one of the greatest the sport of cricket has known.

Global warming : - Sulphur to stall???

2007-01-08T23:44:00.000+01:00

This is the month of January and winter is yet to arrive in western Europe. The delay of winter is due to Global warming.

Global Warming :- The progressive gradual rise of the earth's surface temperature thought to be caused by the greenhouse effect and responsible for changes in global climate patterns. An increase in the near surface temperature of the Earth. Global warming has occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is most often used to refer to the warming predicted to occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases.

The main reason for the global warming is the release of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere due to the incresed burning of fossil fuel.

To stall global warming for 20 years, one climate scientist proposed lobbing sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, which would work in concert with cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

The sulphur dioxide, a pollutant on Earth, would form sulphate aerosol particles to shade the planet, much as the ash clouds from a major volcanic eruption do, said Tom Wigley of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Wigley used computer models to determine that injecting sulphate particles at intervals from one to four years would have about the same cooling power as the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines.

His research, published in the journal Science, indicates this approach would work together with cutting emissions of greenhouse gases, which are produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

The idea of injecting sulphates into the stratosphere, some 16 kilometres above the Earth's surface, was first proposed and quickly rejected three decades ago as a dangerous tinkering with natural processes.

But Wigley said he was prompted to pursue this angle when Paul Crutzen, a Nobel-winning atmospheric chemist, recently suggested a new look at the notion of geoengineering, as this notion is known.

"I'm not suggesting we don't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for energy," Wigley said in a telephone interview. "I think that that's the only long-term solution to the problem of global warming, we definitely have to do that.

"But ... can we make it economically and technologically easier by doing something that's also technology, which may be cost-effective?"

It would not be cheap, according to Wigley's estimates.

The most sensible way to get sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere would be to send numerous planes - more than the world's current commercial airline fleet - to take it there. This might cost hundreds of millions of dollars, he said.

The sulphur dioxide would form small sulphuric acid aerosol droplets. Another method to get these aerosols into the air is the possible addition of sulphur compounds to airplane fuel, which would then form sulphur dioxide, Wigley said.

On Earth, sulphur dioxide contributes to respiratory illness, aggravates heart and lung disease and contributes to acid rain. Power plants and other factories are the biggest producers.

But Wigley said the amount of sulphur dioxide needed for the geoengineering project would probably cause negligible pollution down on Earth's surface, because his model called for less than 10% additional sulphur dioxide than is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels.

The technology exists now to put this plan into effect, but studies of economic feasibility are needed, he said. It has the potential to stall global warming for 20 years, to buy time for solutions to the problem, according to Wigley.

"We've got to consider it very seriously because otherwise we might be in for much worse things just due to emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases," he said.