Tuesday, April 22, 2008

PayPal Plans to Ban Unsafe Browsers - Including Safari?

In a whitepaper entitled "A Practical Approach to Managing Phishing", PayPal has announced their approach to phishing, including banning users from performing sensitive transactions using browsers which do not have adequate protections against phishing.

We've previously reported that PayPal considers Safari to be insecure for exactly these reasons. Ergo, it would seem that PayPal is planning to disallow the use of Apple's Safari for transactions.

See Ryan Naraine's story in eWEEK for more information on these developments.

Whale Phishing

One of the things I love about cutting-edge technology is the way we get to invent fun, new terminology. It seems to have been around before, but I just came across my first reference to "whale phishing." It describes a phish where the target is a very important person, such as a CEO, i.e. a very big target.

An example of the phenomenon was written up in this Internet Storm Center writeup which describes a phony subpoena request sent to several CEOs, purportedly from the US Courts. It was further written up by McAfee, including a screen shot, in their blog. The recipient is give a link to click on; if they do so, they are asked to install a "browser plug-in" in order to view the document; the file is named Acrobat.exe. If they do so, they are served with malware which McAfee classifies as TROJ_AGENT.AMAL.

Of course, the US Courts don't e-mail subpoena requests directly to CEOs.

Clinton grinds out victory over Obama in Pennsylvania


PHILADELPHIA - Hillary Rodham Clinton ground out a gritty victory in the Pennsylvania primary Tuesday night, defeating Barack Obama and staving off elimination in their historic race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"Some counted me out and said to drop out," the former first lady told supporters cheering her triumph in a state where she was outspent by more than two-to-one. "But the American people don't quit. And they deserve a president who doesn't quit, either."

"Because of you, the tide is turning."

Her victory, while comfortable, set up another critical test in two weeks time in Indiana. North Carolina votes the same day, and Obama already is the clear favorite in a Southern state with a large black population.

"Now it's up to you Indiana," Obama said at a rally of his own in Evansville after Pennsylvania denied him a victory that might have made the nomination his.

He criticized John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, by name as offering more of the same policies advocated by President Bush. And he took aim at Clinton without mentioning her by name. "We can calculate and poll-test our positions and tell everyone exactly what they want to hear," he said. "Or we can be the party that doesn't just focus on how to win, but why we should."

In a campaign marked by increasingly personal attacks, Clinton was winning 55 percent of the vote to 45 percent for her rival with 80 percent counted in Pennsylvania.

A preliminary tabulation showed her gaining at least 38 national convention delegates to 34 for Obama, with 86 still to be awarded.

That left Obama with 1,682.5 delegates, and Clinton with 1,547.5, according to the AP tally.

Clinton scored her victory by winning the votes of blue-collar workers, women and white men in an election where the economy was the dominant concern. Obama was favored by blacks, the affluent and voters who recently switched to the Democratic Party, a group that comprised about one in ten Pennsylvania voters, according to the surveys conducted by The Associated Press and the TV networks.

More than 80 percent of voters surveyed as they left their polling places said the nation was already in a recession.

A six-week campaign allowed time for intense courtship of the voters.

She showed her blue-collar bona fides one night by knocking down a shot of whiskey, then taking a mug of beer as a chaser. Obama went bowling in his attempt to win over working-class voters.

Clinton's win marked at least the third time she had triumphed when defeat might have sent her to the campaign sidelines.

She won in New Hampshire last winter after coming in third in the kickoff Iowa caucuses, and she won primaries in Ohio and Texas several weeks later after losing 11 straight contests.

Her victory also gave Clinton a strong record in the big states as she attempts to persuade convention superdelegates to look past Obama's delegate advantage and his lead in the popular vote in picking a nominee. She had previously won primaries in Texas, California, Ohio and her home state of New York, while Obama won his home state of Illinois.

Clinton projected confidence to the end of the Pennsylvania campaign, scheduling an election-night rally in Philadelphia. Obama signaled in advance he expected to lose, flying off to Indiana for an evening appearance even before the polls closed.

Flush with cash, Obama reported spending $11.2 million on television in the state, more than any place else. That compared with $4.8 million for Clinton.

The tone of the campaign was increasingly personal — to the delight of Republicans and McCain, who has been gaining in the polls while the Democrats battle in primaries deep into the spring.

"In the last 10 years Barack Obama has taken almost $2 million from lobbyists, corporations and PACs. The head of his New Hampshire campaign is a drug company lobbyist, in Indiana an energy lobbyist, a casino lobbyist in Nevada," said a Clinton commercial that aired in the final days of the race.

Obama responded with an ad that accused Clinton of "eleventh-hour smears paid for by lobbyist money." It said that unlike his rival, he "doesn't take money from special interest PACs or Washington lobbyists — not one dime."

Also to the delight of Republicans, the six-week layoff between primaries produced a string of troubles for the Democrats.

Obama was forced onto the defensive by incendiary comments by his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, then triggered controversy on his own by saying small-town Americans cling to guns and religion because of their economic hardships.

Clinton conceded that she had not landed under sniper fire in Bosnia while first lady, even though she said several times that she had. And she replaced her chief strategist, Mark Penn, after he met with officials of the Colombian government seeking passage of a free trade agreement that she opposes.

McCain campaigned in Youngstown, Ohio, during the day Tuesday, telling residents of the hard-hit steel town that free trade can help solve their problems.

"The biggest problem is not so much what's happened with free trade, but our inability to adjust to a new world economy," McCain said during a town hall-style meeting at Youngstown State University. McCain's message was something of a political gamble in an area where international trade agreements are not popular.

The remaining Democratic contests are primaries in North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico, and caucuses in Guam.

___

David Espo reported from Washington.

How To Drive With A Purpose

The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers.

– Dave Barry

Let’s face it, we hate everyone else on the road. We’re all absolutely fed up with the terrible drivers. Unfortunately, the bad drivers show no signs of disappearing. If anything, the number of bad drivers seem to actually be increasing. Maybe that’s because we are the very same drivers we hate. Here’s my thoughts on what it takes (and what it means) to be a good driver.

A Brief Detour

Remember how yesterday the guy driving that green SUV nearly hit you when he merged into your lane without signaling? The asshole! What kind of idiot is he?

Well, you did the same thing to me last week. And I did it to someone else the week before that. Everyone makes mistakes while driving. Yes, yourself included. That doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone is a bad driver. It means everyone is human. Keep that in mind next time you see another driver do something really stupid. We all make mistakes, so take a deep breath and just let it go. Fuming in your car isn’t helping you or anyone else.

Have a Driving Goal

The most important thing you need in order to be a good driver is a goal. You should have a clear goal whenever you pull onto the road. I’m not talking about just getting from point A to point B. I’m talking about an overall guiding principle to guide your driving, a driving philosophy, if you will.

Your goal might be, e.g., to maximize safety, certainly a good goal to have. My goal is to promote overall traffic flow. I feel that every driver has a responsibility to other drivers. It’s not just you on the road. It’s a shared resource, and it’s only responsible to try to maximize the utility of that resource. It also turns out that the goal of promoting traffic flow is complementary to promoting safety.

Once you’ve got a goal, you can refer to it to fine-tune your driving. Having a goal won’t put an end to all your mistakes, but you might be surprised how a goal can redefine your behavior in certain driving situations. It’s simple to weigh two options and decide which one will help your goal the most. Constantly evaluating your driving against a strong reference can certainly help you to become a better driver.

An Example: When to Slow Down for a Turn

Lots of drivers slow down before they really need to. They slow down for turns, exits, etc. Some drivers begin slowing down as much as a mile early for highway exits. Let’s weigh this kind of behavior against a reasonable driving goal, and see how it holds up.

  • Safety. By slowing down early, you are no longer following the flow of traffic. You are therefore at a higher risk of being hit by someone behind you who’s not paying attention. If you’re like most of the “early slowers,” you’re also not even braking, you’re just pressing the accelerator more gently, slowing without brake lights, further increasing the chances of an accident. Now, you can say it’s the other driver’s fault if they rear-end you, and that’s fine, but that’s got nothing to do with safety. Increasing safety means you want to minimize accidents, not just minimize the accidents in which a judge will find you at fault.
  • Traffic Flow. By slowing down early, you’re forcing those behind you to slow down unnecessarily. You’re also encouraging them to swerve around you, potentially slowing other lanes down as well (and increasing the chances of an accident, see above). Slowing down early hurts traffic flow unnecessarily.
  • Fuel Efficiency. An interesting argument for the “early slowdown” is fuel efficiency concern. However, in many cases, you aren’t maximizing fuel efficiency by slowing down early. If you slow down too early for some highway exits (e.g., those in which the exit ramp climbs toward an overpass), you’ll have to accelerate again later to reach the end of the exit ramp. You’d likely be better off holding a steady speed and using the exit ramp’s climb to slow you.

As an aside, I also have serious doubts about the efficiency of slowing down while still applying some gas. It seems that for maximum efficiency, you shouldn’t slow down for a turn, exit, or red light until your foot is completely off the accelerator. The wind and the natural resistance of the car’s moving parts will bring your speed down fairly quickly, without braking, if you completely remove your foot from the accelerator. And I can guarantee that your car is burning less fuel when your foot is completely off the accelerator than when you’re lightly pressing the accelerator.

It seems best to slow down only when necessary. If your foot is still on the accelerator, you shouldn’t be slowing down. If your foot is still on the accelerator, then you do not need to slow down yet, and there’s no logical reason to so so.

One More Example: Merging at low speed.

We’ve all seen people merge with highway traffic going 25mph, or try to. It can be infuriating. Rather than just be angry and dismissive, though, it’s again useful to think about why it’s so infuriating.

  • Safety. Merging at low speed is unsafe for two main reasons. First, if you merge moving slower than traffic, someone in that traffic is much more likely to hit you. You’re also more likely to be hit by others behind you who are merging, and who are giving more attention to the traffic they’re merging with than they are giving to you.
  • Traffic Flow. If you merge at low speed, others who are merging behind you are forced to slow down, as are those in the traffic you’re merging with. You’re forcing numerous people to slow down when you merge at low speed. This kind of poor merging can be a major cause of traffic problems on busy highways.
  • Fuel Efficiency. This one’s barely even relevant here. You’re (presumably) going to get up to highway speed eventually. It makes sense to do that before merging. In many (or most) cases, the on-ramp will be sloped downward, which is the perfect place to build speed with low fuel expenditure.

Merge at speed. You should be moving at the same speed as the traffic you want to merge with. Going slower makes it harder, not easier. To be as safe and efficient as possible, always merge at the speed of traffic (but keep an eye out for the guy in front of you trying to merge at 25mph).

Put Your Goal Into Practice

I’m sure you can come up with plenty of other examples of driving problems, so I won’t bore you with any more. The point isn’t just to pick out examples of bad driving, but instead to decide why they are examples of bad driving. When you see someone do something stupid while driving, ask why it’s stupid. Determine why they shouldn’t have done that, so that you can truly know why you shouldn’t do it either.

But don’t stop there. Once you’ve picked your driving goal, use it to evaluate your own driving habits as well. Part of being good at anything is working to improve. If you want to be a good driver, think about how you drive. Ask yourself how you could improve. Find the parts of your driving that don’t fit well with your goal, and fix them.

Being a good driver means asking yourself where you can improve. Having a goal can help you answer that question.

(Update: I’ve changed the title to hopefully better match the tone of the post. The title was written before the actual post, and seemed out of place.)

How Quickly Does Programming Knowledge Become Obsolete?

How rapidly does programming knowledge really become out-of-date? Do things change so frequently that it has become unreasonable to expect programmers to keep up with the pace of technology? I’m not so sure the pace is really that fast.

A few days ago, Half Sigma posted an article claiming that a career in programming sucks. I responded that no, it doesn’t. In turn, I got quite a few comments supporting Sigma. Several of them were centered around Sigma’s first argument, that programming knowledge becomes obsolete too quickly.

Rapid Obsoletion of Programming Knowledge

In an attempt to prove that programming knowledge has a very short expiration date, it’s easy — and common — to drag out an expired technology (Punchcards, Z80, Turbo Pascal, etc.) and then point at it and say, “Look! Look! How does any of that still apply?”

Quite frankly, if you have to drag out punch cards to make your point, you don’t have one. Punch cards died 30 years ago. If that’s the best you can do, the computer science field must not be moving very quickly at all. The Z80 died in the mid-1980s. Even Turbo Pascal was gone before Windows 95 hit the streets. Each of those technologies had more than a 10-year lifespan before it became obsolete. Is it so unreasonable to tell programmers that they need to learn a new technology at least once every ten years?

Hey, remember when plumbers used to use lead-based solder? Plumbing knowledge is obsoleted so fast!

Just like the basics of soldering are partially independent of any specific solder compound, so are the basics of computer science separate from any specific technology. Punch cards are just a storage medium, like hard disks, so much of the knowledge gained during the punch card era is still relevant. Similarly, a programmer who has good knowledge of the Z80 should be able to map much of his knowledge to modern processors. And a skilled programmer who used Turbo Pascal should still be a skilled programmer in a new language, given a brief acclimation period.

If tomorrow morning we all switch to PowerPC computers, programmed in Python, using some funky crystal matrix for storage, my knowledge will not all be obsolete. Certainly, my knowledge of the more quirky aspects of C++ won’t be useful anymore, but the basics won’t have changed. It’s still a Von Neumann machine. Algorithms are still important. Software design practices are still relevant.

Nothing fundamental really changes very quickly. The superficial stuff evolves rapidly, but if your knowledge is only superficial, that’s a different problem altogether.

The Example Game, from the Other Side

If we want to play the “look at this example” game, I’ll just trot out C and the x86 architecture. Both of those have been around for more than 30 years, and they’re both still going strong. They’ve been around since before I was born, and I still use both every day at work. Likewise, C++ and IPv4 have both been around for more than 20 years, and show no sign of dying soon. Even Java and PostgreSQL have been around for 10 years now.

There are many examples of technologies that have been around for more than a decade. In fact, I challenge anyone to demonstrate a dead technology that was once popular and considered important, which didn’t last for at least ten years. I doubt there are very many examples. I think there’s a minimum lifespan before anything can really even be considered important, if for no other reason than it takes a while before a given technology becomes well-developed enough to be utilized by business.

Knowledge Carry-Over

Even when particular technologies die, they still influence future technologies, and so the knowledge base doesn’t disappear or become useless.

Pick any current technology, and you can trace its roots back toward previous technologies. C# was influenced by Java. Python was influenced by Lisp. Ruby was influenced by Python, Smalltalk, and Perl.

Knowledge of any predecessor technology will spill over to the newer technology. Certainly, not everything remains relevant, but there’s definitely some knowledge carry-over. If you’re skilled with Java, C# is not a huge leap. Things are different, but not completely alien. If you’re comfortable with functional and object-oriented programming, you can pick up Ruby.

What Do Employers Want?

Some commenters argued that employers will only hire programmers who are already skilled in the latest technologies. I agree that’s true for some employers. However, I’d argue that it’s not true for most, shouldn’t be true for any, and won’t be true for the employers good programmers should want to work for.

Would I hire an experienced Clipper/dBASE programmer for work on an Oracle project? Yes. Would I hire a good C++ programmer to work on a C# project? Yes.

Good people are far more valuable than specific knowledge. Any decent programmer can learn the syntax and APIs. If you have demonstrated a strong knowledge of database programming, why wouldn’t your knowledge carry over to Oracle? If you are a good C++ programmer, why wouldn’t you be a good C# programmer? If you cannot move from one language to another, then your knowledge is purely superficial, and you are not a good programmer.

If a potential employer cannot recognize that a good programmer is much more valuable than a mediocre programmer “skilled” in the latest buzzwords, then you don’t want to work there. You will almost certainly not be treated well, because the employer clearly doesn’t understand the value of a good programmer.

If your boss doesn’t want you to learn new technologies, then you’ve got a bad boss. Your boss should want, and expect, you to be constantly learning. What kind of idiot thinks that he’s hiring programmers with all the knowledge they’ll ever need?

Technology Changes

You people complaining about the obsoletion of knowledge sound like luddites. It frankly sounds like you’re afraid of progress, and unwilling to learn new technologies. You picked a fast-moving field. Accept that some of your specific knowledge will be subject to attrition. Knowing, for example, a particular object-oriented language’s syntax is transient knowledge. Understanding how to program using good object-oriented methodologies is not transient.

Expect to learn new technologies. It’s part of the field. Learn them at work, or learn them on your own time. But don’t complain to me that your knowledge of Clipper isn’t useful anymore because the world now uses Oracle. If you didn’t learn anything useful while you were using Clipper that would be applicable to Oracle, then you probably didn’t do anything useful while working with Clipper.

Now, I’m not going to pretend that the computer science field doesn’t have any problems. Certainly it has problems. Life has problems. That’s just the way things are. But pretending that the problems are insurmountable doesn’t help anything. Pretending that technology evolves so fast that no one could possibly keep up long term is just a way of hiding the fact that you aren’t interested in keeping up.

If you want to switch fields because you can’t or won’t keep up with the pace of technology, please do so. If you find something you love, then that’s far better than doing something you don’t care about. And if you find a field where you knowledge base never needs to evolve, let me know. I’ll be sure to pass the news on to others who don’t want to program anymore. I have to say though, I can’t think of a faster way to obsolete all your knowledge than by switching to a different field.

Setting Real Goals

What do you really want to accomplish in the next month, the next year, the next decade? Is your career on track? Are your relationships developing correctly? Do you really even know?

The Yardstick

We cannot measure our success without knowing what success will look like. Our goals should be the yardsticks for our lives. If we are meeting our goals, then we are successful. If we are not, then we need to adjust either our goals or our efforts. Do you know what your goals are?

You might want a million dollars, but that’s not good enough. That’s not a goal. It’s a dream. You can’t act on a dream. Do you want to save a million dollars for retirement? If so, then maybe your goal should be to “invest $250 in a mutual fund every month for the next 40 years.” That’s a goal you can act on. You are much more likely to invest $250 than you are to just “save a million dollars.”

Let’s look at another common example. If you want to get in shape, then “eating better” and “going to the gym regularly” should not be your goals. Even “lose ten pounds” shouldn’t be your goal. Those are all just too intangible to reliably act upon. Your goals should be to “eat no more than 1500 calories per day,” and to “go the gym from 6:00 to 7:00 on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.” Anything less than that isn’t a real goal. It’s just a dream.

Toward a Goal

Once you’ve made your goals into something tangible, something measurable, you can monitor your progress. Did you save $250 last month? If not, you need to adjust your budget and compensate. Did you go to the gym last Tuesday? No? Then you need to make the time.

By setting a measurable goal, you can constantly evaluate whether you’re going to reach that goal. If your dream is to spend more time with your kids, you can’t really track that. How much is enough more? If you want to spend 2 hours every weeknight helping your children with their homework and then going for a walk as a family, that’s something you can track. You can try to track your success in your head, or you can actually keep a personal log. Either way, the first step is to make the goal measurable.

I want to finish all of my degree, except for my dissertation, by the end of next spring. That’s not very tangible, though. So instead, my goals are to take my comprehensive exams and finish 12 hours of class this fall, and to take 6 hours of class and propose my dissertation in the spring. These are by no means easy goals (I have a full-time, off-campus job), but they are measurable goals. I know exactly what I need to do, and I know exactly when I need to do it. I can and do track how my school goals are progressing.

Once your goals are measurable, you can make progress. Until then, you’re just frustrating yourself with dreams that won’t come true.

Big Goals

Sometimes a goal might just be too big to really be tangible. If that’s the case, you need to break it into smaller goals. For example, starting your own company is a huge goal. It’s definitely possible, because others have done it. But “start a company” just doesn’t seam tangible, or very measurable, for that matter. You’ve got to somehow break it up into achievable pieces.

If you want to start a software company, you should probably have a goal of spending several hours a day putting together a prototype product. After that, maybe you need to find a partner or an investor. So you should have a goal of spending some amount of time finding a partner. Or a goal of hitting up everyone you know with more than $5 for investment money. At every step of the way, there should be tangible goals. Even if they aren’t all obvious from the beginning, you should be nailing them down as you go along.

Meeting goals can be hard. It can be very hard work. But the first step is to really know what the goals are. Setting goals is not an extremely difficult thing to do. It takes some time, a little personal honesty, and probably a pen and paper. Whatever time and effort you put into setting your goals will pay itself back many times over, when you actually meet your goals. Once you’ve actually set real goals, you’ll know what you want, you’ll know what you need to do to get it, and you’ll know how to track your progress.

People waste their entire lives dreaming and never doing. All the hoping in the world won’t turn a single dream into reality. But hard work can turn goals into reality. Don’t sell yourself short.

Why a Career in Computer Programming Doesn’t Suck (A Response)

This is a good article I came a cross in the internet. One my colleages gave the link
thought of posting to the blog

This is a response to the author of Half Sigma, who wrote a post about why a career in computer programming sucks. This topic could be considered slightly off-topic for this blog, but I’m a programmer, so I feel it’s career-related enough that it falls slightly into the realm of this blog. Besides, I want to respond.

Sigma (as I’ll refer to you throughout this post), you are way off. I’m afraid that your arguments are weak and poorly formed. You’ve made erroneous and biased assertions and based your arguments on those false premises. You clearly don’t like being a programmer, but your personal dislike for the job (or the field) doesn’t make it bad. It just makes it a bad fit for you.

I’m going to address your arguments point-by-point, so readers can more easily refer back to your post for context.

  • Temporary nature of knowledge capital

    You argued that because so much of the everyday knowledge in programming is transitory, there’s basically no benefit to hiring an experienced programmer over an unexperienced one (or a programmer with relatively little experience). It’s true that Cobol is effectively dead, and “Significant Cobol Experience” isn’t exactly the best way to headline a resume these days. It’s not true, however, that experience is worthless. The transient parts of programming change: the languages, the tools. But much of programming does not change. Good software engineering practices and concerns have not changed: Encapsulation, clarity, patterns, security, stability. These are all as important today as when they were first conceived.

    The fundamentals do not change. A linked list is still a linked list. Binary searches and hash maps are still faster than linear searches on large data sets. If an experienced programmer can write the code for a linked list, or understand when a linear search is bad (or — gasp — when it’s good), then he’s definitely got something to offer beyond the average recent graduate (who sadly, doesn’t understand pointers or Big-O notation).

    There’s even a great deal of technology retention from the “transient” aspects of programming. I still use Make at work, and it’s been around in various forms since 1977. Some of the languages haven’t changed, either. C is still C. I’ve got the K&R book, and it’s still a good reference. Even newfangled languages like C# inherited a great deal from C. Certainly, there have been massive changes, but variables still have to be declared, and a for loop still looks like a for loop.

    New languages and tools don’t have to leave experienced programmers behind. When Canola oil became popular, all the experienced chefs weren’t suddenly replaced by recent culinary school graduates. Scrambling an egg is about more than just what fat is used. Likewise, CAD didn’t put all the draftsmen and architects out of work. And Java hasn’t put all the C programmers out of work, either. There’s fundamental knowledge in any field that isn’t tied to a particular technology, and experience builds on this fundamental knowledge. If all your knowledge is all tied to a particular programming language, or a particular API, that’s a huge problem, but not because Q# is newer than Y++.

  • Low prestige

    Sigma, I don’t know if you expected prestige when you signed up for your computer science degree, but if you did, it’s your fault. Engineering and science disciplines simply do not have the prestige that law and medicine do. This isn’t a problem with computer science any more than it’s a problem with physics. It’s just a fact. If prestige is what you’re after, the sciences are not for you.

    You claim that Ivy League students aren’t majoring in programming. Well, I disagree. You say that what MIT teaches isn’t really programming. Well, I don’t know anyone but you who thinks MIT isn’t churning out real programmers. Yes, MIT is actually teaching the fundamentals of computer science, but I’m unclear how that’s a problem. Even “low-level” work in ASP.NET is benefited by a proper education. If someone can’t understand recursion, then quite frankly, I don’t want them building my e-commerce site, because they’re unlikely to be able to understand basic security, either. (I’m not sure exactly when ASP.NET became considered “low-level”, either.)

    The fact that schools like Devry and the University of Phoenix churn out “programming” degrees doesn’t indicate that programming is low prestige. All it indicates is that programmers are in demand, and the regulations are lax. If Devry could churn out MDs, you better believe that they would.

    Programmers aren’t lacking in prestige. They get the same prestige that anyone else in the sciences does. Civil engineers aren’t treated like lawyers. They get the same basic respect that programmers get. If you don’t think you’re respected at work, then leave. If you think you should be treated better, then find a better job. If you are worth more, then someone will give you more.

  • The foreignization of computer programming

    Quite frankly, your blurb about foreignization says more about your own prejudices and fears than it does about any real problem with the industry.

    First off, outsourcing is not a real problem. People have been saying that outsourcing would put everyone out of work since I started college. It still hasn’t happened. Yes, some companies have outsourced IT workers. Those workers found new jobs. (And many of those jobs came back, too.) There are still more jobs to fill than there are programmers to fill them. This is especially the case with good programmers. Bad programmers might get their jobs outsourced and be in trouble. Good programmers can always get other jobs. The really good programmers never even work places that would be dumb enough to outsource the programming jobs.

    As far as bringing in good foreign talent, I’m not sure why that’s a bad thing. You’re being a complete alarmist by claiming that foreign IT workers are taking all the jobs from Americans, and that the domestic market has been nearly abandoned to foreigners. Only someone who’s not good at their job should have to worry about losing it to someone who is good. Bill Gates stated recently that the government issues 65000 H1-B visas each year. Meanwhile, the number of computer science jobs is growing at a rate of 100000 per year. He’s pushing for looser regulations on H1-B visas because there’s still a shortage of good programmers.

    You say that foreignization causes a vicious cycle of low pay when combined with low prestige. This only makes sense if programmers have low prestige, which is not the case. Additionally, Microsoft and other companies pay the same wages to H1-B workers as citizen workers, according to Gates. No one’s bringing in genius programmers and paying them minimum wage.

    I don’t know why you care so much about how “America” views our “industry full of brown people”, either. It may be that the average person thinks less of the profession because many programmers are foreigners. But how is that even relevant? Random Joe on the street doesn’t cut my paycheck, so it doesn’t matter if he thinks less of programmers.

    You also say that Americans have more rights to the money created here than foreigners do. Well, many of the people who’ve helped drive America to be a superpower were, and are, foreign-born. If I hire a programmer, he is helping to create wealth for America. It doesn’t matter if he’s foreign or not.

  • Project management sucks too

    Not everyone wants to move into management. It’s also possible to be a highly-paid programmer without moving into management, so your initial premises are invalid.

    Older programmers don’t have to move into management to avoid ending up “underemployed fifty-year-olds, only suitable for lower paying IT jobs like ‘QA’ because they no longer know how to use the latest and supposedly greatest programming tools”. I don’t know why you think experience is worthless, but I really don’t understand why you think it’s impossible for anyone older than 25 to continue to learn. There’s no magical switch that flips when a programmer leaves college that stops him from learning new things. If a programmer is 50 and hasn’t learned anything since he was 25, he probably deserves to be unemployed. He’s clearly not the best asset. If a 50 year old civil engineer had been unwilling to learn anything after college, he wouldn’t be able to use CAD, and he wouldn’t know the latest building codes, and he deservedly would be unemployed.

    You also don’t seem to understand what “management” is if you think it shouldn’t involve planning and status reporting. That’s exactly what management is. The people who hold the purse aren’t managers, they are Directors and Executives. Directors tell managers what to do, and managers manage the day-to-day details. Management isn’t generally glamorous. It’s not a situation unique to programming.

    You also state that we need stronger industry bodies from the computer science profession. On this, I completely agree. The low quality of the average computer science graduate is enough to demonstrate that there are problems within the industry. We need industry bodies to set minimum competency requirements. The barrier to entry should be high, not to rule out foreigners, but to weed out incompetence. I think this needs to grow from the programmers themselves (much as lawyers run the Bar and doctors head medical boards). And I do agree that programmers should not be managed by non-programmers.

  • The working conditions suck

    Sadly, there is truth to this. Some places do not appreciate their employees, and therefore do not treat them well. This is not, however, a problem exclusive to programming.

    This is an area where an industry body would help. I think if we had an board which weeded out all the incompetent programmers, there would be less of a problem with poor tools. I think many companies simply cannot tell a good programmer from a bad one. And so they have a mix (mostly bad, a few good). A bad programmer isn’t going to be more productive with two monitors, and I think companies recognize this, and assume they are better off not giving dual monitors to anyone, rather than trying to give them selectively, or wasting the money giving them to everyone.

    Of course, there are many places that do appreciate their programmers, and do whatever is necessary to keep them happy. These are the places that programmers want to work, and these are likewise the places that you will find most of the good programmers employed.

Sigma, for the most part, your arguments don’t reveal any deep problems with the programming profession. They reveal instead serious issues that you seem to have with your choice to be a programmer. Your aversion to learning new technology seems to be a major problem. You chose one of the fastest-evolving fields in modern times, so this is unlikely to change. Programmers need to be lifelong learners. I’m not sure what else to tell you. Lots of people change their professions. It’s not too late for you. Alternatively, you could find a job using a stable technology that you enjoy. Maybe you should find somewhere that will let you use C or C++, both of which are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

To the readers, pick a field that’s compatible with your own nature. You’ll be much happier. If you find that you’ve chosen the wrong field, change it. It’s just a job. Find something you actually enjoy, even if it means a massive career change. It’s better to be poorly-paid and happy than highly-paid and miserable.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Olympic torch

Hoax Mails

I am just wondering why people send hoax mails……

Well ,truly in most of the hoax mails are harmless but fills our inbox and become nuisance to us and to others as we send those to another.

Important

Many virus hoaxes:

  • falsely claim to describe an extremely dangerous virus
  • use pseudo-technical language to make impressive-sounding (but impossible) claims
  • falsely claim that the report was issued or confirmed by a well-known company
  • ask you to forward it to all your friends and colleagues

As usual, you are urged not to pass on warnings of this kind, as the continued re-forwarding of these hoaxes simply wastes time and email bandwidth.

It is possible that you may receive a hoax via email with a file attached. Obviously, such file attachments should be treated with caution as they may be virus infected. What I recommend is delete virus hoax emails, whether they contain file attachments or not.


This is a new hoax which has been distributed across the internet. The report is untrue, and the email can be safely deleted.I got this from one of my colleages in the University.

The text of the hoax reads as follows:

Please read the attached warning issued today.

PLEASE FORWARD THIS WARNING AMONG FRIENDS, FAMILY AND CONTACTS:

You should be alert during the next days:
Do not open any message with an attached filed called "Invitation" regardless of who sent it .

It is a virus that opens an Olympic Torch which "burns" the whole hard disc C of your computer. This virus will be received from someone who has your e-mail address in his/her contact list, that is why you should send this e-mail to all your contacts. It is better to receive this message 25 times than to receive the virus and open it.

If you receive a mail called "invitation", though sent by a friend, do not open it and shut down your computer immediately.

This is the worst virus announced by CNN, it has been classified by Microsoft as the most destructive virus ever.

This virus was discovered by McAfee yesterday, and there is no repair yet for this kind of virus.

This virus simply destroys the Zero Sector of the Hard Disc, where the vital information is kept.

SEND THIS E-MAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW, COPY THIS E-MAIL AND SEND IT TO YOUR FRIENDS AND REMEMBER: IF YOU SEND IT TO THEM, YOU WILL BENEFIT ALL OF US.




Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Delta, Northwest agree to combine


ATLANTA - Delta Air Lines Inc. and Northwest Airlines Corp., squeezed by record high fuel prices and a slowing economy, are combining in a stock-swap deal that would create the world's biggest carrier. The boards of both companies gave the deal the go-ahead Monday.

The announcement could spur other airline combinations. The most likely scenario that has been talked about is a potential deal between United and Continental airlines.

Under the terms of the Delta transaction, Northwest shareholders will receive 1.25 Delta shares for each Northwest share they own. The exchange ratio represents a premium to Northwest shareholders of 16.8 percent based on Monday's closing stock prices.

That currently values Northwest at almost $3.63 billion based on 277 million Northwest shares that the companies said are outstanding.

Delta said the combined airline, which will be called Delta, will have an enterprise value of $17.7 billion, which includes the combined market values of the two companies and combined net debt. It will be based in Atlanta, and Delta CEO Richard Anderson will head the combined company.

Delta Chairman Daniel Carp will become chairman of the new board of directors and Northwest Chairman Roy Bostock will become vice chairman. Delta President and Chief Financial Officer Ed Bastian will retain his titles.

The new board will be made up of 13 members, seven of whom will come from Delta's board, including Anderson, and five of whom will come from Northwest's board, including Bostock and Doug Steenland, the current Northwest CEO. One director will come from the Air Line Pilots Association, the union that represents pilots from both carriers. Anderson told reporters on a conference call it will be a Delta pilot holding the voting seat.

"We are confident the transaction will go forward and be approved," Steenland said.

There will be an unspecified number of job cuts or transfers through the consolidation of overlapping corporate and administrative functions, Delta said. The two airlines employ more than 80,000 people combined. The company expects no involuntary furloughs of front-line employees and said the existing pension plans for both companies' employees will be protected.

Delta doesn't plan to close any of the two airlines' hubs.

Delta also said that it has agreed with its pilot leadership to extend its existing collective bargaining agreement through the end of 2012. The agreement, which is subject to pilot ratification, will allow the combined company to realize the revenue synergies of the transaction, Delta said. It also provides the Delta pilots a 3.5 percent equity stake in the new company and other enhancements to their current contract.

The agreement does not cover Northwest pilots.

Delta said it will use its best efforts to reach a combined Delta-Northwest pilot agreement, including resolution of pilot seniority integration, prior to the closing of the merger.

U.S.-based non-pilot employees of both companies will get a 4 percent equity stake in the new airline when the deal closes, Delta said.

Northwest pilots and the union representing most of Northwest's ground workers immediately announced they would fight the combination.

Dave Stevens, chairman of the Northwest branch of the Air Line Pilots Association, said in a prepared statement, "The risk to Northwest Airlines and to the Northwest pilot group from letting this merger proceed, as it is now structured, is simply too great."

Northwest didn't consult with the union that represents its baggage handlers, ramp workers and ticket agents, said Joseph Tiberi, a spokesman for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

"If the airline wanted the support of their employees they should have brought us in and discussed it with us earlier," he said.

Lee Moak, head of Delta's pilots union, said Delta hopes cooler heads will prevail.

"It takes two to fight," Moak told The Associated Press. "We don't see a fight here. We see a cooperative relationship with the Northwest pilots to bring everybody to parity as soon as possible."

The two pilots unions were unable to agree on integrating seniority lists before the combination was announced. A joint contract they had reached was never consummated.

The announcement comes a year after the two carriers emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Both carriers are losing money again but are in much better shape than the four much-smaller airlines that have filed for bankruptcy or gone out of business in recent weeks.

The deal will need antitrust approval, and integrating the work forces of fully unionized Northwest and Delta, where pilots are currently the only major unionized work group, will be tricky.

The joining of Atlanta-based Delta and Eagan, Minn.-based Northwest, if approved by regulators and shareholders of both companies, will result in combined annual revenue of $31.7 billion, vaulting it ahead of Fort Worth, Texas-based AMR Corp.'s American Airlines for the top spot in the U.S.

It would be the biggest carrier in the world in terms of traffic, before any further domestic capacity cuts and any divestitures that might be required by antitrust regulators.

The agreement comes after several months of merger discussions between Delta and Northwest and at one time between Delta and Chicago-based UAL Corp.'s United Airlines. Analysts believe a Delta-Northwest combination will stand up better to regulatory scrutiny because the two carriers have less overlap, even though a Delta-United combination could create more scale and have greater synergies.

Years of mounting losses forced Delta and Northwest to file for bankruptcy protection in New York on Sept. 14, 2005. Both emerged from bankruptcy as leaner carriers last spring, after shedding billions in costs during their reorganizations.

While in bankruptcy, Delta fended off a hostile takeover bid by Tempe, Ariz.-based US Airways Group Inc.

Delta said its plan to remain on its own would create more value than US Airways' $9.8 billion bid, which Delta argued would not pass regulatory hurdles. The value argument never materialized, as Delta's post-emergence market capitalization started out $1 billion less than US Airways' bid and less than the $9.4 billion to $12 billion Delta projected. Its market value has fallen precipitously in the months since amid airline industry woes, including high fuel prices and a general inability to gain traction raising ticket prices.

Many analysts predicted an eventual Delta-Northwest merger after Anderson, a former Northwest CEO, was named last August to be the chief executive officer of Delta.

Anderson, who was Northwest's CEO from 2001 to 2004, immediately sought to quiet those suggestions, telling Delta's pilots union chairman the morning his appointment was announced that he believed in Delta's standalone plan and that "he was not coming in as CEO to facilitate a merger with Northwest."

But eight months later, that's what Anderson is doing, and many analysts believe he didn't have a choice amid plummeting airline market values and soaring fuel prices.

Wall Street and some airline executives have pushed for consolidation for years, arguing that too many seats are chasing too few passengers. The resulting discounting has made it hard for airlines to cover their expenses.

However, Northwest and Delta overlap relatively little in the U.S. — which could actually help them gain antitrust approval. Delta's routes are strongest in the eastern U.S. and to Latin America and Europe. Northwest would complement that with its near-lock in the Midwest along with flights to its Tokyo hub and other points in Asia.

Northwest's Asian routes have been one of its main appeals to other carriers. It and United are the only two U.S. carriers with the rights to pick up new passengers in Japan and fly them farther into Asia. Delta and Northwest also complement each other internationally because they are both part of a marketing alliance that includes Air France-KLM.

Air France-KLM had said previously it would consider making an investment in the combined company, but that did not play out. Delta said Air France-KLM supports the deal because it would solidify the joint venture involving Delta, Northwest and Air France-KLM.

U.S. airlines get the majority of their revenue from domestic service, though that trend has shifted in recent years as more carriers, particularly Delta and Northwest, have sought to increase international service.


Friday, April 11, 2008

Google App Engine Now Open

Google on Tuesday announced its new Google App Engine, and opened a preview version to the first 10,000 users to sign up. The service essentially does for Web apps what Google Blogger does for bloggers: provides a hosting solution for Web developers to build their apps on top of, integrating with other Google services and sparing developers the trouble of server maintenance and scalability. Basically, Google wants to be your (free) sysadmin.

As Google says in Tuesday's press release, "The goal is to make it easier for web developers to build and scale applications, instead of focusing on system administration and maintenance." This looks to be a good way to counteract the "TechCrunch Effect"—server slowdown in the early days due to the traffic crush from early adopters. Google App Engine gives users enough CPU power and bandwidth to handle around 5 million page views per month.

The other benefit Google touts is easy integration with other Google services, through both built-in components and Google's APIs.

The first 10,000 registrants will get access to Google App Engine and 500MB of storage for free. More storage and bandwidth will be available for purchase at a later date. As of right now, there are still spots open for registrants, so go claim yours.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Windies Win the Opening in historical Style

Chanderpaul clinches final-ball thriller

West Indies v Sri Lanka, 1st ODI, Trinidad - April 10, 2008

West Indies 236 for 9 (Chanderpaul 62*, Gayle 52, Mendis 3-39) beat Sri Lanka 235 for 7 (Kapugedera 95, Silva 67, Bravo 4-32) by one wicket

Shivnarine Chanderpaul carried West Indies to a thrilling final-ball one-wicket win in the first one-day international in Port of Spain after being left needing 10 off two deliveries. He responded with a straight drive before flicking a Chaminda Vaas full toss over deep midwicket to send the Trinidad crowd into wild celebrations.

An enthralling match had swung one way then the other before the final act. Sri Lanka recovered from 49 for 5 to post a competitive total with Chamara Kapugedera hitting a career-best 95 in a record sixth-wicket stand of 159 with Chamara Silva. West Indies were well placed on 109 for 1 before Chris Gayle fell for 52, and when Dwayne Bravo was run out the lower-order was exposed. Sri Lanka appeared to have done enough, but Chanderpaul had other ideas.

He'd struggled to find the boundary, and the strike, in the final stages but clipped a four off the final ball of the 49th over. Only three runs came off the first four balls of the last over from Vaas before Chanderpaul slammed a drive past mid-off, followed by the match-clinching six which sailed over Mahela Jayawardene on the fence. Jayawardene knew he wasn't going to haul in a last-ditch catch and although he made his displeasure clear at the rare blemish from Vaas, on reflection he'll find plenty to be pleased about from his team's performance.

This series marks something of a watershed for Sri Lanka as they start to build for the next World Cup. Muttiah Muralitharan has been rested, something that will become the norm for non-major tournaments or series, while Sanath Jayasuriya has been dropped to blood a young top order. Throw in the absence of Lasith Malinga, Dilhara Fernando and Farveez Maharoof through injury and this was Sri Lanka's weakest one-day bowling attack for some time. After Vaas's 392 wickets, the next best was Tillakaratne Dilshan with 45.

It didn't leave Jayawardene much to work with, especially when Ishara Amerasinghe was taken to the cleaners and Kapugedera's bowling was less successful than his batting. It was the debutant spinner, Ajantha Mendis, who stood up with three wickets leaving West Indies dumbfounded by his variations to suggest Sri Lanka may have unearthed someone to help ease the burden on Muralitharan.

Mendis showed the calmness and control of a seasoned international player, not a 23-year-old playing his first game. He broke through a 56-run stand between Gayle and Ramnaresh Sarwan, later adding Darren Sammy and, one ball after being launched for six, claiming Jerome Taylor in his further spells.

Nuwan Kulasekera was another to answer his captain's call with top-order wickets. Starting with Devon Smith he also removed Sarwan and two balls later trapped Marlon Samuels lbw. Bravo decided the best way to counter the flurry of wickets was with aggression and joined the list of batsmen to take a liking to Amerasinghe. He played his trademark pull off one leg through midwicket before unfurling the shot of the match, a back-foot drive high over extra-cover which struck one of the photographers a nasty blow on the head.

It was a piece of headless cricket that opened the door again for Sri Lanka as Bravo succumbed to a misunderstanding with Chanderpaul and both ended up at the same end. Bravo's dismissal left West Indies needing 67 off 12 overs and the onus was on Chanderpaul. He was composed, but his colleagues less so. Patrick Browne couldn't pick Mendis' box of tricks, but his team-mates will forgive him that. They will be less generous about his dismissal. One ball after easing the pressure with a sweet six off Dilshan he tried a repeat and found Mendis at long on. However, in the final throes it was the two most experienced players on the field who went head-to-head, with Chanderpaul coming out on top

West Indies would never have envisaged such a close call after they'd taken advantage of early movement to reduce Sri Lanka's top order to ruins. Bravo claimed three, including Jayawardene who drove loosely to backward point, after Kumar Sangakkara had fallen in similar fashion against Taylor.

Kapugedera has struggled to nail a consistent place in the middle order since making his debut two years ago but has continued to knock on the door with performances for Sri Lanka A. He expanded his strokeplay in the closing overs, taking two sixes off Sulieman Benn plus another off Fidel Edwards, and seemed to be timing his pursuit of three figures nicely until falling to the penultimate ball of the innings.

He'd been helped in the well-paced fightback by Silva, the more experienced player who was happy to let Kapugedera play his natural game. With the charge on in the final ten overs Silva also began to open his shoulders, but picked out midwicket for a 96-ball 67, full of inventive strokes and quick running, to hand Bravo his fourth wicket. Bravo's all-round contribution earned him the match award, but the Trinidad crowd made it clear they knew who West Indies had to thank for pulling off a victory that had appeared to have slipped away.

From cricinfo




Thursday, April 3, 2008

"What is 'TMI'? What Does It Mean?"

So, you're conversing online in a chat room or in an internet game, and you keep seeing this odd expression "TMI". People send this "tmi" message periodically, but without any explanation.

Well, this peculiar acronym expression is a funny expression of distaste. It stands for "too much information!". It is the same as saying "I didn't need to hear that" or "that is taboo or obnoxious for you to share that". The tmi expression, like many other Internet expressions, is part of online conversation culture.

"What is a 'Hacker'? Is that the same as a 'hax0r'?"

You've heard of "hackers", and you've seen sensationalized versions of hackers in movies. But what exactly is a hacker? And are they the same as "haxors"?

Originally, a "hacker" was someone who illegally and unethically broke into other people's computers and networks. And indeed, that original 1980's definition still applies today in the 21st century. However, the term "hacker" (also spelled creatively as "haxor" and "Hax0r") now has multiple sub-meanings.

General meaning: hacker = lawbreaker
A hacker/haxor/Hax0r is a gifted but unethical computer user who breaks into computers and networks, usually to perform theft or digital vandalism. This is the classic definition of a hacker, and describes those computer users who willfully seek to destroy or steal from other people's networks.

Academic meaning: hacker = creative artist
An "academic hacker" is not interested in vandalizing or stealing, but rather in creating clever programs and beautiful interfaces.
Often, an academic hacker will take existing programmatic code, and improve upon it through clever alterations and additions. Their "hacking" is about obsessively innovating computer code to perform something more beautifully or more efficiently. Academic hackers, in general, are harmless and do not seek to hurt other people's networks.

Computer Security meaning: hacker = security technician
Not unlike a store security guard who is a former convict, a computer security hacker is a talented user who is employed in helping to protect computer networks. You will hear the term "ethical hacker" to describe these types of professionals. While they themselves may not be completely ethical, these professionals perform very technical security work in exchange for money. It is not surprising to see ethical hackers spending their paychecks on very expensive personal computers in their personal lives, so they can play online games after work. As long as they have a good paying job to support their personal habits, a computer security hacker is usually not motivated to destroy nor steal from their employer.

Hobby Computer meaning: hacker = tinkerer
There are many "hobby hackers" out there. These are users who like to disassemble and modify their own computers for hobby pleasure. Many hobby hackers are gamers who want to extract even more performance from their gaming computers. These individuals will often spend thousands of dollars on custom computer cases and liquid cooling modifications. But hobby hackers also like to do small "white collar crimes", like downloading pirated movies and music. By this definition, yes, millions of p2p downloaders are hobby hackers. And indeed, if you have ever modified your router and firewall to allow faster p2p downloads, you could describe yourself as a hobby hacker. Gratefully, only a small percentage of hobby hackers ever escalate into becoming unethical hackers.

Internet 101: Beginner's Handbook

This is a very useful article for Beginners and for basic net users. I found this from about.com

Welcome to the vast and exciting world of both the internet and the world wide web! At first, the net and web are overwhelming to beginners, and there is no actual internet "Owner's Manual".What follows is a collection of explanations designed for both the internet beginner and the self-taught intermediate. Although best read from front to back, you are welcome to browse by specific topics below.

Remember to check back often for updates! This page changes regularly to reflect the dynamic internet and world wide web.

Again, welcome to the internet, and we hope you enjoy the free tutorials in below link!

visit
http://netforbeginners.about.com/cs/internet101/a/inet_handbook.htm

The Invisible Web

i think you might be wondering what the hell is thus "Invisible Web????"

Many untrained users have the naive expectation that they can locate anything on the world wide web by using Google or Yahoo or Ask.com. No, as powerful as these search engines are, they do not index everything on the world wide web. In fact, search engines index less than 10% of the entire web! That remaining 90% is called the "Invisible Web", or in other words, "The Cloaked Web" or "The Deep Web". This is the massive content that is publicly available, but hidden from regular search engines.

Indeed, this is a tough concept to grasp - that billions of web pages cannot be found by Google. But it's true, billions of pages are beyond the abilities of search engine cataloging. The robot "spiders" which scan and catalog the world wide web are limited... they cannot see nor index everything.

To better visualize this concept, let's start with some size estimates from Google.com, Yahoo.com, Cyberatlas, and MIT. These stats are current to Fall 2007:
  • Google.com indexes 12.5 billion public web pages.
  • 71 billion static web pages are publicly-available. These pages can easily be found by Google and other search engines. (e.g. www.honda.com, www.australia.gov.au)
  • 6.5 billion static pages are hidden from the public. As private intranet content, these are the corporate pages that are only open to employees of specific companies. (e.g. employees.honda.com, secure.australia.gov.au)
  • 220+ billion database-driven pages are completely invisible to Google. These invisible pages are not the regular web pages you and I can make. Rather, these are dynamic database reports that exist only when called from large databases.
    (e.g. custom online car quote for Shelly, Australian government discussion on aboriginal taxation)
Google, considered the best search database today, can only catalog a fraction of this monstrous content. Even with electronic spiders to catalog millions of web pages each week, Google current indexes only 12.5 billion out of the 220+ billion pages out there...less than 6% of all available internet content.

So if Google only catalogs 6% of the World Wide Web, and other search engines catalog even less, then where is the remaining 90%of web content hidden?
Invisible Web

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Create Table without using mouse and menus

Do you know Its possible create Table without using mouse and menus in MS word and Outlook. Here its that...

Type the content (+--+---+--+) in Microsoft Word and press Enter. One row of a table will be created and for more rows you can press TAB.

Step 1:

+----+------ --+-----+

Step 2: (After pressing Enter having the cursor at the last '+' Result will be like the below one)

Step 3: (press TAB to create more Rows)

In this ' + ' represents the column borders and ' - ' represents the length of the each column. It is one of the Easter Egg in Microsoft Word.

This Simple way can be used at urgent times.

Usaha Tegas takes 35% stake in Sri Lanka Telecom

PETALING JAYA: Usaha Tegas Sdn Bhd is paying US$297mil for a 35.2% stake in Sri Lanka Telecom to pave the way for Maxis Communications Bhd’s much-awaited entry into the Sri Lanka telecoms market.

Yesterday, Usaha Tegas, via unit Global Telecommunications Holdings NV, paid a 22% premium – or 50.5 rupees per share – for the stake in Sri Lanka Telecom from Japan’s Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp (NTT). The premium was based on Sri Lanka Telecom’s stock closing price on Monday on the Colombo Stock Exchange.

Usaha Tegas also controls Maxis indirectly. Maxis also has stakes in telecom companies in Indonesia and India and talks of its interest to enter the Sri Lanka market have been on for more than a year.

According to Reuters, the deal valued Sri Lanka Telecom at US$844mil. Global Telecommunications would launch a mandatory offer for the remaining shares in Sri Lanka Telekom, of which 49.5% is owned by the government. The public holds the remaining 15.31%.

The sale saw Sri Lanka Telecom’s shares surge 16.4% to a record 48 rupees, which also gave a boost to the Colombo Stock Exchange, the wire agency said.

It added that Sri Lanka Telecom was among the biggest companies in the local exchange, accounting for about 10% of the market’s capitalisation. Its capitalisation was around 86.63 billion rupees after the deal, according to data from the bourse.

How Usaha Tegas will fund the acquisition or the mandatory offer is unclear as no details were provided.

Sri Lanka Telecom, formerly a government-owned company, controls 87% of the fixed-line network. NTT invested in the company in 1997, a year after Sri Lanka Telecom was incorporated as a public limited company. It was listed on the Colombo Stock Exchange in 2002.

According to its website, Sri Lanka Telecom acquired Mobitel, the third largest mobile operator, and it is the only integrated operator in Sri Lanka to offer fixed-line, data and mobile services.

Another Lankan Company For Go on Sale

GTH buys Rs. 32 b stake in SLT


Single largest transaction in the history of the Colombo Stock Exchange:



Global Telecommunications Holdings N.V. ("GTH"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Usaha Tegas Sdn Bhd ("UT"), a Malaysia based investment holding company, acquired 635,076,318 shares representing 35.19% of Sri Lanka Telecom PLC ("SLT" or the "Company") from NTT Communications Corporation for a purchase consideration of Rs. 32 billion.

As a result of this acquisition, GTH will be required to undertake a Mandatory General Offer for the remaining shares of SLT which it does not already hold. An offer document containing all details of the offer will be sent to shareholders in due course.

The Board of GTH views the investment in SLT to be a strategic investment and looks forward to working with the other shareholders of the Company, including the Government of Sri Lanka and government related and other Sri Lankan institutions, to further grow the company and enhance shareholder value.

GTH, through common ownership, is affiliated to Maxis Communications Berhad which is regarded as one of the leading telecommunication service providers in Asia with operations in Malaysia, India and Indonesia.

GTH and UT will commit resources to support the Board and management of SLT to create additional opportunities for its employees and to achieve the overall objectives of the Company.

The investment in SLT, which builds on the historical, cultural and trading relations between Sri Lanka and Malaysia, is the largest single transaction on the Colombo Stock Exchange, and reflects confidence in the long term prospects of the Sri Lankan economy and that of the telecommunications sector.

Usaha Tegas Sdn Bhd Incorporated Malaysia is an investment holding company with significant and controlling interests in several entities involved in telecommunications, broadcasting and media, leisure and entertainment, energy and property development and ownership - including Maxis Communications Berhad, Astro All Asia Networks plc, Powertek Berhad and Overseas Union Enterprise Limited among others.

UT is based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia while its investment and business interests are held both within and outside Malaysia.

UT is controlled by the trustee of a discretionary trust, the beneficiaries of which are members of the family of Ananda Krishnan Tatparanandam and foundations including those for charitable purposes.