OneNote on IPad

In the world of cross-platforms technology, I wondered how long it would take Microsoft to capitalise on the tablet market with Microsoft OneNote 2010. OneNote is one of the products by Microsoft that I saw it had the potential to be utilised on all platforms from IPad, Andriod and not to mention on its own tablets as an application. 

I spent hours looking for an application that will synchronise my work or ideas. I did find a very good application called Evernote. It worked very well but I had already done most of my work in OneNote and was in the process of transferring the work to Evernote (though I was eerie of doing so). One reason that I like Evernote was the fact that you could work offline (if you have a wifi enable IPad) and when you get connected to a wifi, it automatically sync. That is one flow with OneNote at the moment, you have to be connected to access your work.  

Either way, this has saved me a lot of time and headache as I am going to continue my work in OneNote and stop the transfer of all my work. I will find a better use of Evernote on my IPad as is also a powerful application with lots of potential for my business. Microsoft has finally utilised the cross-platform to bring powerful OneNote to all platforms.

Funny Things I Receive In Email

Why Malawian Mini Bus Drivers Go To Heaven

A Priest dies and waits in line at the Gates of Heaven. Just ahead of him is a guy in casual Jeans and T-Shirt.

The Angel addresses this guy, 'Who are you, so that I may know whether or not to admit you to Heaven?'The guy replies, 'I'm Samalani Mbewe, a Mini Bus driver from Kawale, Lilongwe.'The Angel consults his list, smiles and says to Mbewe, 'Enter into the  Paradise .' So the Kawale driver enters Heaven and the Priest is now next in line.

Without being asked, he proclaims, 'I am Father Anaclet Chilombo of  St. Johns Cathedral of  Mangochi for the last 41 years.'
The Angel once again consults his list and says, 'I am sorry, you are on waiting list. You have to pass some tests before you get entry to the  Kingdom  of  Heaven .'
The Priest says, 'Just a minute. That man was a Mini Bus driver, and you issued him an instant entry. But I have to go through more tests. How can this be?'
The Angel replies, 'Father, I am sorry but up here, we go by results. While you preached, people slept. While he drove, people prayed.' 

No Fly Zone Or Decleration of War?

Dictatorship comes in many forms and I must make is clear that I do not subscribe to any form of dictatorship. Be it a leader of a nation or IMF, World Bank or western nations trying to tell poor countries how to run their countries and enforcing ideals that appeal to them. But the questions that rages in my mind is: "How can you say you will never support a government that gets into power by force, yet all the nations involved are supporting the rebels?" Once the citizens (of any nation) picked up arms and started fighting against the government forces, they became rebels; so the argument in the article that 'Qaddafi killing his own people' doesn't convince me to justify the involvement of the foreign nations in Libya to defend "it's own citizens" when they are carrying arms to topple the leader of the country. Be it a dictator or not, he is the leader of the country. The united nations resolution of  intervention includes "any necessary measures to prepare for humanitarian aid". This is not short of declaration of war on Libya. I don't agree with Qaddafi using airplanes driving rebels out, but taking out the county's air defenses without concrete proof who shelled the city (as reported by Reuters that the video was not verified as to who shot in the city) proves to me that their is more to their (US and Europe) involvement than protecting the rebels and preparing for humanitarian aid. But I thought the purpose of the no fly zone was to prevent him from using air power? Then why bombing the air defenses instead of flying over the airspace to make sure that none of his planes are taking off and when they take off, then they can shoot it down. That makes more sense than bombarding the infrastructure that will be needed afterwards. What will happen when (if this will happen) another leader comes to power? This means that they have to start rebuilding over again. All this war has been a propaganda war trying to oust a leader not liked by the US and Europe.
Of course it started with the peaceful demonstration demanding democracy and violent response by the government. But the essence of democracy by force or through war does not bring true democracy. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Mozambique fighting for democracy (20yrs) and no democracy came until fighting stopped. Angola is another example. There are many non-violent ways to achieving democracy in a country. Look at Mandela and the ANC in South Africa; people were killed by the state during apartheid but achieved democracy through firm and consistent pressure of the government. If you try to use force to topple a dictator, he will almost always respond with force. But if the citizens pick up guns trying to fight him, he will be ruthless as he has the resources of the state to his disposal. But if you firmly demand the change, reluctantly they will give up the power. Such is the case in Tunisia and Egypt.
One point I must make is that, no foreign nation should be involved in the matters of sovereign nations only when there is proof that there are atrocities that are being committed. In this case, the rebels were fighting government forces, and yes there is going to be deaths and ordinary citizens caught in the crossfire will also die. That is the nature of war. When foreign nations get involved in matters of sovereign states, this undermines the sovereignty of the state. I know some will give me examples of Rwanda and Somalia, but the reports that were being broadcast over the airwaves was from one side of the story - the rebel side and was never confirmed. Even Public Radio was so biased that I had to change stations and listen to my Beethoven.
Reporters have to be partial/neutral while casting their doubts on the reports that they are getting knowing there is always two sides to the story. But not US journalism, all that is non existent. Look at the articles below and you will see my point.
When Qaddafi kills his people (rebels) with tanks in Benghazi those are atrocities but when the West kills civilians with Tomahawks in Tripoli, that is protecting civilians. What an irony or is it?

Related articles

• Libyan rebels shoot down warplane near Benghazi (cbsnews.com)
• Libya Hit by Tomahawk Missiles as Qaddafi Decries Crusaders (businessweek.com)
• War with Libya (valorfreedom.wordpress.com)

Simple Banking

Since the introduction of banking (hundreds of years), the concept of banking was simple. People lend money to the banks, the banks pay me interest. Then banks in turn lend the money to someone else who wants to borrow - such as investors - for higher interest. The difference between the interest they collect from the banks borrowers and me was their compensations for the service (also known as profit). This achieved two important social goals - insuring banks liquid flow and protecting capital.
But the dynamics of the banking system has changed. People have not stopped lending money to banks, but banks have decided not to give interest on accounts - especially when they are Free - anymore. With the change in banking system, people are paying out more money to the banks in the form of fees instead of receiving interest on their money. The fees paid comes in the light of easy access to the banking through online, branches and ATM. I thought technology was supposed to make all this cheap and minimise cost? It is just like someone borrowing a car from you and demanding you pay them for borrowing your car. People think this is normal. What people forget is that when the banks lend you money, they have to pay interest to the bank. I wonder if this is that the representation of the change in civil society accepting the change against them.
Think for a second if you didn't put your money in the bank, that means there would be no banks. How about if the banks didn't get their interest on the money lent out, there is no way banks would make any profits. The banks are making interest on money that was lent to them without giving a return to you. You are providing them with raw materials to make profits, therefore must get a cut from the profits, not me paying more. They earn 10% on the loans made out, but offer you .002% of that.
A proposal: How about they deduct the fees that they charge from the interest they are supposed to pay me.
I am thinking of opening up a bank that just does that - interest bearing accounts, no charges for using ATM, having access to the website and visits to the branches. Anyone interested? Leave your comments