McCAin vs Obama's Health Plans

As Obama has argued, the health of the nation's citizens is very
important in making US competitive in the world.

With this in mind, it is obvious that Obama's plan is much better and
Malaysia should emulate it. Obama's Health Plan is much more than what
is offered by the Malaysian Government under BN. In fact, Malaysia is
more similar to McCain's plan, making Malaysia more capitalist than USA.
So much rhetoric about a compassionate BN government.

McCain wants to treat Health Benefits as taxable salary, but give US5000
dollar rebate. Malaysia treats all Health Benefits as taxable salary and
never gives any rebate for Health Insurance.

Under Bush, Health Benefits are not taxable salary, which makes the
current US more humane and compassionate compared to Malaysia. No wonder
US is much more competitive compared to Malaysia. They have much
healthier workers.

All may change with McCain's plans. Despite giving rebates, it
discourages the giving of Health Benefits. Employers will be tempted to
offer higher salaries and workers will be tempted to under insure their
health care. What makes it worse is that, group insurance will be
difficult to negotiate making it much more difficult for older workers
to get health coverage.

Obama's plan offers competition to the private health care by offering
government organised and subsidised health care insurance. This is much
better than the current Malaysian BN govenment offering.

No wonder Malaysia is not competitive and cannot attract skilled
workers. Not only do they have low salaries, they also have much less
health care than even USA.

Malaysian may argue that patients suffering from contagious diseases are
given free treatments at government run hospitals, but this is most
probably provided for free also by the US government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/us/politics/07health.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print
October 7, 2008
Business Cool Toward McCain's Health Coverage Plan
By KEVIN SACK

American business, typically a reliable Republican cheerleader, is
decidedly lukewarm about Senator John McCain's proposal to overhaul the
health care system by revamping the tax treatment of health benefits,
officials with leading trade groups say.

The officials, with organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
Business Roundtable and the National Federation of Independent Business,
predicted in recent interviews that the McCain plan, which eliminates
the exclusion of health benefits from income taxes, would accelerate the
erosion of employer-sponsored health insurance and do little to reduce
the number of uninsured from 45 million.

That is largely the argument made in recent days by Mr. McCain's
opponent, Senator Barack Obama, who has revived a dormant campaign
debate over health care with an intensified attack on the McCain plan.
Conscious that the issue plays well with swing voters, Mr. Obama devoted
a speech on Saturday to characterizing Mr. McCain's plan as "radical"
and a "Washington bait and switch," and he has reinforced the message in
four television advertisements.

That has set off a furious back-and-forth between the campaigns, with
the McCain campaign countering that Mr. Obama's plan also would
undermine employer coverage by mandating that medium and large companies
either provide insurance for their workers or pay a tax. The payments
would help subsidize a new government health plan for low-income people,
and some economists believe it would entice workers away from their
employer-sponsored coverage.

Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, opened his assault two
weeks ago by telling crowds that Mr. McCain "wants to tax your health
benefits." He did not explain that Mr. McCain, the Republican nominee,
would offer tax credits in exchange to cover the increased liability for
many Americans.

Over the weekend, Mr. Obama more accurately characterized the McCain
plan as a swap but one that would work to the detriment of millions.
Middle-class families, he said, would "watch the system they rely on
begin to unravel before their eyes."

The business leaders said that was also their fear. Despite steady
declines this decade, employers still provide coverage to 62 percent of
Americans younger than 65. Surveys show that they want to continue doing
so to attract and maintain a productive workforce.

The business leaders forecast that Mr. McCain's free-market approach
would impose particular burdens on small businesses and old-line
manufacturers that are already struggling.

"To some in the business community, this is very discomforting," said R.
Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the
Chamber of Commerce. "The private marketplace, in my opinion, is ill
prepared today with an infrastructure for an individual-based health
insurance system."

Health economists are ideologically divided over Mr. McCain's plan.
Analysts who support it project that it might provide coverage to 25
million people, while critics predict that the number of newly insured
would peak at five million and then decline.

Though Mr. McCain says his plan would not add to federal spending, the
Tax Policy Center has estimated that it will cost at least $1.3 trillion
over 10 years. And while right-leaning economists emphasize that the
plan would provide a tax cut for the average American, opponents respond
that certain high-earners will face an increase and that some in the
middle class may break even only by reducing their coverage.

The centerpiece of Mr. McCain's plan is the elimination of the provision
that has, since 1954, excluded the value of employer-sponsored health
benefits from a worker's taxable income. The exclusion can be worth
thousands of dollars for some workers.

In its place, Mr. McCain would offer all Americans income tax credits of
$2,500 per person or $5,000 per family for heath coverage, regardless of
how they bought it.

Mr. McCain would not change the ability of companies to deduct health
benefits as a business expense on their corporate income taxes. And
advisers have said he would continue to exclude the value of health
benefits from the payroll taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare.

The income-tax exclusion benefits 162.5 million Americans but costs the
federal government $145.3 billion in foregone revenue, second only to
the tax break for retirement account contributions, according to the
Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

Still, the exclusion has encouraged the pooling of workers into large
purchasing groups that tend to lower costs. And with group coverage, no
one can be denied coverage, everyone pays the same rates and the healthy
and wealthy essentially subsidize the sick and the poor. Consequently,
it is often more expensive to buy equivalent coverage as an individual,
partly because insurers pass along the administrative costs of weeding
out unacceptable risks.

The exclusion has long been criticized as unfair because the 18 million
people who buy health insurance on their own are not entitled to it.
Critics also say that it is most valuable to those in high tax brackets
with the costliest health plans, that it contributes to job-lock, and
that the subsidization of group insurance encourages people to buy more
coverage and consume more health care than they need, driving up health
spending.

Mr. McCain and his health advisers argue that replacing the tax
exclusion with tax credits for all would encourage consumers to shop
more deliberately, stoking competition in the marketplace and lowering
premiums. He would allow them to shop for policies across state lines.

"It will help to change the whole dynamic of the current health care
system by putting individuals and families back in charge and forcing
insurance companies to respond with better service at lower cost," Mr.
McCain wrote recently in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For some workers, depending on their tax bracket and insurance costs,
the new tax credits would exceed the value of the tax exclusion, making
the swap profitable. But with the average employer-sponsored family
policy costing $12,680 this year, other workers would find the exchange
a losing proposition. They would either have to spend more, reduce their
coverage or persuade employers to make up the difference.

Officials with eight business trade groups contacted by The New York
Times predicted the McCain plan would raise costs and force some
employers to stop providing health benefits.

A recent survey of 187 corporate executives by the American Benefits
Council and Miller & Chevalier, a consulting firm, found that
three-fourths felt the repeal of the tax exclusion would have a "strong
negative impact" on their workers. Only 4 percent said they would
provide additional pay to fill any gaps.

John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, an association
of leading chief executive officers, said his group instead supported
extending the tax exclusion to those who bought coverage on their own.

"One of the things we don't want to do," Mr. Castellani said, "is
jeopardize 170 million Americans who do get insurance through their
employers."

A number of business officials are worried that Mr. McCain's tax credits
would lure young and healthy workers into the individual market to take
advantage of cheaper, less-generous policies. That, they say, would
leave employers to cover an older and sicker pool of workers, forcing up
premiums.

Workers who found that they had less buying power with the tax credits
than with the tax exclusion could be expected to pressure employers to
raise salaries or benefit subsidies, the business officials said.

"There are huge questions about the $5,000 per family being an
insufficient amount in terms of being able to purchase the same
coverage," said Mr. Josten with the Chamber of Commerce.

Helen B. Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, a
coalition of 300 companies, agreed that many workers would face a net
loss. "The last thing you want to do to the average working person,
especially when you're bailing out big financial companies, is take
something they hold near and dear partially away," Ms. Darling said.

Economists forecast that the problem would worsen over time because Mr.
McCain, according to advisers, would index his tax credits to overall
inflation. Health insurance premiums have grown four times faster than
inflation since 1999.

James A. Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, said concern
that the tax credits would not keep up with inflation was a primary
reason his 280 member companies "take a very dim view" of repealing the
tax exclusion.

Mr. McCain theorizes that if the government's subsidization of health
care is capped, consumers will cut back on their use of the system,
slowing the growth in spending. But critics worry that he overestimates
his ability to control health costs, and that a growing number of people
will find they cannot obtain traditional coverage.
--
Sabah is heaven. Beautiful shark-free beaches and mountains next to
civilisation with no natural and man-made disasters except Malaysia.
My homepage:
http://othman.000webhost.info/
http://othmana.tripod.com/

Re: USA started affirmative action, not Malaysia

On Oct 2, 12:24 am, adchin <adc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yup, cronies come in all races and creed.  Has nothing to do with having
> to be a Malay person in order to become a minister's crony.
>
> Ok, so back to your subject title of affirmative action.  It's misused in
> Malaysia, do you agree ?  Now what would you do, if you were in the
> position to address this issue ?

1. Give campaigns on "following rules". Malaysians just love to break
all rules. Corruption and misuses are just a manifestation of the
culture of the society.

Many businessmen in Malaysia, proudly proclaims that the only way to
succeed in business is through corruption. When confronted with the
Singapore and Brunei cases, I'm ridiculed of being too naive.

Some even argue that Malaysia is different so normal rules do not
apply. Rules about inflation and monetary policies, and even
engineering practises. The trouble is, they don't have any rule
themselves. The trouble with not following any rule at all is that, we
cannot determine what had been done and therefore cannot make a
thorough analysis.

All rules are not static. They have to be changed with time,but all
these must be documented so that we can monitor the effectiveness of
each rule and reason why they behave the way it was.

2. If some rules are rotten, then request for changes. Unfortunately
Malaysians frown on giving ideas. They view it as giving away secrets
and some even view as insulting.

There should be a way to encourage Malaysians to contribute ideas and
be rewarded for them. Many people question me as to what I can achieve
by giving ideas. Actually many of my ideas were implemented:

A. Internet was my idea. Jaring was initially set up as uucp network
only. Of course, I'm not the only one giving ideas, but I was one of
the few who emailed Awanglah directly with these ideas. He used to
joke with me about KA9Q protocol, but recently, I noticed that Windows
Internet protocols owe a lot to Ka9q.

B. ADSL(Streamyx) was my idea that I posted in this newgroup. Within a
few weeks, Mahathir made the order to TM to introduce ADSL, or
broadband, quoting my exact phrase, "although it is not profitable
now, ...".

The coincidence is just too much. Either Mahathir reads newsgroups, or
someone had forwarded the comments to him, or someone reading this
newsgroup, had forwarded to their respective political or lobby
groups, to be forwarded to the PM.

The latest one was a suggesting for the coast guard equivalent for
Malaysia that I sent through the PM(Abdullah)'s suggestion website.

Also implemented within weeks of me sending these ideas.

Unfortunately I was not even recognised for giving these ideas.
Someone could have stolen my ideas but it does not matter to me,
because we need someone else to develop these ideas, someone closer to
the establishments.

Still, we must encourage people to reward those who give ideas by
giving certificates, at least, or even better cash rewards, and it
should not be restricted who give complete ideas. Partial ideas should
be rewarded as well, because without partial ideas, subsequent
developments will not be possible.

It is due to the lack of respect for Malaysians for Intellectual
Property Rights. Plagiarism is an accepted way of life, when actually
it is equivalent to stealing. We don't lose much by refraining from
plagiarism except our pride which is false anyway and sooner or later
will be detected anyway.

Plagiarism is very different from outright copying, but is even worse.
Copying is usually accepted because it is part of learning but to
pretend that it originates from you is plagiarism. What is difficult
or costly about identifying the originators of ideas or articles or
information? Virtually nothing, but the impact can be very great, the
difference between success or failure of entire nations.

3. Increase the salaries of enforcement officers and people with
powers, such as Ministers and Mayors.

You may say that it rewards crooked people but actually it will
encourage honest people to join and compete for these posts.

If salaries of these posts are so low, honest people will know for
sure that they will not make ends meet and therefore will look for
better paying jobs that do not tempt them with illegal activities.
Dishonest people will fight for these power jobs because they know
that they can get much better side income.

This had been implemented in Singapore and it is very successful.

This is difficult in Malaysia because we have a low regard for labour.
WE are proud in exploiting fellow human beings by paying them so
little, but in the end, we will lose all our talented people.

If we pay our craftsmen better, we will encourage them to improve and
retain those skills.

Fwd: Alternative to Race Based Selection Criteria

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad" <othm...@lycos.com>
Date: Oct 1, 1:51 am
Subject: Alternative to Race Based Selection Criteria
To: soc.culture.malaysia

Color and Money: How Rich White Kids are Winning the War over College
Affirmative Action by Peter Schmidt

Review of the above book:

http://folkpolitics.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/color-and-money-how-rich...

Extract of this book:
how to judge SAT scores, and race-neutral policies that target student
admissions according to factors such as family income and geographic
region, and strategies such as those used in Texas that have resulted
in higher minority admission and enrollment to state universities than
race-specific criteria.

As I had predicted, if true poverty were to be taken into account,
there will be more natives that will be helped, above the quotas that
are currently in place in Malaysia, while not denying the really poor
among the chinese.

The trouble with Malaysia is the difficulty in establishing income.
With so much corruption and cheating, it is difficult to pin point
true poverty. Chinese tend to be businessmen but will present very
little income. Even their taxable incomes are minimal but they could
be owning Mercedes Benzes.

The most promising is the geographical areas. By giving preferences to
areas, such as villages, even those in towns, it will be a more fool
proof way in identifying the really needy ones.

Malaysian government has started using in in patches. For example,
Felda Settler's children are given priority in taking up
apprenticeship in MAS Aircraft Maintenance Courses, but this could be
dangerous if the quality of students is too low.

Re: USA started affirmative action, not Malaysia

Extracted from wikipedia: Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States

* Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265
(1978)

The Supreme Court held that the UC Davis medical school admissions
program violated the equal protection clause with the institution of
quotas for underrepresented minorities. However, Justice Lewis
Powell's decision in the majority upheld diversity in higher education
as a "compelling interest" and held that race could be one of the
factors in university admissions.

[What it means is that "race could be one of the factors in university
admissions"]

* Hopwood v. Texas, :78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.1996), 1996

(first successful legal challenge to racial preferences in student
admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke).

If you read the details, the court still allows race as a
qualification but not in having separate evaluation committees and
test scores.

http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-hopwood.htm

"Moreover, the court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to
prospective injunctive relief, because "of the law school's voluntary
change to a procedure, which on paper and from the testimony, appears
to remedy the defects the Court has found in the 1992 procedure." Id.
[FN15] To pass muster under the court's reasoning, the law school
simply had to have one committee that at one time during the process
reviewed all applications and did not establish separate TI numbers to
define the presumptive denial categories. In other words, if the law
school applied the same academic standards, but had commingled the
minority review in the discretionary zone with the review of whites,
its program would not have been struck down. The same admissions
result would occur, but the process would be "fair." Id.

* President Clinton's Affirmative Action Review, 1998
http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa-index.html

4. THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
THE CONTINUING NEED TO COMBAT DISCRIMINATION AND PROMOTE INCLUSION
http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html

4.1. Evidence of Continuing Discrimination

There has been undeniable progress in many areas. Nevertheless, the
evidence is overwhelming that the problems affirmative action seeks to
address -- widespread discrimination and exclusion and their ripple
effects -- continue to exist.

* Minorities and women remain economically disadvantaged: the
black unemployment rate remains over twice the white unemployment
rate; 97 percent of senior managers in Fortune 1000 corporations are
white males; (28) in 1992, 33.3 percent of blacks and 29.3 percent of
Hispanics lived in poverty, compared to 11.6 percent of whites. (29)
In 1993, Hispanic men were half as likely as white men to be managers
or professionals; (30) only 0.4 percent of senior management positions
in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries are
Hispanic. (31)

* Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor
market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit"
studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers
are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply
for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to
interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female
applicants. (32)

* Less direct evidence on discrimination comes from comparisons of
earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. (33) Even after
adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of
education and work experience), these studies typically find that
blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts. The
average income for Hispanic women with college degrees is less than
the average for white men with high school degrees. (34)

* Last year alone, the Federal government received over 90,000
complaints of employment discrimination. Moreover 64,423 complaints
were filed with state and local Fair Employment Practices Commissions,
bringing the total last year to over 154,000. Thousands of other
individuals filed complaints alleging racially motivated violence and
discrimination in housing, voting, and public accommodations, to name
just a few.

[The situations are similar to Malaysia as well where Chinese
dominated businesses refused to admit Malays an natives in significant
numbers as salary scales that will alleviate the glaring disparity in
incomes.]

Winning is more important than Economic Prosperity: US Debate comments

Afer reading comments in News that can are offered by Google News
Search
and the comments on TV of US voters who watched the debates, my
conclusion is that the US citizens are more concerned about winning
than
about their economic prosperity.

The prominent message given by McCain that the "burst" led to the
winning in Iraq but this is false. It was the support given by Iraqis
that led to the reduction in sectarian violences and US deaths.

Couldn't it be due to the threats by Democrats to give a time table
for
withdrawal, which made the Iraqi government more earnest in solving
their security problems rather than amassing their personal wealth?

I'm surprised that Obama didn't elaborate on this but it could be due
to
the sentiments of US citizens who believe that Iraqis are imbeciles
who
are incapable of looking after themselves, typical of racist attitudes
that I observe prominently in the citizens of USA. (racist here is the
true meaning: superiority derogatory, not racial discrimination)

Obama in the debate mentioned briefly about the need of Iraq to
shoulder
the burden of security for themselves but somehow commentators missed
on
this issue. Obama didn't help by not emphasising forcefully on this
issue. But many European commentators are already aware of this
tendency
of Obama in trying to get allies to shoulder more of the burden of
security for the world.

McCain's main message is the USA is winning in Iraq, and Obama had not
supported the move that led to the win, which is a blatant lie. In the
end the bill was passed but timetable for withdrawal is set at a later
date. This tentative withdrawal date which led the US commanders to
change their tactics in trying to get help from the Iraqis and the
Iraqis were more desperate in solving their own problems.

The US citizens' tendency to support winning at all cost despite
suffering from economic disaster as a result of this win is clearly
shown by the result of this debate. Obama dare not even touch on this
topic despite the obvious fact that losing in Cambodia and Vietnam,
never led to any security loss to USA but led to economic prosperity
for
USA which contributed greatly to ending the era of the cold war.

McCain's disregard for the well being of the citizens of the occupied
nations is also well respected by the US citizens. As pointed out by
Obama, supporting dictatorship regimes in Pakistan had not brought any
reward to USA in terms of increased security. The problems with Iraq
and
Afghanistan is that they are corrupt and inefficient. They were chosen
not because of their patriotism to their nations but by their
unconditional support for USA interests, above the interest of their
citizens. Taliban will never take root if Hamid's government is
respected by Afghans. Similarly for Iraq.

USA, no doubt supported by its citizens, mocked Iran for being a false
democracy, despite the fact that no citizen is denied the right to
vote, unlike in Afghanistan and Iraq. And yet dare to proclaim that
Afghanistan and Iraq are true democracies, while Iran is not.

Another failed US policy that is also supported by its citizens, is
the
acceptance that talking to terrorists is deemed as giving credibility
to
the terrorists. It does not occur to even Obama and US journalists,
that
this is mocking Jesus, the founder of Christianity who routinely
talked
to criminals, prostitutes and even the Romans, his enemies.

Even if Obama were to win, it is more due to the concern for the
economy. Most of the citizens of USA do not believe in just, freedom
and
democracy for people other than US citizens and Jews. Obama may be the
voice of reason, talking to people, even terrorists, concentrate on
the
real security of USA instead of just winning, which includes giving
true
justice and freedom as well as mutual respect for other nations, but
he
may have a hard time with the citizens of the USA. Obama should start
with the journalists who control the US media.

--
Sabah is heaven. Beautiful shark-free beaches and mountains next to
civilisation with no natural and man-made disasters except Malaysia.
My homepage:
http://othman.000webhost.info/
http://othmana.tripod.com/

War in Islam

War in Islam:

An excellent site for quaran and hadith search in many languages:
http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/

English translation by Picktall

These phrases are found using the "fight" word search.

A)Only in self-defense.
Al-Baqara (The Cow)
2:190 fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you,
but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors.

B)War is compulsory and muslims are forbidden from tolerating
persecution.
Al-Baqara (The Cow)

2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the
places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than
slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship
until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then
slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

C)Stop if the persecution is gone. Note the phrase "religion is for
Allah", not necessarily converstion to Islam.
Al-Baqara (The Cow)

2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for
Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except
against wrongdoers.

D)Islam prefers set piece battles to guerilla warfare.
Saff
61:4 Lo! Allah loveth those who battle for His cause in ranks, as if
they were a solid structure.

E) Muslims must intervene in order to stop wars.
Al-Hujurat (The Dwellings)

49:9 And if two parties of believers fall to fighting, then make peace
between them. And if one party of them doeth wrong to the other, fight
ye that which doeth wrong till it return unto the ordinance of Allah;
then, if it return, make peace between them justly, and act equitably.
Lo! Allah loveth the equitable.

My overall analaysis is this:

The most favoured way of fighting is the one adopted by Hezbollah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

Whereas Hamas and Fatah style of fightig in Palestine is allowed but
not favoured despite them being called terrorists by many Western
Natiions. Israel take advantage of the situation by declaring them as
terrorst organisations.

Alqaedah style of fighting is the worst because there is no order in
battle. There is no clear definition of the transgressors. Is it USA,
Pakistan, Australia or Indonesia. There is little chance for the other
party to stop their aggression and repent.

The Taliban fighting in Afghanistan can be considered as a civil war.
Muslim nations are supposed to intervene in order to have justice
prevail. It can be achieved by allowing Taliban to be involved in the
voting process. When USA denied Taliban the right to the voting
process and forcefully removed from government, it is the USA that had
done wrong to the Taliban so Muslim nations are not allowed to
intervene and help USA and allies.

The bali bomber and Marriot bomber in Pakistan recently is not allowed
in Islam because there is no clear persecution involved. The
persecution that is mentioned in the quran is to be driven from ones'
homeland.

Muslims can argue that they are fighting for Palestinians that are
persecuted in Israel but the real enemy is Israel, not the other
nations. Whether it is allowed to fight the non-combatant allies of
the enemy of Islam, it is not stated in the verses that I had
searched. Based on Albawarah 2:190, it is clear that Muslims can only
fight against those that fight against Muslims. Fight, here means,
physical violence. Giving arms and weapons is not fighting. The case
is similar in the 1st world war when Germany did not declare war on
USA despite it sending war supplies to UK.

Disappointed with Wikipedia and Joomla: try tikiwii

http://www.wikimatrix.org/compare/JSPWiki+MediaWiki+TikiWiki-CMS-Groupware+WikkaWiki

A good comparison of Wiki software. These are free and user
installable with mySQL database storage.

http://info.tikiwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=Top+10+Reasons&bl

Look at this description of tikiwiki.
Very impressive.

I'm currently testing mambo, joomla1.0 and joomla1.5 but are
disappointed with their handlings of java applets and javascripts, and
the lack of decent panoramic picture viewers and galleries.

I'm stuck with my normal html code in order to allow users to view my
panoramic pictures.

http://panorama.freewebhosting247.com/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php
You can try TikiWiki v1.9.8.3 at the link above.

The latest version is 1.9.11 which you can download from http://tikiwiki.org/

Wikipedia is more famous and is based on Wikimedia but it is only
optimised as an encyclopaedia. It is also filled with editors who are
so anxious to delete other people's articles based on false reasons.

Imagine deleting an article because England is not an International
team.
Scoring 2 goals in football is not significant enough. The editor
thought that it was US football, instead of International Football.

My contributions towards the culture of the Suluks in Sabah were
deleted because they are not substantiated. How can I substantiate my
everyday living? I can record them on videos with well known personnel
such as the current ADUN for Sekong showing how Daling-daling is
performed in Sandakan.

I also have a few blogs on food in Sabah as well as panoramic pictures
that I want to share with others so that they will know more about
Sabah. I write about Sabah simply because I live in Sabah and there
are not many articles about Sabah.

I also can write about my researches on Intelligence theory that are
published in International conference papers but I welcome people to
write their own theories so that we can record and compare with each
other.

Technical articles are not as useful as travel articles so we
encourage people to contribute their experiences, by noting the time
that they are talking about. Information about travel and politics
change very rapidly. Similarly for reviews about technologies.

Contributors are welcomed and encouraged but I still don't know how to
allow people to contribute to tikwiki. I also would like to allow
contributors to insert adverts in their articles, especially Google
Adsense.

Google Adsense is the technology of the century. I had made Google the
richest Internet company and will soon overtake Microsoft.

The beauty of Adsense is that, it is more like a useful link than an
advertisement. Adsense will offer links that are relevant to the
article that is written. If you talk about panorama, it will provide
links to advertisers related to the "panoramic picture" industry.

If your reader clicks these links, the author can make money. That is
the way we should reward contributors while not offending the readers,
and even helps the readers with useful links to the article.

So register with Adsense: by clicking
<SCRIPT>
<!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2898215078168601";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as_rimg";
google_cpa_choice = "CAAQlfaWhAIaCDgcetl7W8a7KNvD93M";
google_ad_channel = "2182994049";
//-->
</SCRIPT>

<SCRIPT SRC="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/
show_ads.js"></SCRIPT>

or link to http://www.google.com.my/ads/

I shall encourage my colleagues and those in the know to engage in
this business of providing content while making money.

Now we must find ways to link these databases together. My idea is
just to use the wiki technology to link to other sites. Wikipedia
doesn't seem to encourage linking to others because it is not supposed
to be a linking centre but Wikipedia is only useful for its links.
Original articles are not its strength since their authors are mostly
amateur authors.

So don't worry about your grammar and spelling. We should not mind
their spellings and command of language but please use spelling
checkers in Firefox. We need to gather their facts and opinions. It
does not matter if their opinions are right or wrong. These opinions
must be recorded for eternity. I'm sure these opinions will change
with time but it is a normal process and should be recorded as
history.

You can upload anything you want. Pictures and even videos of whatever
format. Youtube is just too overloaded at the moment. We should create
our own in order to reduce the burden on Youtube and other video
sharing services.

It will also avoid office firewalls.

Sabah is heaven. Beautiful shark-free beaches and mountains next to
civilisation with no natural and man-made disasters except Malaysia.
My homepage:
http://othmana.tripod.com/
http://sabahheaven.blogspot.com/
http://panorama.000webhost.info/
http://panorama.webhosting4free.info/
http://othman.1stfreehosting.com/
http://othman.aokhost.com/
http://panorama.freewebhosting247.com/