Adlai blog

Dallas Regional Chamber Announces 2011 Chairman of the Board

DALLAS, Jan. 26, 2011 – W. Mike Baggett, Chairman Emeritus, Winstead PC

DALLAS, Jan. 26, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Dallas Regional Chamber announced its 2011 Chairman of the Board at the Annual Meeting on January 26, W. Mike Baggett, Chairman Emeritus, Winstead PC. Baggett assumed the chairmanship January 26.

The Chamber also announced its new board of directors for the 2011 year including the 2012 Chairman elect, Clint McDonnough, Dallas Office Managing Partner, Ernst & Young LLP.

Baggett served as Winstead PC's Chairman and CEO from 1991 through 2006, and is presently Chairman Emeritus. A shareholder in the firm's Litigation & Dispute Resolution Dept., and Commercial Litigation Practice Group, Baggett specializes in complex litigation and workout matters. He is a well known author and has spoken on more than 100 occasions. He graduated from Texas A&M University with a BBA in Accounting in 1968 (Distinguished Alumni, 1998); was a 1st Lieutenant in the U.S. Army 1968-1970 (Bronze Star Award for Viet Nam service, 1970), earned his law degree at Baylor Law School (cum laude) in 1973, and clerked for Judge Price Daniel, Texas Supreme Court, 1973-1974.

The Dallas Regional Chamber is the area's leading membership-driven business organization committed to promoting economic prosperity by leading economic development, driving improvements in public education, influencing public policy, and catalyzing and advocating for regional partnerships. The Chamber works to ensure that the Dallas region will become the most economically prosperous region - and the most desirable place to live and work - in the United States. The Chamber is a not for profit organization comprised of businesses which represent all facets of the North Texas business community. For more information, please contact the Dallas Regional Chamber at (214) 746-6600 or visit

The following 7 individuals have joined to the Board of Directors in 2011, making the total number of members 93:

Sudipta Bhattacharya, President & CEO, Invensys Operations Management

Robert Estrada, Chairman, Estrada Hinojosa & Company, Inc.

Kenneth Menges, Partner-In-Charge, Dallas Office, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP

John Puckett, Senior Partner & Managing Director, The Boston Consulting Group

Dr. Ann Stuart, Chancellor & President, Texas Women's University

James Washington, Publisher, The Daily News

Fritzi Woods, President & CEO, Women's Foodservice Forum

Contact: Lauren Parsons

Communications Director

Direct Line: 214-746-6690

lparsons@dallaschamber.org

90s (Les Celestins) .Italian Hardstyle part 1 . Amplified radio 337 (including Guestmixes ) (16 april 2007).Euro Traxx volume03 .Bacdafucup part II limited edition bonus disc

Windows Phone 7 Riddled with Rookie Mistakes

Borrowing thefrom the movie "On the Waterfront," Microsoft "coulda been a contender." The problem is that Microsoft has made a number of mistakes and omissions with the highly-anticipated Windows Phone 7 platform that greatly handicap its potential success against rival platforms like iPhone and Android.

Windows Phone 7 was delayed--by a lot. Had it been rushed, it might excuse some of the issues, but the fact that Windows Phone 7 was pushed back so much implies that Microsoft wanted extra time to work on it and work out the kinks to ensure the best possible mobile platform once it was released...and this is what we got.

It may be the first , and perhaps we can forgive Microsoft some minor faux pas, but only to a certain extent. Even iPhone and Android have issues arise when new releases or updates to the OS are unleashed. But, Microsoft has to respect that it is launching a new mobile OS that has to compete from day one against mature smartphone platforms like iPhone and Android.

My IDG peer from InfoWorld, Galen Gruman, wrote a --calling it a disaster of epic proportions on par with the Titanic. Its lack ofare glaring omissions--especially considering that Microsoft had the benefit of sitting back and watching Apple struggle to manage the fallout from leaving this same functionality out of iOS. It makes no sense to release a new smartphone platform this late in the game that lacks basic functionality the market has obviously demanded.

While Microsoft, with its dominant role in business computing as the de facto PC operating system, prominent Web browser, virtual monopoly on productivity with Microsoft Office, and leading messaging platform with Exchange, should be , it has dropped the ball for years. The confusion over Windows Phone 7 encryption making it impossible for users to comply with ActiveSync security policies and connect with Exchange messaging is just another in a long line of major stumbling blocks.

Windows Phone 7 smartphones have expandable memory with SD memory card slots. However, apparently with Windows Phone 7 those SD memory cards areand greatly limit the functionality. Never mind that it seems only certain SD memory cards will work with Windows Phone 7 in the first place.

There is a lot to like about Windows Phone 7, and Microsoft exhibited extraordinary innovation (at least for Microsoft) in developing a unique smartphone interface. It is unfortunate that the bigger story about Windows Phone 7 is what's missing and what it can't do rather than what it is capable of.

The rookie mistakes inherent in the initial release of Windows Phone 7 may mean it won't survive to see the updates that might make it a real contender.

Baghdad blasts kill Iraqi policeman, wound 7

BAGHDAD – Iraqi officials say insurgents have targeted police patrols across Baghdad, killing one policeman and wounding seven people.

Police and hospital officials say the policeman died when a roadside bomb struck a patrol in downtown Baghdad. Two policemen and a bystander were wounded in the blast.

The officials say another roadside bomb detonated on Monday morning in eastern Baghdad, wounding four policemen. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to the media.

Violence has significantly subsided in Iraq but suspected Sunni insurgents still target Iraq's army and police in an attempt to weaken Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is expected to form a new government after last week's deal broke an eight-month political impasse.

G-20 refuses to back US push on China's currency

SEOUL, South Korea – Leaders of 20 major economies on Friday refused to back a U.S. push to make China boost its currency's value, keeping alive a dispute that raises fears of a global trade war amid criticism that cheap Chinese exports are costing American jobs.

A joint statement issued by the leaders including President Barack Obama and China's Hu Jintao tried to recreate the unity that was evident when the Group of 20 rich and developing nations held its first summit two years ago during the global financial meltdown.

But deep divisions, especially over the U.S.-China currency dispute, left G-20 officials negotiating all night to draft a watered-down statement for the leaders to endorse.

"Instead of hitting home runs sometimes we're gonna hit singles. But they're really important singles," Obama told a news conference after the summit.

Other leaders also tried to portray the summit as a success, pointing to their pledges to fight protectionism and develop guidelines next year that will measure the imbalances between trade surplus and trade deficit countries.

The G-20's failure to adopt the U.S. stand has underlined Washington's reduced influence on the international stage, especially on economic matters. In another setback, Obama also failed to conclude a free trade agreement this week with South Korea.

The biggest disappointment for the United States was the pledge by the leaders to refrain from "competitive devaluation" of currencies. Such a statement is of little consequence since countries usually only devalue their currencies — making it less worth against the dollar — in extreme situations like a severe financial crisis.

The statement decided against using a slightly different wording favored by the U.S. — "competitive undervaluation," which would have shown the G-20 taking a stronger stance on China's currency policy.

The crux of the dispute is Washington's allegations that Beijing is artificially keeping its currency, the yuan, weak to gain a trade advantage.

U.S. business lobbies say that a cheaper yuan costs American jobs because production moves to China to take advantage of low labor costs and undervalued currency.

A stronger yuan would shrink the U.S. trade deficit with China, which is on track this year to match its 2008 record of $268 billion, and encourage Chinese companies to sell more to their own consumers rather than rely so much on the U.S. and others to buy low-priced Chinese goods.

But the U.S. position has been undermined by its own central bank's decision to print $600 billion to boost a sluggish economy, which is weakening the dollar.

Also, developing countries like Thailand and Indonesia fear that much of the "hot" money will flood their markets, where returns are higher. Such emerging markets could be left vulnerable to a crash if investors later decide to pull out and move their money elsewhere.

Obama said China's currency policy is an "irritant" not just for the United States but for many of its other trading partners. The G-20 countries — ranging from industrialized nations such as U.S. and Germany to developing ones like China, Brazil and India — account for 85 percent of the world's economic activity.

"China spends enormous amounts of money intervening in the market to keep it undervalued so what we have said is it is important for China in a gradual fashion to transition to a market based system," Obama said.

The dispute is threatening to resurrect destructive protectionist policies like those that worsened the Great Depression in the 1930s. The biggest fear is that trade barriers will send the global economy back into recession.

The possibility of a currency war "absolutely" remains, said Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega.

Friday's statement is also unlikely to resolve the most vexing problem facing the G-20 members: how to fix a global economy that's long been marked by huge U.S. trade deficits with exporters like China, Germany and Japan.

Americans consume far more in foreign goods and services from these countries than they sell abroad.

The G-20 leaders said they will try to reduce the gaps between nations running large trade surpluses and those running deficits.

The "persistently large imbalances" in current accounts — a broad measure of a nation's trade and investment with the rest of the world — would be measured by what they called "indicative guidelines" to be determined later.

The leaders called for the guidelines to be developed by the G-20, along with help from the International Monetary Fund and other global organizations, and for finance ministers and central bank governors to meet in the first half of next year to discuss progress.

Analysts were not convinced.

"Leaders are putting the best face on matters by suggesting that it is the process that matters rather than results," said Stephen Lewis, chief economist for London-based Monument Securities.

"The only concrete agreement seems to be that they should go on measuring the size of the problem rather than doing something about it."

___

Associated Press writers Erica Werner, Kelly Olsen, Jean H. Lee, Greg Keller, Luis Alonso and Kim Hyung-jin in Seoul contributed to this report.

Q&A: House's Rocket Scientist 'Apprehensive' on Budget

As a rocket scientist, Democratic Rep. Rush Holt has nowserved the 12th Congressional District of New Jersey for more than a decade. Hehas helped monitor the nuclear programs of such countries as Iraq, Iran, NorthKorea and the former Soviet Union, and has served as assistant director for thePrinceton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

Holt recently won his seventh consecutive term during theNov. 4, 2010, midterm elections. The Democratic Party retained control of theSenate, but lost control of the House to a new Republican majority.

The Republican Party's Pledgeto America proposes to roll back non-military discretionary spending to2008 levels, which would mean cuts for federal agencies that fund or performscience research and development. The Obama administration had warned agenciesto build 5 percent cuts into their proposed 2012 budgets relative to 2011, butthe GOP plan would cut deeper.

LiveScience took the opportunity to ask Holt about how themidterm congressional elections could reshape science and technology policiesor budgets in the future. [Infographic:Science R&D Spending in the Federal Budget]

Q: How do youthink the recent midterm election results will impact policies and funding forscience and technology?

A: The basicpoint is that I'm apprehensive about what's going to happen. We haven'tcompleted the Competes Act - the reauthorization of the America Competes Act.The House has passed it, and the Senate committee has reported favorably on itbut with no action. This provides the framework for all the research funding ofthe NSF [National Science Foundation], NIST [National Institutes of Standardand Technology], the National Institutes of Health [NIH], the Department ofEnergy and so forth. This was an important advance. The previous Competes Actand this reauthorization are really important. We really need to get that done.

We also need to get appropriations done. As it is, we'reoperating on a continuing resolution, and I'm not at all optimistic that we'llget the appropriations done for science, energy, commerce ... On both the authorizationand appropriation, I'm afraid that we're not going to move forward, and thatworries me.

I don't need to tell you all the "Gathering Storm"[report] statistics, but it is important to move forward. In the follow-up [2010report], it shows not so much that the U.S. has slipped, but that we haven'tmoved forward and everyone else has. That's true in scienceeducation, innovation and research. We're losing ground relative to others.(Congress commissioned a 2005 report, titled "Rising Above the GatheringStorm," which called for the U.S. to boost scientific research andeducation.) That's why we need America Competes, and why we need to make permanentthe R&D tax credit, and why we need to do other things to stimulate privatesector innovation. I have legislation that would provide individual tax creditsfor research-intensive small businesses.

We want to do things to encourage innovation in the privatesector, and certainly there are things we've got to do in science education.Some of that is government funding, much of it is not.

Q: What kind ofscience funding cuts are we talking about?

A: With regard tothe public sector, if you look at the Republican Pledge to America, if theycarry it out as it's laid there - if the new majority acts on that - we'll bereducing NSF by almost 19 percent, the Department of Energy's [Office of] Scienceby almost 18 percent, NIH by about 9 percent, NOAA [National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration] by 34 percent...

The crazy thing about this is that they say they're doing itfor fiscal discipline, and the fact is that all of this is really not going tobalance the budget. We're talking about something that's about a percent of thebudget and it makes a huge difference in this research, but it's miniscule inits budgetary effects. So it's really short-sighted. We've made some realinvestments in the past years. I helped get $22 billion of new moneyfor science research into the [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act]. They were put inthere for short-term job benefits, but also because they set the stage forlonger-term growth. But now if they kind of yank the reins back after a coupleof years of trying to move forward in the public sector for research, it willhave a very bad effect.

I think it will be pretty easy for [Republicans] to cut ifthey want to, and they claim that they want to. I think it will be verydevastating. Federal research is only a few percent of the nation'sdiscretionary budget - only a percent or so of the overall budget. It won'thelp balance the budget, and it will harm the economy in the short and longterm.

Q: Are there anyparticular areas of research that could suffer more than others? How aboutenergy?

A: Certainly onenergy ... the thing about the NSF is that it's across the board. Who would havethought that library science research would lead to Google? Who thought nuclearmagnetic resonance would lead to MRIs [brain scans]? Who would think atomiclight absorption would lead to lasers? The NSF has really contributed greatlyto our economy. The Department of Energy's Offices of Science and Energy arereally important, and to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in each one ofthose could hurt us in our efforts to be competitive in the marketplace forhaving efficient technologies. Whether it's building materials or transportation,drive trains or batteries, if we're not making these investments, we're losingout on the marketplace to countries that are making those investments.

There's easily going to be a trillion-dollar market - andthat's not an exaggeration - out in the world for these technologies. Cuttingback on funding would certainly be short- sighted.

Q: On the topicof energy, do you know what the Republicans have planned for ARPA-E? (A Departmentof Energy agency that focuses on funding high-risk,high-reward research aimed at energy innovation.)

A: I fear theywill regard ARPA-E as a creation of the Democrats and therefore something thatshould be cut as a matter of principle. Clearly a major justification for ARPA-E- not the sole justification but a major one - is dealing with stresses to ourclimate. There are so many in the new majority who question whether there'sanything at all wrong with what'shappening to our climate.

Q: Is there stillsome common ground where Democrats and Republicans can work together on theclimate change issue? How about reframing it in terms of energy security?

A: It's possible.I hope we can find some common ground. In the past I've worked with Republicanslike Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) and Judy Biggert (R-Ill). Vernon has retired, andJudy is still around.

During the campaign I heard various people - including my opponent- say that environmental regulations are not founded in science but ideology. Idisagree. I think this has been generally a more science-based environmental programthan we've seen previously. They've been saying the attention to climate isideology and not science - I beg to differ. I say that this comes from the workof thousands and thousands of scientists. It is opposition to any effort toaddress climate change that is based more on ideology than in science. Butthere is that difference, and I wouldn't be surprised if they act in a way -apart from the budget - that will reverse what has been happening.

Q: How much canthe Republicans do to roll back the Obama administration's policies?

A: In terms ofreversing administration policies about environmental protection, they will besomewhat limited. But in terms of cutting funding for the EPA [EnvironmentalProtection Agency], they'll be in a position to do that. To keep moving forwardwith these programs will require both the House and the Senate. And I fear thatthe House will say no.

BudgetCuts Would Take Decades to Affect Science, If at AllRepublicanFiscal Plan Could Slash Science BudgetsTop10 Emerging Environmental TechnologiesOriginal Story: chronicles the daily advances and innovations made in science and technology. We take on the misconceptions that often pop up around scientific discoveries and deliver short, provocative explanations with a certain wit and style. Check out our science ,and .to debate hot-button issues like stem cells, climate change and evolution. You can also sign up for free , register forand get cool gadgets at the .