Microsoft To Offer Windows Online

Microsoft has announced plans for a free web-based version of its popular Office software.
From 2010, computer users will be able to use software such as Windows, Excel and PowerPoint
on the Internet. Analysts believe Microsoft has to go online to compete against similar software
offered by Google. One expert said: "Microsoft was forced to provide a free product" because of
Google Docs, a free, online document and spreadsheet editing programme. The Web-based
version of the Office suite will be available next year. There is an intense rivalry between Google
and Microsoft. Google has the lions share of the search market. Google hopes its Chrome browser
will lure people away from Microsofts Internet Explorer.
Microsofts latest announcement has raised eyebrows in the technology world. Analysts are
surprised it is giving away a free version of one of its most profitable products. They say the
software giant looks like it is shooting itself in the foot. The Office suite made $9.3 billion in profit
from $14.3 billion in total software sales in 2009. Free versions of Office will surely put a dent in
these figures. A Microsoft Office spokesperson, Chris Bryant, said the free version was responding
to customer needs, saying: "It's something our users have said they'd like." The Web version of
Office 2010 does not yet have a name, but it will have advertising. There will be five different
versions on sale for personal, small business and corporate use.
Regional accents are 'bad for business'
A recent survey in the UK has found that regional accents can be bad for business.
Professor Khalid Aziz, a specialist in communication for business executives, questioned people in
high-level management to find out their opinions on regional accents. He discovered that non-
English accents are better for business success in England. Speakers with an American, Scottish,
Indian or Asian accent are preferred to speakers with a regional variation. Professor Aziz said:
Although it may not be *acceptable+ to believe that accents matter nowadays, it is very [clear]
from our research thatprejudices still exist.

The survey also reports that business people think speakers with Indian or Asian accents are
more trustworthy and reliable than speakers with American or British accents. Professor Aziz said
only 24 percent of the executives he questioned thought speakers with British regional accents
were hardworking. He said that people with these accents will face prejudice in business. His
conclusion was that: If you want to get ahead in business and dont speak the Queens English, it
is better to sound as if you are from America, Europe, India orScotland than from any English
region.
Who wants to be a billionaire?
BNE: Forbes magazine has released its nineteenth annual list of the worlds richest people. It
comes as no surprise that Bill Gates tops the list for the eleventh straight year. His wealth, at $46.5
billion ($46,500,000,000), was slightly down on last years $46.4 billion, although he probably isnt
losing sleep over this. Second richest was American investor Warren Buffet ($44bn), and third was
Indias Lakshmi Mittal ($25bn). Other unbelievably rich people in the top 100 include Chelsea
Football Club owner Roman Abramovich (#21), Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi (#25), E-Bay
founder Pierre Omidyar (#35) and Benetton boss Luciano Benetton (#35).

Forbes said the number of billionaires increased to a record 691 this year (341 from the
USA) compared with last year's 587. Of these, 68 are women, including disgraced American
businesswoman Martha Stewart. The billionaires are from 45 different countries, including first-
timers, Kazakhstan, Poland, Ukraine and Iceland. The youngest is Germanys Prince Albert von
Turn und Taxis, who is just 21. Next are Googles co-founders Larry Page, 32, and Sergey Brin, 31.
Forbes says it takes more than brilliance and elbow grease to become a billionaire, and that
certain personality types are more likely to make it to their list. They have an interactive quiz on
their website to test if you have a billionaire personality (www.forbes.com).
Mens rea

Mens rea refers to state of mind or criminal intent. In most crimes prosecutors must prove
that the accused not only committed a criminal act (actus reus) but that they did so with a specific
criminal intent (mens rea). In some criminal cases prosecutors do not have to prove state of mind.
In regulatory crimes, often involving food, a defendant is strictly liable for the act committed and
no criminal intent need be shown to obtain a conviction. In most cases criminal charges can be
changed and punishments can be affected by whether the accused had a criminal intent, and what
type the state of the mind of the accused was at the time of the crime. For example in tax fraud
cases prosecutors will need to determine whether the accused acted with willful intent to cheat or
was just careless. In military justice the difference between being Away Without Leave (AWOL)
and desertion revolves around the persons intent.

Many criminal statutes, including the Model Penal Code, distinguish among four different
levels of mens rea or culpability in addition to strict liability. One acts purposely when one
consciously desires to bring about a certain result, such as the death of another. One acts
knowingly when one is aware that his conduct will bring about a result. Reckless behavior
involves the conscious disregard of an unjustifiable risk that brings about some conduct. Finally, to
act negligently is when one could have been unaware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Depending on the state of ones mind, a person might be charged with a different crime, or a
different level of crime. For example, depending on the circumstances surrounding a death, one
could be charged with first or second degree murder, manslaughter, or another crime.
Mens rea is proven by the circumstances surrounding the events in question. Prosecutors
must show a chain of acts that point to the persons intent and motivation. Some examples of
actions that would be used to prove mens rea would include: how hard did a person try to cover
up their activities, did they lie to police or investigators, did they do things in a specific sequence
to facilitate the ultimate criminal act.
Embezzlement

Embezzlement is the misappropriation, misapplication, or illegal disposal of legally entrusted
property by the person charged with preserving the property with the intent to defraud the owner
or the intended beneficiary. The Supreme Court defines embezzlement in Moore v. U.S., 160 U.S.
268 (1895), as the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom such property has
been entrusted, or into whose hands it has lawfully come. Embezzlement is distinguished from
other crimes, such as larceny, because the original taking of property was lawful and generally
included the consent of the owner, whereas larceny requires a simultaneous felonious intent at
the moment of property seizure.

Generally, the person charged with embezzlement has originally obtained the property
because he or she holds some official position, as agent, fiduciary, officer, or clerk, in connection
with the bailment, or employment with some legal entity, such as a bank, financial institution or
government agency, or municipal office, associated with the transaction.

The original state and federal statutes carefully carved out the differences between an
indictment charging embezzlement and those depicting other acts of theft or fraudulent
misappropriation. In cases cited from historical English courts, the statutes limited the offense to
certain officers, clerks, agents, or servants of individuals or corporations, as part of an agency or
fiduciary relationship. The property must be specifically identified, and the accused must have
received the property as part of a fiduciary capacity and subsequently chose to convert or
abscond with the identified property for a personal use not expressly or impliedly contemplated in
any instrument, agreement, or statement designating or charging the duties, powers, and
responsibilities of the accused. The fiduciary relationship creates a position of trust that subsumes
the notions of confidentiality, trustworthiness, duties not to commingle with personal assets, and
finally, accountability to the principal or true owner of the property.


















http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/0907/090715-office.html