Sign Word for Procurement Mobile

Mobile procurement refers to the ability to manage purchasing processes via mobile devices. Implementing mobile procurement can streamline your workflow, enhance efficiency, and enable timely decision-making. This flexibility helps businesses cut costs and respond quickly to market changes.

airSlate SignNow allows users to eSign and process documents on-the-go through an intuitive mobile interface. This feature is designed to enhance mobile procurement by providing users with the ability to complete transactions anytime, anywhere. With secure cloud storage, you can stay organized and efficient in your procurement processes.

Key features of airSlate SignNow for mobile procurement include eSignature capabilities, document tracking, and seamless integration with various business apps. The platform's user-friendly mobile application ensures that procurement documents are easily accessible and manageable. Additionally, real-time notifications keep you informed of document status, enhancing workflow efficiency.

Yes, airSlate SignNow is a cost-effective solution for businesses seeking to enhance their mobile procurement processes. It offers flexible pricing plans that cater to various budget needs, ensuring affordability without compromising features. With its competitive pricing, companies can optimize their procurement strategy without incurring excessive costs.

Absolutely! airSlate SignNow easily integrates with various existing procurement systems to streamline document workflows. This integration capability enhances the mobile procurement experience by providing a seamless transition between platforms. Users can maintain their current systems while benefiting from the mobile features of airSlate SignNow.

Security is a top priority for airSlate SignNow, especially in mobile procurement where sensitive information is often involved. The platform employs advanced encryption methods and complies with industry standards to ensure data remains protected. Users can confidently utilize mobile procurement solutions, knowing their information is secure.

airSlate SignNow provides comprehensive support for users navigating mobile procurement features. Resources include detailed guides, tutorials, and a dedicated support team to assist with any inquiries. This commitment to support ensures that businesses can effectively utilize mobile procurement and maximize their investment in the platform.

Taking the question at face value.. here are some of my ideas for a multi-billion dollar business potential in the next few years.. Some ideas may seem whacky or just plain stupid (due to my limited knowledge), but please feel free to add your comments.1. A money lending institution that charges lesser % interest than guideline base rate.  2. An app that would revoke an email after it is read by the recipient - removes traces of the mail being sent at all3. Mobile battery juice packs under $10 for emergency usage.. maybe you could make it last for just one or few phone calls, I don't know... just solve this problem! should be something really small that fits in your pocket4. Start your own internet that kicks ass.. charge everybody $1 one-time fee to join in5.  a mobile phone with in-built cigarette lighter ;-)6. Real time tracking of all commercial planes, trains, automobiles7. Real time monitoring of all micro organisms in the world 8. A cheap way to make you forget a book or a movie so you can read or watch again with the  same thrill of doing it for the first time9. Find a way to store and tap energy more efficiently10. A device that uses the pressure your shoe soles to convert it to electricity and store it in a battery.. so you can recharge your mobile device from your shoesinteresting to come up with such ideas.... will come back and add more later.

Please compare the recent judgments of rafale deal and 2G spectrum cases by Supreme Court in a nut shell.Rafale Judgement:- The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a group of petitions that demanded an investigation into the controversial Rafale fighter jet deal, saying that it was satisfied that the process for procurement had been complied with.The judgement was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph.“We are satisfied that there is no occasion to really doubt the [decision-making] process [on the Rafale deal], and even if minor deviations have occurred, that would not result in either setting aside the contract or requiring a detailed scrutiny by the Court,” the bench has said. “We have been informed that joint exercises have taken place, and that there is a financial advantage to our nation. It cannot be lost sight of, that these are contracts of defense procurement which should be subject to a different degree and depth of judicial review. Broadly, the processes have been followed.”2G spectrum Judgement:- In exonerating all the accused, CBI special judge O.P. Saini said, “I have no hesitation in holding that record is not sufficient and the prosecution has miserably failed in proving charges. All accused are acquitted.”What difference do you find? In 2G case the prosecution has failed to prove charges.Does it fail because of incompetence or deliberate. This doubt gives rise as the investigation conducted during UPA regime and also there seems to be the evidences were destroyed.Here is the time line of the case and you can observe that the investigation was mostly carried through UPA regime.2007May: A. Raja appointed telecom minister.August: Department of Telecommunications (DoT) initiates the process of allotment of 2G Spectrum and licences.October: Raja announces that on the recommendation of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, there would be no auction of spectrum, which would be allocated. DoT receives 575 applications from 46 firms.2008January: DoT decides to issue licenses on a first-come, first-served basis with a retrospective cut-of date of 25 September 2007.2009May: Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) receives a complaint from Telecom Watchdog, a non-government organization, alleging illegalities in 2G spectrum allocation. CVC orders a probe by the CBI.July: The Delhi high court rules that the cut off date for license applications of 25 September 2007 is illegal.October: A first information report is filed by the CBI against “unknown officers” of DoT and unknown private persons/companies under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Prevention of Corruption Act.2010September: The Supreme Court issues notice to the Center and Raja on a petition by the Center for Public Interest Litigation, an NGO, over an alleged Rs70,000 crore scam in granting 2G licenses in 2008.November: A Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) report, tabled in the Lok Sabha, says that allocation of 2G spectrum led to a presumptive loss of Rs1.76 trillion to the exchequer.Raja steps down as telecom minister.2011February: The Supreme Court asks the Center to constitute a special court for hearing cases related to irregularities in the allocation of 2G spectrum.Raja is sent to 14 days in judicial custody for his alleged involvement in the case. Shahid Usman Balwa, then director of Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd, is also remanded to judicial custody.March: A special CBI court is set up for hearing cases related to the so-called 2G scam.April: The first charge sheet filed by CBI names Raja, Balwa and Raja’s ex-private secretary R.K. Chandolia, along with Reliance Group managing director Gautam Doshi, senior vice president Hari Nair, group president Surendra Pipara, Swan Telecom promoter Vinod Goenka and Unitech Ltd managing director Sanjay Chandra. Reliance Telecom Ltd, Swan Telecom Pvt Ltd and Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt Ltd are also charge sheeted.DMK chief M. Karunanidhi’s daughter and MP Kanimozhi and four others are named in the second charge sheet filed by CBI.October: The special CBI court frames charges against all accused.November: The special CBI court begins trial.The Supreme Court grants bail to five corporate executives, namely Sanjay Chandra, Vinod Goenka, and Gautam Doshi, Hari Nair and Surendra Pipara.The Delhi high court grants bail to Kanimozhi, Sarath Kumar of Kalaignar TV, Karim Morani of Cineyug and DB Realty’s Rajiv Aggarwal and Asif Balwa.The special CBI court grants bail to Shahid Balwa.December: CBI files a third charge sheet, naming Essar Group promoters Anshuman and Ravi Ruia, its director (strategy and planning) Vikas Saraf, Loop Telecom Pvt. Ltd promoters Kiran Khaitan and her husband I. P Khaitan, along with Loop Telecom, Loop Mobile India Ltd and Essar Tele Holding.2012February: The Supreme Court cancels 122 telecom licenses and spectrum allocated to nine companies in January 2008 during Raja’s tenure, saying the process of allocation was flawed. It orders that the spectrum be auctioned.The Supreme Court asks the special CBI court to decide on P. Chidambaram’s alleged role in the case within 2 weeks. Also asks CBI to supervise the probe and submit a status report on the investigation to the central vigilance commission (CVC).Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy moves the Supreme Court, challenging the special court’s order dismissing his plea to make Chidambaram a co-accused in the 2G case.Center for Public Interest Litigation moves the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the CBI to conduct a thorough investigation into the alleged role of Chidambaram in spectrum allocation irregularities.August: The Supreme Court dismisses a plea for a CBI inquiry against Chidambaram, saying that there was no material to establish that he abused his official position as the finance minister.2014August: Enforcement Directorate (ED) files a charge sheet before the special CBI court against Raja, Kanimozhi, and 17 others in connection with a suspected case of money laundering related to the 2G spectrum allocation irregularities. It also names DMK supremo M. Karunanidhi’s wife Dayalu Ammal, Swan Telecom promoters Shahid Usman Balwa and Vinod Goenka as accused in the case, in which it alleges that Rs200 crore was paid by Swan promoters to DMK-run Kalaignar TV.October: Charge of money laundering made out against A. Raja, Kanimozhi and others by a special CBI court. Trial to commence on 11 November.2015November: The Supreme Court rejects a plea by Kanimozhi for quashing of charges against her.201726 April: The special CBI court reserves verdict in 2G spectrum allocation case.21 December: The special court acquits all accused.So how it was done.TheCBI failed to produce any records or registers at former United Progressive Alliance (UPA) minister Andimuthu Raja’s residence at Motilal Nehru Marg in Central Delhi or at his office to prove its charge that both Shahid Balwa, the promoter of DB Realty, and Vinod Goenka, the chairman of DB Realty, were close acquaintances of Raja since his days as the environment minister in 2004. The CBI instead produced Raja’s private secretary Aseervatham Achary as a witness in court. Achary testified before the court that he had seen Raja meeting Balwa and Goenka more than 20 times at Raja’ residence. However, Achary failed to substantiate his statements through documentary evidence for the same despite the fact that as Raja’s man-Friday he was responsible for maintaining the minister’s daily engagement charts. When daily charts maintained by Achary were produced in the court, nowhere were the names of Balwa or Goenka found. The CBI tried to counter the lack of evidence by stating that Balwa and Goenka’s names were deliberately not recorded in the register when they visited Raja. However, the court dismissed Achary’s testimony as unreliable, calling him a man with political inclinations. What further complicated the investigation was that even as he was one of the men closest to Raja and aware of his every single meeting, Achary’s statement was not recorded before a magistrate with a sense of urgency. Achary’s statement was taken by CBI’s investigating officer only in 2011, while the first case was registered by the agency in 2009.The CBI further tried to establish proximity and conspiracy between Raja and Balwa by alleging that a company in which Raja’s close associates were directors received money from Balwa’s DB Realty. The company in question was Greenhouse Promoters, owned by Sadiq Batcha, an associate of Raja. Batcha allegedly committed suicide at his Chennai residence in 2011. While CBI alleged that Batcha’s company had received and returned more than Rs 1 crore to Balwa’s company, the court did not find this evidence as an indication of Raja’s close relationship with Balwa and Goenka, or this transaction as being conspiratorial in nature. The CBI, by the look of the court's observations, did not produce considerable documentary evidence to support its claim that Rs 200 crore had been paid to Kalaignar TV, affiliated to DMK patriarch Karunanidhi, by Balwa’s DB Realty. The CBI introduced a driver at Greenhouse Promoters, its managing director and a director as witnesses. But none of them could substantiate the CBI’s allegations of kickbacks to Kalaignar TV.All of this raises questions on the kind of investigation that was carried out. Why did the agency wait for almost two years before taking Achary’s statement, despite knowing that he was Raja’s secretary and privy to all his meetings? Why did CBI keep on pressing the charge of multiple meetings among the three when it had only a delayed statement from Achary and no documentary evidence to back its claim? Why did the CBI not requisition bank account statements (or not produce them in court) to substantiate its allegations that kickbacks to the tune of Rs 200 crore were paid to Kalaognar TV? Why did the CBI rely on drivers and directors to substantiate this claim when it was well within its powers to requisition or seize bank account statements of all people and companies it suspected of having received kickbacks? If the CBI hadn’t recovered any incriminating documentary evidence in its multiple raids during the probe, why did it choose to mention the Rs 200-crore kickback in its charge sheet?The CBI alleged in its charge sheet that Raja had fixed the cut-off dates in a manner that favored two companies –Uni tech and Swan Telecom (allegedly owned by Reliance Communications Limited) but failed to convince the court about its conspiracy theory. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) sent its recommendation to Raja’s office on the grant of licenses to telecom operators on August 29, 2007. A note was sent by A K Srivastava, then a joint-secretary-level officer in the ministry of telecommunications, to his superiors on September 24, 2007, with a proposal to set the cut-off date for receiving applications as October 10, 2007. According to the evidence produced in the court, on the same day Raja sent back the note saying that the cut-off date should be fixed as October 1, 2007. Srivastava had in his note explained that around 167 applications had been received following Trai’s recommendations and, given the massive rush for licences, a cut-off date should be set. The CBI’s case rested on Srivastava’s testimony that Raja’s private secretary R K Chandolia, also listed as an accused by the CBI, was constantly inquiring from him about Unitech’s bid.But the court found Srivastava’s statement about a huge rush in applications following acceptance of Trai’s recommendation to be false. Documents produced in the court showed that only two companies had filed applications after the acceptance of Trai’s recommendation, and 124 applications were previously pending for approval. The CBI’s investigating officer deposed that there was a surge in applications but could not produce any documentary evidence to satisfy the judge. Unitech’s representative, meanwhile, deposed that he had submitted the company’s application on the morning of September 24, 2007. Srivastava deposed that he issued a press release on the same evening announcing the cut-off date as October 1, 2007. The CBI failed to adequately cross-question any of the witnesses, including Raja, on the coincidence of the above-mentioned events, despite claiming in its charge sheet that there was constant communication between Raja and Unitech group regarding the cut-off date. The CBI prosecution put two questions to Raja – none of them challenging Raja’s claim that there was no conspiracy. This led even Justice O P Saini, who delivered the judgment, to observe: “Prosecution put only two questions to Raja on cut-off dates. No question was put to Raja on whether the cut-off date was fixed by him in conspiracy with Swan Telecom andUnitech group of companies to help them in the matter of UAS licences and allocation of spectrum.” The CBI did not substantiate Srivastava’s claim that he was being constantly asked about Unitech’s bid by Chandolia for the reason that Srivastava could not tell the court the name of the junior officer from whom he had inquired about Unitech’s bid following calls from the most proximate bureaucrat in Raja’s ministry.In many ways, the CBI’s case to prove collusion between Raja and Unitech rested on the fact that Raja had decided to issue Letters of Intent (LOIs) only to those who had submitted applications by September 25, 2007. This effectively meant that Unitech, which had submitted its application on the morning of September 24, would have been one of the last ones to be issued letters of intent for an allocation of spectrum. The CBI’s allegation was that this led to a shuffling of the priority list and allowed Swan Telecom to bag prime spectrum in national capital Delhi. Additionally, the CBI contended that Raja’s decision to set cut-off date as September 25, 2007, ensured that even though adequate spectrum wasn’t available in various circles, Unitech and its subsidiaries were allocated spectrum.However, the examination of CBI witnesses, comprising senior bureaucrats of the telecom ministry, failed to prove that the decision to change the rules was Raja’s alone. Letters written by these bureaucrats indicated that the sole criteria to be used for issuing LoIs should be to keep the availability of spectrum in mind. But the judge observed that the bureaucrats failed to inform and advise Raja, despite having an obligation to so. The CBI’s charges were quashed after it became evident that there were 575 applicants who had submitted applications in time and there was not enough spectrum to give all of them. The court observed that all senior bureaucrats were well aware of the fact that given the limited availability of spectrum, a cut-off date of September 25, 2007, for issuing LoIs was the only option. The court observed: “So the blame for shifting the cut-off date to September 25, 2007, cannot be put on Raja alone.”Furthermore, even the CBI’s own witnesses produced in court – four senior bureaucrats of the telecom ministry, including Srivastava – failed to substantiate the CBI’s claim that the date was changed on Raja’s insistence. The court observed that although CBI was keen to prove that Raja had taken the decision to change the cut-off dates, the CBI’s own witnesses who were involved in the decision-making process in their respective capacities as senior bureaucrats were never questioned on the matter.The CBI had further alleged in its charge sheet that Raja further tinkered with the rules of the first-come-first-served basis by deleting a paragraph in the draft LoI. This paragraph stated that a license agreement for allocation of spectrum would be signed with those who had paid the entry fees first. This according to CBI’s charge sheet was a “malicious design” meant to benefit the accused companies. But Shah Nawaz Alam, the director of wireless finance in the ministry of telecommunications, who deposed as a prosecution witness before the court failed to back the CBI’s theory, told the court that he had suggested the deletion of the paragraph from the draft LoI but did not know who had actually deleted it. Other CBI witnesses also failed to back the agency’s claim, leading the court to observe that “witnesses have completely disowned the prosecution’s case”.The CBI charge sheet as produced in the court accused Raja of misleading the then prime minister Manmohan Singh on the issue of changing of cut-off dates and changing contours of the first-come-first-served policy. The CBI produced a letter written by Raja to Manmohan Singh on November 2, 2011, in which Raja states that an unprecedented number of applications were being received after the acceptance of Trai’s recommendations on August 29, 2007. However, the judge had rejected this contention earlier while deciding records placed before it showed that only two companies had filed applications between August 29 and September 24, 2007.It is this very contention, among others, on the basis of which the court had called A K Srivastava, one of the CBI witnesses, as unreliable. The CBI failed to flag this issue in the court. Although the CBI produced this letter in the court with the PM’s notings, the court itself noted that the file in which the letter was processed in the PMO wasn’t produced as evidence.Furthermore, another letter written by Raja to Manmohan Singh in November 2007 was labelled by the CBI as an attempt to mislead the PMO. In the letter, Raja had assured the PMO that no rules were being violated in the allocation of spectrum, apart from clarifying his position on the revision of entry charges for newer players. The CBI again failed to “provide even a scrap of evidence” on whether this letter was even seen by Manmohan Singh. A section officer of the PMO who was cross-examined stated that he was unaware of how this letter was dealt with by the PMO. The court itself observed that despite making these allegations in its charge sheet, the CBI did not produce either evidence or any witness from the PMO in court to substantiate its charges.he CBI in its charge sheet contended that Raja had caused a loss of almost Rs 31,000 crore to the exchequer by not revising the entry fee last fixed in 2001. In doing so he ignored the recommendation of Trai, Ministry of Finance and even the PMO. According to the CBI, Raja was the person solely responsible for the loss to the exchequer. This is where things got tricky for the CBI while arguing in the court.Manju Madhavan as member (finance) in Raja’s ministry had written to the ministry of telecommunications in November 2007 that the issue of selling spectrum at 2001 prices should be examined in depth. Furthermore, D Subbarao, thefinance secretary of the time, also made similar observations in communications that were produced as evidence in court. The court observed that since the matter of spectrum pricing pertained to the country’s finances,Nanju Madhavan should have approached the finance minister. The court observed that there was no record or evidence to prove that she approached the finance minister.But perhaps what is contradictory in the CBI court’s judgment is that it also notes that then finance minister P Chidamabaram was well aware of the matter. Chidambaram had asked the department of telecom to examine issuing telecom licences at 2001 prices in a communication dated November 30, 2007. After all, as finance minister Chidamabaram had the powers to flag the issue with the PMO. This is where the court observed that the “finance ministry”was not very enthusiastic about its objections to the initial pricing of spectrum or the entry fee”. The CBI does not seem to have challenged these observations in court.Records showing extensive interactions between Tra and Raja’s ministry were produced in court. Raja’s defense in court rejecting the CBI’s allegation that he failed to revise the 2001 prices was also heavily based on Trai’s report. The report had in August 2007 suggested not revising the entry price for new entrants in the 2G spectrum band (800 MHz/900 MHz/1800 MHz). However, CBI lawyers pointed out that the Trai report was contradictory. It recommended realizing the true market value of a valuable resource like spectrum, and at the same time also advocated not raising the price for new entrants for the sake of maintaining a level playing field.When Nripendra Mishra, the then chairman of Trai, was called as a witness, he testified that a revision of entry fees was indeed recommended. But the court found his explanation to be weak as the Trai report was open to interpretation and that “nobody understood the recommendations in this manner. There is absolutely no evidence, oral or documentary, that anyone understood that Trai had recommended a revision of entry fee.”So, if Raja didn’t do it, who caused the loss of Rs 31,000 crore to the exchequer. The court raised questions over the very concept of a loss put forth by the CBI. The court observed that the revised guidelines for spectrum pricing were introduced only in 2003 and not in 2001. As a result, the perceived loss to the exchequer would have been less than what was being calculated. The court also seems to have justified the non-revision of price observing that any rise in the price of spectrum would have further discouraged newer telecom players.The CBI’s argument that there had been a signNow growth in the average revenue, profits and market capitalization of telecom companies since 2001 failed to impress the judge. The court, while dismissing the CBI’s conspiracy theories, observed: “This does not amount to abuse of power by A Raja.” In effect, the court seems to have ruled that all words of advice sent to the telecom ministry by Manmohan Singh, P Chidamabaram, the then finance secretary, the law ministry, among others, to examine the pricing formula in depth were based on imaginary fears.source:- 2G scam verdict: How CBI killed its own case

Best is a very subjective word. However, since you mentioned only phones (without either smart or mobile word). Telephone is the best phone. The brand is definitely not Apple (iPhone) and most certainly not dominated by Samsung. Telephone’s price could also be very cheap, i.e., less than 30 USD.Why is it best then? It is always there for you to receive call 24/7 without relying on battery life. It can lasts at least 10 years or longer providing that the operator still operates the telephone line. Offices and homes around the globe have been using telephone after more than 80 years with no signs of replacing them with totally wireless phones. Even with the trend of cell/mobile phones (often called smartphones) nowadays, telephone still holds its ground because it represents the identity of the building it is installed on.If you meant smartphones other than Samsung and Apple brand, then we can build a very long list. Because you do not mention in details what kind of “best,” then I list all possible brands of smartphones which is best in its own aspects.Xiaomi: best at providing consumers with very cheap alternatives to high-end phones using a pretty similar design and concept to Apple’s.OnePlus: best at procuring high-end phone killer with very affordable price without copying either Samsung Galaxy’s or Apple iPhone’s design.Motorola: best at providing interesting devices providing customization, unique features, and specialized marketing ground in its phones. Lenovo bought this brand for a great reason.ASUS: best at providing a unique breakthrough in smartphones without cranking up the price as high as Samsung. ASUS also provides good after sales service in third world country. Something that should be commended compared to Xiaomi or OnePlus.LG: best at providing cheaper alternative to Samsung’s phones (except for its S-pen stylus), especially putting additional niche features.Huawei: best at disturbing the smartphone market by introducing a complete lines of smartphones starting from the low-end to the high-end tier. It’s not always the cheapest in price or the greatest in feature, but surely Huawei always manages to sell its products worldwide.Nokia: best at coming back to the market after being knocked out at least twice. Fight on, Nokia! I’ll root for you.Blackberry: still the best at providing physical QWERTY keyboard in smartphones that actually is very comfortable for typing. Unfortunately, it adopted Android too late.Oh one more, SONY: the best at producing camera sensors for smartphones. Almost all the brands I mentioned above use Sony’s camera sensor.P.S.: You do not have to agree with me, I am not the best person in this world. I am open for editing and discussion.^^

It’s another example of how competitive landscape for startups in China is highly fad driven where you have a large number of firms at peak with little product differentiation, few survivors and a very short company life span. Take group buying, P2P lending, live streaming or really any other industry and you will see the same thing.BCG’s Decoding the Chinese Internet ReportPrivate venture capital is slowly being crowded out by government guidance VC funds so there is really no external pressure on the ecosystem to keep the number of firms low. This is easy to observe in Shenzhen’s hardware scene as well. In 2015, 科技路 was full of AR/VR firms (shops?). In 2016 when the AR/VR bubble burst, they all got converted to convenience stores. Come 2017 and all the convenience stores are facial recognition startups. In 2018 they will probably move on to the next important area to be developed to support 中国制造 2025.On the other hand, this means that “overnight success is more likely in China”. It takes an average of 4 years for a Chinese startup to become a unicorn while 46 percent of current unicorns made it within 2 years. For the United States it is 7 years and only 2 percent unicorns made it within 2.Another thing is it is common for Alibaba and Tencent to strengthen their hold on the ChiComNet by adding any promising new firms (usually market leaders) into their ecosystem. This basically signals that there is no space for new entrants and the industry consolidates around firms supported by Alibaba and Tencent (sometimes Baidu). Once Alibaba invested in Ofo and added it to Alipay and Tencent did the same with Mobike, everyone knew the rest of the bike-sharing firms are on life-support[1].Footnotes[1] Decoding the Chinese Internet

Zoho is a web-based online office suite containing word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, databases, note-taking, wikis, web conferencing, customer relationship management (CRM), project management, invoicing, and other applications developed by ZOHO Corporation (formerly AdventNet Inc.), a California-based company. It was launched in 2005 with a web-based word processor. Additional products such as spreadsheets and presentations, were incorporated later into Zoho. Zoho applications are distributed as software as a service (SaaS).Zoho uses an open application programming interface for its Writer, Sheet, Show, Creator, Meeting, and Planner products. It also has plugins into Microsoft Word and Excel, an Apache OpenOffice plugin, and a plugin for Firefox.Zoho Sites is an online, drag and drop website builder. It provides web hosting, unlimited storage, bandwidth and web pages. Features also include an array of website templates and mobile websites. Create, Edit, Share and Collaborate and e-Sign documents online with Zoho Writer.Zoho Creator is a low-code platform to create custom web and mobile apps. It employs a drag-and-drop builder to create forms, reports, dashboards, and workflows—the basics of any app—and can be used to manage data, automate business process, and more.Zoho CRM is a customer relationship management application with features like procurement, inventory, and some accounting functions from the realm of ERP. The free version is limited to 10 users.In October 2009, Zoho integrated some of their applications with the Google Apps online suite. This enabled users to sign into both suites under one login. Zoho and Google still remain separate, competing companies.Source: Zoho Office Suite - Wikipedia

The earlier F-INSAS was an Infantry modernisation programme. More precisely it was created to make our infantry face not just the modern warfare but also the future warfare which will be short, intense and more importantly information and network centric. To put it in short: the side with more situational awareness wins. Add to it more precise and advanced weapon system. It was launched in lines of the USA’s “Future Soldier or Future Combat Systems” and Russia’s “RATNIK”. Though motto of all programmes were the same. Both USA’s and India’s programme were cancelled or more precisely streamlined. Till now each of the country involved in such projects are still in designing phase or at the verge of cancellation due to cost over runs. Hence, as of now no country has actually fielded their FUTURE SOLDIER concept on the actual battlefield. In this answer i will be answering only about India.Contents:HistoryProblems:Current ScenariosProbable Fututre ScenariosImmidiate Solutions by GovernmentLong terms solutions: Includes ongoing researches and probable suggestionsHISTORY:The programme was started in 2005 with a deadline of 2020.Motto was to do complete make over of the long neglected Infantryman,Pictorially explainedTo convert this:To This(or something closer): This is actual motto if i actually consider the requirements without any compromise on any point.Later in 2015 the project was converted into two projects to keep costs at check and proper management:Infantry soldier modernisationBattlefield Management SystemPROBLEMS:Current Problems:Replacing the old weapon systems mainly the soviet based.Upgrading the not so old platforms to take up the challenge of future mainly in the western and north-eastern fronts.Better small arms, armor and health care .Future Problems: The “current problems” part can be solved with imports but the future calls for strong indigenous efforts from public-private-academia-MSMEs and above all army itself through it’s Army Design Beurau. Strong R&D efforts have to be given by all the above mentioned otherwise we shall be trapped in never ending RFIs and Tenders and TOTs which are time consuming, prone to corruptions and delays. This includes following:Better small arms: Includes strong research on MEMS, Material science and Manufacturing.Optics and Sensors: Computer science, Electronics and AI.Armors: Material Science and Manufacturing. No not Kevlar but future of armor lies in nano-science and Composites.Battlefield Health management: Bio medical science. The health of the soldier should be monitored and emergecy survival equipments.Artificial Intelligence: Name is enough to explain it all.NetworkingNano technology: Obviously when you so many sensors , weapons and armor plus battle load hanging on your body every things need to be light enough to let the soldier carry evey other thing needed.Food related research: Long lasting food items. Portable Cooking and preserving equipments. Sounds funny and naive right? NO it is not. You can’t fight long enough without proper nutrition and water.IMMEDIATE SOLUTIONS BY GOVERNMENT :Procurement of new Battle Rifles instead of Assault rifles as standard weapons. RFI underway.Procurement of carbines. RFI underway.Procurement of sniper rifles. RFI underway.Procurement ofAnti Material Rifle. RFI underway.Procurement of Bulletproof jackets from TATA. Further funding another BPJ development programme on an innovation by Indian scientist Mr S.Bhowmick in collaboration of DRDO.Procurement of Bullet proof Helmets to replace older effective but heavy Patkas by MKU industries,Kanpur.RFI underway for optical sights for various weapons.LONG TERM SOLUTIONS:Ongoing Researches:TATA:CAIR(DRDO):Formally only two entities has both including public and private has shown intention towards any R&D on complete Infantry makeover which includes:DRDO(Government)TATA(Private)Both are either individually creating their systems or collaborated on certain systems.Possible suggestions:A future soldier looks incomplete with an exo-skeleton. Though sounds like coming from an COD fanboy which I am certainly not but an exoskeleton will have following advantage:It will carry the load instead of soldier, perhaps it will carry atleast twice the max capability of the human soldier also it can have an armor of its own including the one already worn by the soldier perhaps a better one.A powered exo-skeleton can help you run faster.A good shock absorbing mechanism can protect the soldier of the injuries after falling from a height.It can help you to aim precisely while running.An proper advanced Health or First aid kit. No, not the one in your car.Pic: DRDO first aid kitThe more we depend upon chips the more we become prone to hacking, jamming. Considerable research needs to go into Cyber Warfare.The more we get cozier with electronic chips the more we get prone to EMPs so more research needs to go into EMP resistant devices and mechanical systems advanced enough to not be called “vintage”.CONCLUSION: ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED POINTS ARE GOOD ONLY IN DREAMS IF PUBLIC-PRIVATE-ACADEMIA_MSMEs-ARMY DOESNOT COME TOGETHER AND POUR IN THEIR RESOURCES ON INDIGENOUS R&D. NO COUNTRY WILL GIVE THE KNOW HOW OF ALL CRITICAL TECH INVOLVED AS THIS THING HAS VERY HIGH MARKET POTENTIAL IF ACHIEVED.Pic Credit: google

Warren, more so than some other candidates, has spread addressing climate change across different planks of her platform rather than having it as a single plank. This is a reasonable approach up to a point, as climate solutions and impacts touch almost every aspect of the United States (and the world) and so inserting climate-related actions in most plans makes sense. However, it can make comparisons to more integrated and costed plans such as Yang’s difficult.As a reminder, global warming has several large areas of causation. Electrical generation, transportation, land use and industry all have greenhouse gas emissions. The US military is also seven times larger than the next seven largest military forces in the world combined, is estimated to be one of the single largest greenhouse gas sources in the world and has not been required to quantify its emissions, but has been pointing out the signNow global security risks of climate change for over a decade. While dealing with the causes is critical, dealing with adaptation to the impacts is now important as well due to our delays in addressing this problem which has been clear since the 1970s. Finally, while accelerating drawdown of carbon from the atmosphere is of lower priority than stopping emitting greenhouse gases, any plan should address aspects of drawdown as well. These aspects of Warren’s plan need to be assessed to see if they are present and the approaches are reasonable.Table stakesThere are a couple of things which virtually every Democratic candidate agrees with. The first is that they all accept the science of human-caused global warming and resulting climate impacts, and the need to act on this serious, global issue. The second is a return to the Paris Accord, which Obama entered the USA into and Trump walked away from. The third is support for the Green New Deal, at least in principle, but implementation varies quite a bit. And the Paris Accord portion means that US military emissions would finally be reported, so that they could be tracked and reductions measured.Electrical generationWarren has a plan for this, Accelerating the Transition to Clean Energy. One of her first statements points to an industrial plan, which we’ll cover in depth later.I’ve proposed a historic $2 trillion investment in researching, developing, and manufacturing clean energy technology here in America so that we can lead the global effort to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and beyond.(Note: all quoted text is from Warren’s campaign documents unless otherwise stated.)But then there’s an interesting wrinkle, which is very Warren-esque. She rightly identifies that companies face two types of climate risks, the first being damage to their ability to execute due to the impacts of climate change and the second being actions which cause climate change and must, inevitably, transform or stop entirely. The fossil fuel industry is called out explicitly in that last one.My Climate Risk Disclosure plan addresses these problems by requiring companies to publicly disclose both of these types of climate-related risks.Yeah, this is an investment advisory component and Warren would have the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) put standards around reporting. Among other things, companies that were major contributors to global warming would have to quantify and value that impact in submissions. All of this is to fundamentally shift investment and the ability to garner capital by these firms. It’s fundamentally bringing the climate into Wall Street and the markets.Many firms already to this, including many oil and gas firms. Many of their projections already assume a price on carbon, for example. But the disclosures are all over the map and whether they are accurate or merely greenwashing requires careful analysis of individual efforts. This policy would clarify that substantially.This is a sophisticated, excellent and hard to communicate plan. It’s wonky. The average voter doesn’t read SEC filings or invest millions in the stock market. It’s much less voter friendly as a proposal than many, which is probably its biggest weakness.That’s not the only plan which addresses electrical generation, however. In addition to the manufacturing plan covered in the next section, My plan for public lands includes references as well.I will set a goal of providing 10% of our overall electricity generation from renewable sources offshore or on public lands.This is matched by the elimination of new fossil fuel extraction on public lands.I will sign an executive order that says no more drilling — a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases, including for drilling offshore and on public lands.The combination will mean that at a stroke, public lands will be focused on low-emission, low-pollution wind and sun exploitation instead of fossil fuel exploitation. That’s a strong pairing of policy positions that are definitely good for the climate all over the world, and for the quality of the environment on public lands.That first pledge includes removing barriers to leasing for renewables firms and to sharing the income with the states and local communities. The combination is a strong one.IndustryAs Warren split her clean energy transition across two chunks of her platform, I’ll follow with her industrial plank, My Green Manufacturing Plan for America. It’s a much more voter-centric plan. The words ‘patriotism’, ‘jobs’, ‘American’ and the like are all over it. She invokes the WWII mobilization of manufacturing to fight global fascism and Kennedy’s Space Race. Pulse-stirring stuff.And the components of the plan mirror this. Her Green Apollo program would invest $400 billion in R&D for clean technologies and create a National Institutes of Clean Energy. Her Green Industrial Mobilization would provide $1.5 trillion for federal procurement of clean energy products at the federal level, but with a focus on promoting procurement of US clean energy products at all levels of government; bulk federal procurements would be tapped by state and municipal governments for lower-costs at those levels of government. Her Green Marshall Plan would be funded to the tune of $100 billion and promote American clean energy products and expertise globally, assisting other countries to advance without coal and gas. The plan also comes with a good slate of worker-protection clauses to ensure that people are paid fair wages and have access to collective bargaining.A key premise of this plan is that all intellectual capital and manufacturing jobs would stay in the USA and owned by the USA. The first part makes tremendous sense, but the second part is much more challenging.The USA remains a very strong manufacturer, but it’s heavily automated manufacturing and it’s only going to become more so. While this plan would increase knowledge and information workers in the United States, it won’t lead to a signNow uptick in blue collar jobs because the products have to be globally competitive, and the way advanced economies compete with labor arbitrage economies is through automation. The ratio of labor to manufactured value has shifted, and now an order of two more magnitude of manufacturing has to be created in order to deliver the same number of jobs, and fewer of those jobs are available to basic skilled and semi-skill trades. Yang’s Freedom Dividend, for comparison, is a much more future-oriented approach to deal with this Catch-22 but has it’s own cultural-fit problem.But that said, this is a salable plan to the people in the heartland who have seen the manufacturing economy hollowed out and want to get back to their well-paying shift work building the goods America and world uses. A lot of voters will like this regardless of its basis in reality.And the plan also addresses the reality that some jobs just aren’t coming back and in fact will go away faster. The fossil fuel industry jobs in oil, gas and coal are yesterday’s jobs and the workers there will have to transition. There’s support in the plan for these workers to change their vocations, but this is something that the Democratic Party has been trying to assist these communities with for a couple of decades; people resist change and are highly susceptible to political messages that they don’t have to and that the world will return to the way it was for them. Warren’s plan is weak here from a voting perspective even as it’s strong from a reality perspective for assisting these voters, but it’s a calculated risk.All of this is somewhat the equivalent of Trump’s promise to bring coal worker jobs back, frankly. It will appeal to a lot of the working class, if it’s communicated to them well, but won’t result in a lot of jobs for them unless manufacturing increases an extraordinary amount.The plan also tackles the $5 billion program for foreign arms sales and promotion programs for the US fossil fuel sector, if not the billions to tens of billions in US subsidies to the fossil fuel sector annually.TransportationThis is dealt with mostly diffusely and indirectly by the various policies, in fact Warren barely mentions this entire sector. There’s little to see her from her for electric-vehicle or high-speed rail trains. But that doesn’t mean that the systemic changes Warren is introducing won’t have impacts.She does mention transportation in passing in her Green Manufacturing Plan:we should prioritize research that can be commercialized to help close the gap in hard-to-decarbonize sectors — such as aviation and shippingThat’s not a commitment to zero-emission vehicles. That’s not a commitment to electrification of transportation. That’s not a commitment to high-speed rail.Warren’s plan might be intended to include low-emission transportation in the $1.5 trillion of federal procurement, but that’s not what the words say.Warren’s investment filing disclosure would, in theory, impact this sector, if carbon were priced. But Warren’s published plans don’t say a thing about a tax (or fee, in Yang parlance) on carbon. An increasing price on carbon emissions would lead directly to SEC-mandated prospectuses that clearly laid out the implications for future revenue and profits, and hence market capitalization and investment.However, Warren, as with many of the other candidates, committed to a carbon tax at the CNN town hall. Expect more on this front soon enough.All-in-all, Warren’s plan more ignores transportation than not.Land UseWarren has not one, but two land-use plans. The first is targeted at farmers, and the second is targeted at public lands.My plan will make it economically feasible for farmers to be part of the climate change solution by increasing CSP’s payments for sustainable farming practices from around $1 billion today to $15 billion annually — and expanding the types of practices eligible for compensation — so that every farmer who wants to use their land to fight climate change can do so.This is a reasonable approach, leveraging an existing pathway. It pales in comparison to Yang’s $285 billion commitment, which is much more in line with the scale of the challenge, if lacking in detail. However, Warren’s approach is, as always, more structurally wonky, but perhaps in this case more voter friendly.This plan, like her manufacturing plan, has a context of returning decent-paying work to Americans. Her approach to this is strong supply management in agriculture — basically collective bargaining for farmers — allowing them to ensure that they can sell their products for more money than it takes to produce them. Ensuring a stronger annual profit reduces the incentives to cut corners for short-term gain, something that the agricultural industry is just as subject to as other industries.Beyond that, there is the public lands policy. As noted already, it prevents new oil and gas exploitation on these lands and prioritizes much lower impact wind and solar electrical generation.But that’s not all from a climate perspective. Warren’s approach would also re-protect all of the 2 million acres — an area 2/3rds the size of Connecticut — that Trump has removed from protection in his Administration. More teeth and money would be put into protecting public lands and for land and water conservation efforts. That has direct and long-term climate benefits, but mostly from not turning nature into paved plazas.The MilitaryWarren has already tabled legislation, the Defense Climate Resiliency and Readiness Act, to address the military’s role in global warming and its ability to deal with its impacts. And the military is a different beast than other contributors to global warming. It has to be ready to be anywhere in the world on short notice, operate in zones with heavily disrupted infrastructure and have major ships operate independently for extended periods of time. Powering this mandate with renewable and biofuel energy is impossible in the near term, and extremely difficult in the longer term.But the military has a steady state set of operations that can be addressed. The sharp end of the spear is hard to decarbonize, but it’s a huge logistical machine, and much of the logistics can be decarbonized. And so, the first target of Warren’s plan is that:the Pentagon should achieve net zero carbon emissions for all its non-combat bases and infrastructure by 2030.Base adaptation funding would be provided. Contractors that weren’t zero emissions would pay 1% of contracts that they receive for the business, and that money would go to climate adaptation resiliency. Funding would go to research for advanced energy storage and microgrid approaches so that forward bases could be set up and run without nearly as much diesel generation.Warren’s plan is wonky, somewhat hard to sell but solidWarren’s plan is far from having the highest price tag. The numbers only add up to $4 trillion, 20% under Yang’s already low-ball plan. But they have the merit of working in the spheres that are under federal mandate, putting the money dominantly into existing processes and programs that have proven track records and changing structural misalignments that create climate problems.Some of it can be sold to the American working class easily, specifically the manufacturing jobs and the farm profit stabilization, even if the approach to gaining those benefits won’t necessarily sit well with fiscal conservatives. Others are harder to explain to most voters, such as her SEC disclosure policy.And others, something shared with most of the Democratic candidates, are just going to be a problem for major stakeholders such as Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry. On those files, the stakeholders are going to be choosing among evils, less than rooting for the nominee, or funding them. The military will prefer Warren to some other candidates, while Wall Street will likely favor others.Is it the best plan? At the end of the series I’m writing on the front-runners’ plans (plus Yang’s), I’m sure I’ll have an opinion.Note: my personal policy is to block and mute climate change and other science deniers. Yours should be too.Reading:Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.A New Farm EconomyAccelerating the Transition to Clean EnergyMy Green Manufacturing Plan for AmericaOur military can help lead the fight in combating climate changeMy plan for public landsMichael Barnard's answer to How would you summarize Andrew Yang's ideas in the CNN climate town hall?Andrew Yang's Freedom Dividend Is Only A Step Toward Elon Musk's Basic Income VisionUS Subsidizes Fossil Fuels To The Tune Of $4.6, $27.4, Or $649 Billion Annually, Depending On Source