Saturday, January 26, 2013

Dual OS phone with Android and desktop Ubuntu not likely to arrive before 2014

DNP Converged Android and Ubuntu smartphone 'coming soon'

It's beautiful. It even works. But if there's a downside to the notion of an Android phone that runs full-blown desktop Ubuntu when docked to a big screen and keyboard, it's the need for patience. Nearly a year after the first announcement, we've had an update from one of the key project leads, Richard Collins, to the effect that work on a converged Ubuntu for Android device is running on schedule, but won't culminate in an actual product until shortly after the launch of the first Ubuntu-only smartphone:

"We are planning to very quickly follow our initial launch [of an Ubuntu-only handset] with the converged device which will have high-performing system components that will allow Ubuntu to run as a desktop OS when docked."

Considering that the first Ubuntu smartphone isn't expected until early 2014, pending agreements with manufacturer and carrier partners, we could be looking at another 12-month wait. Still, the company probably wouldn't flesh out its roadmap like this unless things were going well behind the scenes. It's also possible that Canonical will release early builds of the dual OS for us to try -- just like it's going to cater for experimental GNex owners next month. In fact, Collins told us that we "might not have much longer to wait" before we see something new on Ubuntu for Android, even if it isn't a finished product. Read our full interview with him right here.

Filed under: , ,

Comments

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/25/ubuntu-for-android-schedule/

tim tebow jets katy perry part of me video photoshop cs6 beta cate blanchett nfl news tebow tebow jets

West continues to drift into Democrats' column

(AP) ? A political generation ago, the West signaled the nation's rightward swing ? from the emergence of Ronald Reagan to the success of tax-limitation ballot measures in California and Colorado. But now the fabled expanse of jagged peaks, arid deserts and emerald coastlines is trending in a different direction.

From Washington state ? where voters in November legalized marijuana and upheld the legality of gay marriage ? to New Mexico, once a hotly contested swing state that Republicans ceded to Democrats in the presidential campaign, the West has become largely Democratic terrain.

There are, as always, exceptions. Lightly populated Idaho and Wyoming remain strongly Republican, as does Utah. And Democrats are struggling in Arizona, where a bruising immigration debate has given Republicans a lock on statewide offices but may provide Democrats an opening by firming up their support among the state's growing Hispanic population. Still, the overall trend is clear, according to analysts on all sides of the political spectrum.

"It's just a different world," said Bill Carrick, a veteran Democratic strategist in Los Angeles who has worked widely in the region. "Nevada became the next California and now Arizona looks like it will become the next Nevada. ... It's just pushing the West further and further from Republicans."

The shift is due to a combination of factors: the fusion of the region's libertarian spirit with both an influx of transplants from more liberal states seeking a better quality of life, and a growing immigrant population alienated by increasingly hardline Republican immigration proposals.

"Look at the migration patterns," said Sig Rogich, a Republican consultant in Las Vegas who worked on Reagan's presidential campaigns. "You're seeing the aftermath of a new generation of young men and women whose parents moved westward."

Politics is different in the region. Western states generally have weak political parties, part of the legacy of their political maturation during the progressive era at the start of the 20th century. Most local elections are nonpartisan affairs and voters often have the right to unilaterally set policy via ballot initiative. Western voters have long cherished nonpartisan independence, even when they voted a relatively straight party ticket.

"The West is the most American part of America," said Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute, a libertarian think tank in Denver. "It is a place where you have much more respect for individual choice and you have more ability to be who you want to be."

During the 1980s and 1990s, that libertarian streak fed a series of Republican victories as voters approved tax-limitation initiatives, protested federal environmental regulations and kept statehouses firmly in the GOP's hands. But nowadays it means something else, Carrick said.

"The libertarian thing is no longer about property rights or gun rights," he said. "It's now about letting people live their lives as they choose."

Ironically, Republicans' success may have contributed to that shift. The party managed to enshrine staunch anti-tax measures in several states' constitutions through ballot initiatives, making it very difficult to raise taxes in California, Colorado and Washington state. As a result, Democrats can't easily raise revenue ? but they also can't be attacked for doing so, said Ron Dotzauer, a Seattle-based Democratic strategist. "They can't be defined as the pro-tax group because they can't tax," he said.

There are prominent Republicans who demonstrate that the party can still win the region. Brian Sandoval in Nevada and Susana Martinez in New Mexico are popular Republican governors, but their relatively moderate stances often put them at odds with the national party. Both, for example, just agreed to the Medicaid expansion under President Barack Obama's health care plan, something that is anathema to many conservative Republicans.

"People appreciate a leader who takes more pragmatic approaches," said Nicole McCleskey, a New Mexico-based GOP pollster who advises Martinez. She argued that Democrats' success in the region is overstated and noted that, outside of California, Republicans in 2012 only lost one Western congressional seat. As an example of how Republicans can succeed, she cited New Mexico, where the party picked up seats in the state Legislature despite the Obama wave.

But McCleskey acknowledged that New Mexico Republicans were helped by the national GOP basically giving up on the presidential race in the state. GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney did not contest the state, minimizing the damage of a divisive presidential campaign.

"We were able to localize a lot of these races and build on the change that has taken place with a strong Republican governor," she said. "Republicans fought on state issues and the Democrats tried to fight on national issues."

Jill Hanauer is a Democratic strategist who engineered her party's takeover of the Colorado state Legislature in 2004. She agrees with McCleskey that the West cannot be considered a Democratic lock.

"The reason Democrats or progressives are winning is that Republicans got fat and happy," said Hanauer, who is now president of Project New America, a political data and strategy company in Denver. "The worst thing that can happen for Democrats is to take it for granted."

In 2002, Ruy Teixeira, a Washington, D.C.-based Democratic strategist, co-wrote "The Emerging Democratic Majority," which predicted that demographic and social trends would turn parts of the country that were deep red, like the interior Mountain West, into Democratic-leaning states. The book was published shortly after Republicans took back the U.S. Senate in the 2002 midterm elections and was received skeptically.

Last year, Teixeira and a bevy of other researchers published a new book on the Mountain West as America's new swing region. Now there was little pushback.

Teixeira said the West's shift has been dramatic because of the heavy migration to the region. Another factor is the ballot initiative process, which magnifies political trends by making it easier to enact dramatic policy changes like marijuana legalization.

But he argued in an interview that what's happened to the West is not very different from what's taking place across the country. Surveys for his book last year found it only slightly more libertarian on social issues and holding similar views toward government and taxation as other parts of the country. That, he said, is bad news for Republicans ? their problem is national, not regional.

"It's not like there's something in the water in state X that's making them harder for Republicans," Teixeira said. "It's just the same series of changes that are working themselves out in all states."

___

Follow Nicholas Riccardi on Twitter at www.twitter.com/nickriccardi

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/386c25518f464186bf7a2ac026580ce7/Article_2013-01-26-West's%20Leftward%20Swing/id-80365a35ff7543e2a9d59562d641fd07

psychosis dianna agron million hoodie march tebow trade mike the situation jacksonville jaguars jacksonville jaguars

How I Saved $13,000 To Travel - Business Insider

At age 26, Kate McCulley, now a full-time travel blogger at AdventurousKate.com, quit her job to travel the world. The following post has been republished with her permission.

--

When I started Adventurous Kate, my goal wasn?t to live off my blog (not that I would have objected to that!) ? it was to run one of the world?s top travel blogs.

My initial plan was to travel Southeast Asia for seven months. ?I budgeted $1,000 per month (in retrospect, I should have budgeted closer to $1,500), plus airfare to and from Asia ($1,500), travel insurance ($800), gear ($700), student loan payments for seven months ($1,232) and some extra financial cushion ($1,500 ? should have budgeted $2,000 or more).

My goal was to save $12,800 ? which I dropped to $12,500 when I spent $280 less than I expected to on airfare.

I started with very little savings in February, having just paid off debt. ?From February 2010 until September 2010, a period of just seven months,?I managed to save that money.

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-i-saved-13000-to-travel-kate-mucculley-adventurous-kate-2013-1

apple store bestbuy bestbuy gamestop black friday deals Sephora Cyber Monday 2012

Economist's View: 'Brave, Honest Conservatives' and Social Insurance

Brad DeLong:

... How long will it be before the likes of Veronique de Rugy stop denouncing Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, etc. as programs that have turned us into "a nation of takers", and stop denouncing these programs beneficiaries as "moochers"?
It is in some ways very odd. It used to be that critics of the welfare state pointed to high net marginal tax rates and argued that they had high deadweight losses. Sometimes they had a point. Then, after bipartisan reforms, we got to a point where there were few high net marginal tax rates large enough to induce large deadweight losses.
And then, in the blink of an eye, the problem became not public-finance deadweight losses but, rather, the moocher class, the nation of takers, etc. ...

Paul Krugman on Paul Ryan's (ahem) defense of Social Security and Medicare:

...everyone has noted Ryan?s raw dishonesty here, let?s not let the cowardice pass unmentioned. If you?re a Randian conservative, as Ryan claims to be, then you should consider Social Security and Medicare every bit as much a part of the moocher conspiracy as Medicaid and food stamps. And don?t say that you pay for what you get: Social Security benefits aren?t proportional to payment, so that the system is somewhat redistributionist, and Medicare benefits don?t depend at all on how much you pay in, so that the system is strongly redistributionist. (You might even say that Medicare takes from each according to his ability, and gives to each according to his needs).
All of this is fine with me, but it should be anathema to Ryan. But he knows that Social Security and Medicare are popular, so he pretends that his radical philosophy has nothing bad to say about these programs, and that we can massively downsize government on the backs of the undeserving poor.
But remember, he?s a Brave, Honest Conservative. Everyone says so.

Speaking of social insurance, here's James Kwak:

...Unsurprisingly, most Americans are split between various misconceptions of what Social Security and Medicare are. Many, particularly right-wing politicians and their media mouthpieces, see them as pure tax-and-transfer programs: they gather money from one set of people and give it to another set of people. This feeds easily into the makers-vs.-takers line, with payroll taxes on workers going to fund benefits for non-workers. From this point of view, they are bad bad bad bad bad and should be cut.
Many others, particularly beneficiaries and people who hope to see beneficiaries, see them as earned benefits. The common conception is that you pay in while you?re working, so you earned the benefits you get in retirement..., you?re just getting back ?your? money that you set aside during your career.
Both of these perspectives are wrong, the latter more obviously so. Most people, during their working careers, do not pay nearly enough in payroll taxes to pay for their expected benefits. This is most obvious for Medicare...
The problem with the tax-and-transfer argument is only slightly more subtle. Sure, at any given moment some people pay taxes and others collect benefits (and many do both, since Medicare is funded by general revenues). But most of us will both pay and receive at different points in our lives. So both programs are really more like income-shifting arrangements...
In the inaugural address, I think the president got it basically right. They are risk-spreading programs. You don?t get back exactly what you put in: they have a certain degree of progressivity (although less for Social Security than is commonly imagined). Their main function is to protect people against extreme outcomes by pooling a limited share of our resources.
Yes, rich people end up paying payroll taxes for insurance they end up not needing. But that?s how insurance always works: you pay the premiums hoping you won?t need it. And the key fact is that most young people, whey they start paying payroll taxes, don?t know what their own personal outcomes will be. ... Like any insurance scheme, you can make everyone better off simply by moving money around between different states of the world.
These particular insurance schemes, as the president said, have a moral element to them. They are a way of expressing out solidarity with each other as Americans, people united, however loosely, in a common endeavor. They also have an economic element to them. People protected against bad outcomes are more willing to take the risks needed for a vibrant and prosperous society. They are something to celebrate, not something to be embarrassed about whenever the Republicans come after them.

I've written quite a bit about the insurance aspect as well, e.g. see The Need for Social Insurance:

Economic systems differ in their ability to provide goods and services and in the level of economic risk faced by a typical household. Socialism is a low mean, low variance economic system. With a planned economy, cycles in unemployment do not occur unless mandated by planners. Worker income, though low, is not subject to substantial variation over time. Other economic risks, such as access to housing and risks related to healthcare are also very low since these services are provided by the state. Economic risks for workers are low in such a system, but so is average income.

Under capitalism the average level of income is much higher, but economic risk is higher as well. In a capitalist system, workers can be involuntarily displaced as new products are invented, new production techniques are implemented, production moves outside the country, or inevitable business cycle variation occurs. These are shocks that affect workers independent of their own behavior. A worker who has shown up to work every day and worked hard to support a family can be suddenly unemployed for reasons unrelated to anything connected to his or her own behavior.

As the U.S. entered the 20th century, important social changes arising from industrialization were becoming increasingly evident, and these changes exposed the high degree of economic risk under a capitalist system. Migration to cities and the resulting breakup of the extended family, reliance on wage income as a primary means of support, and increasing life expectancy resulted in increased economic risk for the typical worker relative to the more agrarian economy that existed prior to industrialization.

In an agrarian economy, economic security is provided by extended family relationships coupled with the largely self-sufficient nature of farms. On a farm, a recession is a bad harvest, but it generally does not mean a total lack of income. Times can be tough, food can be very scarce and there can be hunger, but generating a subsistence level of income from the farm is usually possible even in the worst of years. For a worker dependent solely upon wage income, the consequences of a recession are much more severe. A recession means a total lack of income, not just hard times. Without the help of others or the existence of some type of social insurance program, abject poverty is a real possibility (see Life After the Great Depression for descriptions of the misery that followed the Great Depression).

Retirement also takes on a different character. On the farm, retirement meant gradually, if often reluctantly, letting the children take over responsibility for the farm, but it did not mean a total loss of income. Children provided for parents. But an aging worker in a city, perhaps disconnected geographically from their children, faces a different circumstance upon retirement. Such a worker may face a complete loss of income, and disability from age is not always an event that occurs according to plan. Even a worker who has diligently saved for retirement can suddenly become impoverished due to events such unexpected health costs, or even a much longer life than expected.

As industrialization progressed, 1920 marks a benchmark year where, for the first time, more than half of the population lived in cities. When the Great Depression hit around a decade later, the social changes the U.S. was experiencing and the need for new ideas regarding the government?s responsibility for the economic security of its citizens became clear. The Great Depression made it evident that in a capitalist system, where the whimsies of the marketplace can wreak havoc on people?s lives, the government has an obligation to provide economic security. It was also evident that the private sector did not provide the needed level of insurance and that government intervention was required to overcome this problem (due to both moral hazard and asymmetric information problems in the private insurance market).

It is important that the economy be allowed to change with new technology and changing preferences, but the consequences for innocent workers affected by such changes is a social responsibility that needs to be addressed. In addition, as extended family relationships are hindered by geography and the social contract between parents and children breaks down, the elderly need a way to avoid poverty. Programs such as Unemployment Compensation, Medicare, and Social Security arose as a means to mitigate these economic risks under capitalism using the least amount of society?s valuable resources.

Drawing a rough analogy, socialism is like investing in T-Bills. Low risk, but low return. Capitalism is like the stock market. There is a higher average return accompanied by higher risk. Financial theory tells how to insure against such risks and there is no reason why this cannot be applied in the social insurance arena to smooth variations in income.

There is a need for social insurance under capitalism.

Source: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/01/brave-honest-conservatives-and-social-insurance.html

dallas fort worth tornado dallas tornadoes dallas weather nike nfl uniforms ben and jerrys free cone day tornado in dallas texas the island president

Friday, January 25, 2013

The Engadget Show 40: The Best of CES with Kaz Hirai, 50 Cent, Ken Block and Arianna Huffington

The craziest week of the tech year is at end, and we have to say, we thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. Sure, it wasn't quite as epic as it has been in years past, but CES is still the show that sets the stage for the rest of 2013. By that measure, we may well be seeing an interesting shift. With the loss of Microsoft, some smaller companies have been using the show to make names for themselves amongst the 4K TVs released by the bigwigs like Samsung, Sony and LG. The Pebble smart watch, the Oculus Rift and the Razer Edge all scored big. We take a look at the products and discuss how things like crowdfunding are affecting the world of hardware startups.

We've also got interviews galore -- we'll be talking with Sony CEO Kaz Hirai, SMS Audio CEO (and rapper, we're told) 50 Cent, rally car driver Ken Block, Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington, Stern Pinball CEO Gary Stern, MakerBot CEO Bre Pettis and CEA president Gary Shapiro among many, many others (including a very special appearance from Gallagher -- this is Vegas, after all). Daniel, the winner of our Bring a Reader to CES contest will show you what it's like going to the show for the first time and our editors discuss how this year's event compares to years past. And, of course, we've also got lots of floor time with our favorite gadgets from the show.

Toss on a comfortable pair of walking shoes, because it's time to do CES all over again.

Hosts: Tim Stevens, Brian Heater
Guests: Kaz Hirai, 50 Cent, Ken Block, Arianna Huffington, Gary Stern, Gary Shapiro, Daniel Orren, and many, many others
Producer: Ben Harrison
Executive Producers: Brian Heater, Joshua Fruhlinger

Download the Show: The Engadget Show - 040 (HD) / The Engadget Show - 040 (iPod / iPhone / Zune formatted) / The Engadget Show - 040 (Small)

Subscribe to the Show:

[iTunes] Subscribe to the Show directly in iTunes (MP4).
[Zune] Subscribe to the Show directly in the Zune Marketplace (MP4).
[RSS MP4] Add the Engadget Show feed (MP4) to your RSS aggregator and have it delivered automatically.
[HD RSS] Get the Engadget Show delivered automatically in HD.
[iPad RSS] Get the Engadget Show in iPad-friendly adaptive format.

Filed under: , , ,

Comments

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/24/engadget-show-40/

dale earnhardt oscar predictions nba all star game 2012 academy awards 2012 nominations academy awards independent spirit awards 2012 jan brewer

Burger King drops supplier linked to horsemeat

A sign hangs at a branch of Burger King in central London, Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013. Burger King says it has stopped buying beef from an Irish supplier whose patties in Britain and Ireland were found to contain traces of horsemeat. Officials say there is no risk to human health, but the episode has raised food security concerns. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

A sign hangs at a branch of Burger King in central London, Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013. Burger King says it has stopped buying beef from an Irish supplier whose patties in Britain and Ireland were found to contain traces of horsemeat. Officials say there is no risk to human health, but the episode has raised food security concerns. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

FILE - This Wednesday June 20, 2012 file photo shows a Burger King sign in Richardson, Texas. British and Irish burger fans could face a Whopper shortage after Burger King announced Thursday Jan. 24, 2013, it has stopped buying beef from an Irish meat processor whose patties were found to contain traces of horse DNA. (AP Photo/LM Otero, File)

A sign above a branch of Burger King in central London, Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013. Burger King says it has stopped buying beef from an Irish supplier whose patties in Britain and Ireland were found to contain traces of horsemeat. Officials say there is no risk to human health, but the episode has raised food security concerns. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

Pedestrians pass by a branch of Burger King in central London, Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013. Burger King says it has stopped buying beef from an Irish supplier whose patties in Britain and Ireland were found to contain traces of horsemeat. Officials say there is no risk to human health, but the episode has raised food security concerns. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

(AP) ? British and Irish burger fans could face a Whopper shortage. Burger King has stopped buying beef from an Irish meat processor whose patties were found to contain traces of horsemeat.

The fast food chain said Thursday it had dropped Silvercrest Foods as a supplier for its U.K. and Ireland restaurants as a "voluntary and precautionary measure."

Last week Silvercrest, which is owned by ABP Food Group, shut down its production line and recalled 10 million burgers from supermarket shelves in Britain and Ireland after horse DNA was found in some beef products.

Burger King said the decision to drop the supplier "may mean that some of our products are temporarily unavailable." It stressed that "this is not a food safety issue."

The company added that there was "no evidence to suggest any of the Silvercrest product supplied to Burger King was affected" by the horsemeat contamination.

Rival McDonald's said it does not buy beef from Silvercrest or other affected suppliers.

The presence of horsemeat in beef is a sensitive issue in Britain and Ireland, which do not have a tradition of eating horses. The British tabloid The Sun reported the Burger King story under the headline "Shergar King," a reference to a famous racehorse.

Products from another Irish firm and one in Britain also were contaminated by horsemeat. Most had only small traces, but one burger of a brand sold by the British supermarket chain Tesco contained 29 percent horsemeat.

Irish food officials say an ingredient imported from an unspecified European country and used as filler in cheap burgers is the likely source of the horsemeat contamination.

Burger King says its patties are made from 100 percent beef.

Officials say the horsemeat poses no risk to human health, but the episode has raised food security worries.

More concern arose Thursday when lawmaker Mary Creagh, environment spokeswoman for Britain's opposition Labour Party, said that several horses slaughtered in the country last year had tested positive for phenylbutazone, an anti-inflammatory drug given to horses that can cause cancer in humans.

"It is possible that those animals entered the human food chain," she said.

The Food Standards Agency confirmed that meat from five horses had tested positive for the drug, but said none had been approved for sale in Britain. It said the relevant food safety authorities were informed in cases where the meat was exported to other countries.

The agency said no horsemeat in the current scandal contained phenylbutazone.

Very little horsemeat is sold in Britain but the country sends thousands of horses a year abroad to be killed for meat.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/bbd825583c8542898e6fa7d440b9febc/Article_2013-01-24-Britain-Horsemeat-Burger%20King/id-25a4a12e72994ec29d8f8316b75d2c71

Pussy Riot National Hurricane Center Zeek Rewards vanessa bryant vanessa bryant Prince Harry naked Prince Harry Vegas

This is a Big, Big Deal (talking-points-memo)

Share With Friends: Share on FacebookTweet ThisPost to Google-BuzzSend on GmailPost to Linked-InSubscribe to This Feed | Rss To Twitter | Politics - Top Stories Stories, RSS and RSS Feed via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/279347467?client_source=feed&format=rss

magic mike trailer Alan Turing brave Stephanie Rice Meet the Pyro Karen Klein Colorado fires