Saturday, January 19, 2013

Engadget Mobile Podcast 166 - 1.16.2013

Engadget Mobile Podcast 166

Yeah, we had two podcasts during CES, but that doesn't mean we're done with it just yet. Still sleep-deprived and filled with excitement from the show floor, it's time to catch up on the tech we didn't get a chance to discuss -- and the stuff we couldn't get enough of. Is octa-core really CPU related or a villain from the world of Batman? Is Samsung's Youm a new dessert or some exciting flexible display technology? Is T-Mobile poised to conquer the mobile realm this year? Most importantly, is everything that happened prior to CES officially a blur for Myriam and Brad? You'll just have to tune in to find out!

Hosts: Myriam Joire (tnkgrl), Brad Molen

Producer: Joe Pollicino

Music: Tycho - Coastal Brake (Ghostly International)

Hear the podcast

00:08:43 - Intel Lexington-based phones
00:16:51 - Samsung Youm flexible display tech
00:20:17 - Tactus morphing touchscreen keyboard
00:23:29 - Wysips solar-cell display hands-on
00:27:02 - Samsung ATIV Odyssey for Verizon
00:29:11 - Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 for Verizon
00:29:28 - Engadget CES interview with Verizon's Praveen Atreya
00:42:24 - T-Mobile's Las Vegas LTE launch
00:42:24 - HTC One SV for Cricket hands-on
00:46:05 - HTC design: Hits & misses
00:52:29 - iPhone on T-Mobile, maybe, soon?
00:52:51 - T-mobile HD Voice launch
00:53:13 - T-mobile contract-free unlimited data plans
00:54:53 - T-Mobile Tap Tag NFC app for Android hands-on
00:56:30 - A4WP wireless charging
01:01:55 - CES 2013 smartphone roundup
01:08:15 - Pebble smartwatch hands-on
01:26:37 - Twitter question: Motorola Droid M vs. Verizon Nexus?
01:30:18 - Extended thoughts on octa-core


Subscribe to the podcast
[iTunes] Subscribe to the Podcast directly in iTunes
[RSS MP3] Add the Engadget Mobile Podcast feed (in MP3) to your RSS aggregator and have the show delivered automatically
[RSS AAC] Add the Engadget Mobile Podcast feed (in enhanced AAC) to your RSS aggregator
[Zune] Subscribe to the Podcast directly in the Zune Marketplace

Download the podcast
LISTEN (MP3)
LISTEN (AAC)

Contact the podcast
podcast (at) engadgetmobile (dot) com.

Follow us on Twitter
@tnkgrl @phonewisdom @engadgetmobile

Filed under: ,

Comments

Source: http://feeds.engadget.com/~r/weblogsinc/engadget/~3/VH36XehtTDw/

Dick Morris Daily Show provisional ballot npr rush limbaugh rush limbaugh karl rove

Americans want a good inauguration show ? corporate funding or not

On March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson walked from a nearby boardinghouse to the Capitol to be inaugurated as the third president of the United States. His two predecessors, George Washington and John Adams, had arrived at their own inaugurations by stagecoach, clad in elegant suits.

But Jefferson went on foot, wearing the clothes ?of a plain citizen without any distinctive badge of office,? as a Virginia newspaper reported. Jefferson swore his presidential oath, gave a brief speech, and then walked back to have dinner with his fellow boarders.

OPINION: How civility can come to Washington (+video)

Fast-forward to this Monday, when President Obama will be inaugurated for his second term. Citing the struggling economy, organizers have scaled the celebration back from his first inauguration, when they raised a record $53 million in private donations. But this year?s festivities will still feature plenty of glitz and glam, including performances by Beyonc? and Kelly Clarkson. And it will be funded in part by corporate donations and large individual gifts, which Mr. Obama renounced the last time around. In the wake of the November elections, the Obama camp said it would be hard to raise still more money from ?campaign weary? donors.

And most Americans seem ok with that. Sure, Obama?s fundraising for next week's inauguration has drawn barbs from Public Citizen and a Republican organization called GOP.com. But I haven?t noticed anyone complain about all of the inaugural glamour, even if most of us won?t get anywhere near it. The big events are all invitation-only, and only big donors will get in.

Institutions giving $1 million or individuals contributing $250,000 to the inauguration festivities will earn the coveted ?Washington? designation, receiving exclusive access to the inauguration?s two balls (down from 10 last time) and other events. Next comes the ?Adams? group, at $500,000 and $150,000, respectively. After that is ? you guessed it ? the ?Jefferson? level: $250,000 for corporations and $75,000 for individuals. And there are a few more rungs below that.

All that cash will pay for lots of pomp and circumstance, which is what Americans really want. Despite Thomas Jefferson?s pleas for ?republican simplicity,? the citizens of the republic have generally favored loud and lavish festivities when they install a president ? and even when they re-elect one. The only questions have been who gets to participate, and who picks up the tab.

The first great ?people?s president? was Andrew Jackson, a war hero who lacked the wealth and privilege of Jefferson and other prior leaders. Fittingly, then, Jackson?s 1829 inaugural was also the first truly mass celebration in Washington, D.C.

And how the masses did celebrate! Jackson was overrun at the Capitol by a huge mob, which broke through a chain and pursued him all the way to the Executive Mansion. Crowds later rushed into the mansion, breaking china and tearing draperies as they fought to shake hands with the new president. Jackson was forced to escape through a window, while his admirers ? fueled by orange punch ? continued to party into the night.

To America?s more traditional elites, all of this merrymaking demonstrated the folly of popular rule. ?I never saw such a mixture,? declared Supreme Court justice Joseph Story. ?The reign of King Mob seemed triumphant.?

Similar worries marked the second inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, in 1865, when hungry visitors raided an invitation-only buffet and made off with silverware, candlesticks, and punch bowls. But poet Walt Whitman ? perhaps the era?s best-known tribune of democracy ? was charmed rather than alarmed by the revelry. ?Never before was such a compact jam in front of the White House,? enthused Whitman, who rushed forward with the crowd.

So did the great African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglass, but he was stopped at the door and told that blacks weren?t allowed any further. Douglass sent word to Lincoln, whom he had met a few months earlier, and the president ordered guards to let him in. ?Here comes my friend Douglass,? Lincoln exclaimed. ?I am glad to see you.?

Lincoln was assassinated a few weeks later, marking the end of free-for-alls at the White House. Banquets and balls arose in their place, restricted to the select few. ?Anyone who is anyone is there,? declared Alice Roosevelt, describing a ball at her father Theodore?s 1905 inauguration, ?and a lot of people who are no one try to get in as well.?

Jimmy Carter tried to bring the common touch back to his inauguration in 1977, substituting informal dance parties for black-tie balls. He also walked from the Capitol to the White House, rather than riding in a car.

I was in the crowd that chilly afternoon, a shivering 15-year-old waving happily at the president as he strolled by. In the public press, however, Carter?s down-home efforts received more ridicule than respect. ?A few more such ?people?s parties? could bring back snobbery,? one columnist sniffed.

And so they did. Fancy balls returned to inaugurations with Ronald and Nancy Reagan, who wore a $22,500 gown on loan from a designer in 1985. Following suit, Michelle Obama?s luxurious 2009 inaugural outfits were the talk of the fashion world, which has been speculating on her 2013 gowns for weeks.

OPINION: Eight reasons to ?mute? super PAC ads

Americans have come to expect nothing less. No matter who parties with the president ? or who pays for it ? the inauguration is really a party for all of us. Anyone who is anyone will be there.

Jonathan Zimmerman is a professor of history and education at New York University and is currently teaching a three-week course at NYU?s campus in Abu Dhabi. He is the author of ?Small Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory? (Yale University Press).

ALSO BY THIS WRITER: Debt debate: the myth of the good old days before big government

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/americans-want-good-inauguration-show-corporate-funding-not-162903790--politics.html

los angeles kings earth day timothy leary jonathan frid pujols watchmen hitch

U.N. clinches global deal on cutting mercury emissions

GENEVA (Reuters) - More than 140 countries have agreed on the first global treaty to cut mercury pollution through a blacklist of household items and new controls on power plants and small-scale mines, the United Nations said on Saturday.

The legally-binding agreement aims to phase out many products that use the toxic liquid metal such as batteries, thermometers and some fluorescent lamps, through banning global import and exports by 2020.

The treaty will require countries with coal-fired power plants such as India and China to install filters and scrubbers on new plants and to commit to reducing emissions from existing operations to prevent mercury from coal reaching the atmosphere.

"We have closed a chapter on a journey that has taken four years of often intense but ultimately successful negotiations and opened a new chapter towards a sustainable future," said Fernando Lugris, chair of the negotiations.

The deal also includes measures to reduce mercury use in small-scale gold mining, although stopped short of an all-out ban. Gold prices near $1,700 a metric ton have spurred the use of mercury as a catalyst to separate gold from its ore.

Emissions of mercury from artisanal and small-scale gold mines, which are usually unofficial and often illegal, more than doubled to 727 metric tons in 2010 from 2005 levels, overtaking coal-fired power plants as the main source of pollution from the metal.

The Minamata Convention on Mercury - named after the Japanese city where people were poisoned in the mid-20th century from industrial discharges of mercury - needs ratification from 50 countries and is expected to be formalized later this year.

The treaty requires governments to draw up national rules to comply and could take between three to five years to take effect.

As mercury, also known as quicksilver, is released to the air or washed into rivers and oceans, it spreads worldwide, and builds up in humans mostly through consumption of fish. The brains of fetuses and infants are particularly vulnerable to damage from mercury.

Officials said the financing required to bring in cleaner technology for industry and help developing countries come up with local solutions was one of the major sticking points of the six-day negotiations.

"Financing was agreed very early this morning and it was one of the most difficult aspects," said Lugris.

Japan, Norway and Switzerland have made initial pledges totaling $3 million in financing and an interim financial arrangement will be discussed in April by the Global Environment Facility, said Tim Kasten, head of the chemicals branch of UNEP.

Countries failed to agree on including vaccines where mercury is sometimes used as a preservative.

SOFT LANGUAGE?

While negotiators celebrated the deal reached after all-night talks in the fifth and final round of talks, the response from some non-governmental organizations (NGO) was more muted.

"The treaty will not bring immediate reductions of mercury emissions. It will need to be improved and strengthened, to make all fish safe to eat," said David Lennett from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

NGO IPEN, which aims to reduce the health risk of chemicals, described the language of the treaty as "soft" and "somewhat voluntary in nature" and said it was unlikely to result in a global reduction of mercury releases.

"Countries that do not want to do this can escape quite easily," said IPEN's Joe DiGangi.

In one notable climbdown, countries abandoned their goal of setting concrete targets for pollution levels from coal-fired power plants and cement factories, but negotiators said they would defer these discussions to a later meeting.

For mining, the treaty requires action from governments to reduce mercury use where artisanal and small-scale gold mining is "more than insignificant" but has no list of countries.

Alternatives to mercury in small mines are available, such as magnetic sluices, but developing countries have complained about the cost of implementation.

Many developing countries including Brazil and Mali strongly resisted attempts to limit imports of mercury, according to IPEN, because of the economic importance of small mines.

"The supply is still available, the practice of artisanal mining is still polluting and we are left with a mess at the end and there is no funding to clean it up," said DiGangi.

Artisanal and small gold mines now account for around 35 percent of global mercury pollution, according to a study by the U.N. Environment Programme published last week.

Other NGOs welcomed the number of products included in the treaty.

"The list of products was much longer than we expected," said Elena Lymberidi-Settimo, a coordinator at Zero Mercury Working Group. "The treaty sends the right market signal and will eventually lead to less exposure worldwide."

Many nations have already tightened laws - the United States barred exports of mercury from January 1, 2013. The European Union, until 2008 the main global exporter, barred exports of the liquid metal in 2011.

(Reporting by Emma Farge and Tom Miles; Editing by Sophie Hares)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/u-n-clinches-global-deal-cutting-mercury-emissions-192847885.html

faith hill metro north Breezy Point Seaside Heights taco bell taco bell nj transit

Friday, January 18, 2013

orthodox silver analysis is useless in determining ... - Silver Doctors

SRS3By SD Contributor SRSrocco:

The problem today with the typical analysis coming from the BULLS & BEARS concerning future silver investment demand and price is that it is based upon an ENERGY SYSTEM that is more than 1,000 years old.? You cannot understand silver if you DO NOT UNDERSTAND ENERGY.

Most of the investing public and the folks from FOFOA have no clue how energy will impact the future silver investment demand as well as its price.? They FAIL TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.

SILVER INVESTMENT DEMAND WILL BE HOTTER THAN GOLD.

?mark my words!

?

2013 Silver Eagles As Low As $2.59 Over Spot at SDBullion.com!
2013 Silver Eagle

The problem today with the typical analysis coming from the BULLS & BEARS concerning future silver investment demand and price is that it is based upon an ENERGY SYSTEM that is more than 1,000 years old.? You cannot understand silver if you DO NOT UNDERSTAND ENERGY.

This is my biggest BEEF with the folks in which I have a lot of respect in the precious metal community? as well as the NITWITS in which I hold very little.? As I stated before, I was writing about DECLINING ORE GRADES 4-5 years ago when most were talking about how great the gold and silver stocks were going to perform.

Well, we found out in the past several years just how bad the mining stocks have performed and how fast the ORE GRADES HAVE FALLEN.? I also believe today, that the same ANALYSTS are missing the important fundamental when making their forecasts?. and that is ENERGY.

For example? this was Endeavour Silver?s newest Press Release;

Endeavour Silver Delivers 8th Consecutive Year of Production Growth in 2012; Silver Production Up 20% to 4,485,426 oz, Gold Output up 77% to 38,687 oz

This was great news from Endeavour as they are increasing reserves as well as production.? However, this is what they failed to mention to the investing public:

ENDEAVOUR SILVER PRODUCTION DATA

2007 silver production = 2,135,484 oz

2007 tonnes milled = 291,561

2007 average silver yield = 7.3 oz per tonne

2012 silver production = 4,485,426 oz

2012 tonnes milled = 1,065,689

2012 average silver yield = 4.2 oz per tonne

Q4 2012 silver production = 1,235,026 oz

Q4 2012 tonnes milled = 362,799

Q4 average silver yield = 3.4 oz per tonne

???????

So, Endeavour has doubled its annual silver production since 2007, but has done so as its average silver yield has declined in HALF.? Thus, Endeavour is consuming more energy to produce the same oz of silver than it did 5 years ago.

Most of the investing public and the folks from FOFOA have no clue how energy will impact the future silver investment demand as well as its price.? They FAIL TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.

SILVER INVESTMENT DEMAND WILL BE HOTTER THAN GOLD.

?mark my words.

?

Source: http://www.silverdoctors.com/orthodox-silver-analysis-is-useless-in-determining-future-silver-investment-demand/

atlanta falcons voting hours election results Doug Martin Barack Obama & Joe Biden Am I registered to vote Voter registration

Is Something Toxic Buried in China's Financial System?

Sorry, Readability was unable to parse this page for content.

Source: http://www.newstrust.net/stories/9089064?ref=rss

survivor snl WWE peter frampton smokey robinson smokey robinson Sandy Hook Elementary School Colors

Using Social Media Efficiently ? naked capitalism

Using Social Media Efficiently

This Onion talk shows how much the state of what is cool (as in what investors will pay the most for) in technology has changed since the dot-com era. One of the hallmarks of a dot com was you had lots of young people working really hard and not sleeping and going to meetings spouting impenetrable jargon. I recall I gasped out loud when I read Jeff Bezos saying he slept 8 hours a night. Bad enough that he did that?but admitting to doing that? Amazon had gone public by then, so he could afford a luxury like shut-eye.

I?ve spent more of my life doing meetings through translation than I care to admit, plus I?ve worked with firms that had bleeding edge, large scale IT implementations, so I?ve also had more exposure to geeks than most finance types. After a few dot-com meetings, I realized they bore absolutely no resemblance to other cutting edge tech presentations I?d been party to. In those, content was clearly being conveyed, even though I might not understand it all. It clearly could be translated, and the more technical stuff unpacked. With the dot coms, I realized almost no content was being conveyed in these discussions. It was all atmospherics and noise, or what is more generally described as smoke and mirrors, except the kids hadn?t seen anything else, and really thought this was what it took to build businesses.

This talk shows how this mode of operation has been taken to its logical conclusion. Hat tip Lambert:

Source: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/using-social-media-efficiently.html

stock act new york auto show khalid sheikh mohammed masters par 3 gwen stefani overeem laron landry

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Why Washington and its debt woes eclipse 'jobs' as public's top concerns

The mood shift, which showed up in a new Gallup poll, doesn't coincide with marked improvement in the jobs outlook. Rather, it indicates that Americans are becoming more worried about Washington's management of debt and other fiscal matters.

By Mark Trumbull,?Staff writer / January 16, 2013

The US Capitol is seen at sunrise in Washington earlier this month.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Enlarge

Consider whether the following statement sounds accurate: The economy has become a much less urgent concern for Americans over the past three months.?That doesn't sound quite right, does it?

Skip to next paragraph

' + google_ads[0].line2 + '
' + google_ads[0].line3 + '

'; } else if (google_ads.length > 1) { ad_unit += ''; } } document.getElementById("ad_unit").innerHTML += ad_unit; google_adnum += google_ads.length; return; } var google_adnum = 0; google_ad_client = "pub-6743622525202572"; google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '1'; google_feedback = "on"; google_ad_type = "text"; google_adtest = "on"; google_image_size = '230x105'; google_skip = '0'; // -->

But now get this: A new Gallup poll does find a dramatic shift since October in the things Americans list as the "most important problem facing this country."

Back then, "the economy" was far and away the frontrunner, with "unemployment/jobs" solidly in second place. Together, those two concerns accounted for nearly two-thirds of responses (63 percent). By this month, that share had fallen to just 37 percent in the Gallup survey.

Today, the 21 percent whose top choice is "the economy" are essentially matched by the 20 percent who say federal deficit/debt is the most important problem for the country. Another 18 percent named some problem with politicians or government. (The survey was open-ended, so pollsters pooled a range of concerns about government, from poor leadership to political corruption, under that heading.)

Add it all together and concerns that center squarely on Washington (debt and politics) now outrank the combined level of concern about the economy or jobs in Gallup's survey. Put another way, for the first month since 2009, the category of "unemployment/jobs" doesn't rank ahead of those fiscal and political concerns.

Why?

The mood shift doesn't coincide with a suddenly brighter economic outlook: The unemployment rate and economic growth haven't changed much in the past three months. A more plausible explanation is that, instead of economic concerns diminishing, worries about politics are rising. And to a large exent, the two spheres of national interest overlap.

Amid headlines about a "fiscal cliff" for the economy, Americans may be concluding that their own job prospects and pocketbook health depend in significant ways on policies being determined in Washington ? a place that seems to know a lot more about bickering than about grand bargains to achieve fiscal security.

Note that the Gallup survey was conducted Jan. 7-10, a few days after the White House and Congress reached a deal that averted steep tax hikes this year, but that failed to set a longer-term course toward stabilizing the national debt.?The fiscal negotiations may have affected the Gallup results by underscoring a range of simmering worries in public thought, including disatisfaction with Congress, the prospect that rising debt will restrict the nation's future prosperity or force cuts in popular programs like Medicare, or concern about future stalemates in Washington over important fiscal matters.

Source: http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/8KlpKOoqFoY/Why-Washington-and-its-debt-woes-eclipse-jobs-as-public-s-top-concerns

naacp glen campbell jerusalem artichoke bud shootout aretha franklin stevie wonder new orleans weather