Microsoft Windows 8 update will be free when it comes later this year

• 

  Oct. 25, 2012: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer gives his presentation at the launch of Microsoft Windows 8 in New York.AP Photo/Richard Drew

• 

  Oct. 25, 2012:fSteven Sinofsky, then-president of the Microsoft Windows group, delivers his presentation at the launch of Microsoft Windows 8, in New York.AP Photo/Richard Drew

Next Slide Previous Slide

NEW YORK –  A planned Windows 8 update to address complaints and confusion with Microsoft's new operating system will be made available for free this year, the company said Tuesday.

Microsoft also announced a name for the update: Windows 8.1.

Not charging extra for Windows 8.1 is consistent with the company's practice of offering "decimal point" updates to operating systems for free. However, when Microsoft Corp. announced the update last week, it didn't say that it would be free. The company also hadn't disclosed the system's formal name, leaving open the possibility that it would be a larger update, perhaps to Windows 9. The update had been known simply by its code name, Blue.

Tami Reller, the marketing and financial chief for Microsoft's Windows business, said the company wants to assure customers that they can buy Windows 8 now and still get the benefits of Windows 8.1 later.

Microsoft overhauled its operating system with the release of Windows 8 in October. The changes are meant to address the growing popularity of smartphones and tablet devices, which are siphoning sales from desktops and laptops -- traditional strongholds for Microsoft. The company designed Windows 8 to work with touch-screen controls popular on mobile devices, while also allowing people to use mouse and keyboard commands.

However, Windows 8 has confused a lot of users. Gone is the familiar start button that gave people quick access to programs and settings. To change settings, people must pull out a drawer of icons from the side, using a different maneuver depending on whether the control is through touch or a mouse. Windows 8 offers a new start screen filled with tiles that link to frequently used programs, but some programs work only in a desktop mode that resemble older versions of Windows -- but without the start button. Windows 8 doesn't let people automatically start in that desktop mode.

One leading research firm, International Data Corp., said Windows 8 contributed to a 14 percent decline in worldwide PC sales during the first three months of the year -- the biggest year-over-year drop ever.

Reller offered few details about Windows 8.1, but she reiterated that it will be better suited for smaller, less expensive tablets with 7- and 8-inch display screens. That could allow Windows 8 devices to compete with Apple's iPad Mini and similar-size tablets from Amazon.com Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. and Google Inc.

Reller said the company will make it easy for consumers to get the update from the start screen. She said the company also hopes some devices will have Windows 8.1 already installed by the time the update is ready. The company didn't offer a specific date, but the update is expected in time for the holiday season. Microsoft plans to make a preview version available next month for anyone to download.

Microsoft said it has sold more than 100 million Windows 8 licenses so far. Most of those are to PC makers such as Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Inc. to ship with new machines sold to individuals and businesses. Microsoft also sold upgrades from previous versions. Current prices start at $120, though some customers had been eligible for $15 upgrades.

Microsoft, which has its headquarters in Redmond, Wash., made the announcement at JP Morgan's Technology, Media and Telecom Conference in Boston on Tuesday. Microsoft's stock rose 45 cents, or 1.4 percent, to $33.25 in midday trading Tuesday.

Related Stories

BlackBerry CEO unveils 'slim, sleek,' cheaper new Q5

Warp speed, Scotty: Faster than light drives a reality?

Google Glass app offers facial recognition

View the original article here

Why isn't human nature ever considered when it comes to gun laws?

• 

In 1983 when President Reagan ordered the deployment of missiles in Europe as part of his "peace through strength" strategy to counter the Soviet Union, the very liberal town of Takoma Park, Md., declared itself a "nuclear free zone." City officials passed an ordinance known as The Takoma Park Nuclear Free Zone Act, which said, "...work on nuclear weapons is prohibited within the city limits..."

If North Korea follows through on its threat to nuke the United States (or had Russia in the '80s launched a nuclear attack), Takoma Park would not be "nuclear free" for long, but the ordinance made some people feel as though they were doing something constructive, something meaningful, about the nuclear threat, and wasn't that their point?

Today, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and Maryland, who must be seen to be doing something important about gun violence, are congratulating themselves for passing some of the "toughest" gun laws in the nation. 

Guns can never be completely outlawed, and human nature can't be changed by politicians.

These states already have tough gun laws, which in the case of the Newtown shooting last December did not deter Adam Lanza from grabbing his mother's legal weapons, murdering her and then killing 26 people, most of them children. 

Tough gun laws in Maryland have not deterred the mentally ill or criminally minded intent on getting guns, especially in Baltimore and Prince George's County, where reports of gun crimes often lead each night's local newscast.

Downplayed in this national debate and in efforts by the Obama administration to get Congress to pass "tougher" federal gun restrictions is a conversation about human nature, including better laws that allow for involuntary commitment or mandatory treatment of the mentally ill and tougher sentencing for criminals. But if laws alone were effective in regulating criminal behavior, prisons would be empty.

Life has become cheap and things are now expensive, but I remember when the reverse was true. 

Today, we seem to value stuff more than human life, which is why public storage units are full. Many began losing their moral compass years ago when "anything goes" began to replace a respect for the law and other people.

Authorities in Connecticut have revealed that Lanza spent a lot of time researching potential targets before his murderous rampage. He picked Sandy Hook Elementary, we're told, because it appeared to him to be an undefended soft target. 

The question that should suggest itself is this: Suppose Lanza knew Sandy Hook had an armed guard and other security measures? If that were the case, he might well have gone elsewhere, or not committed his evil acts at all.

The new "tougher" gun laws in Maryland and Connecticut appear to be the result of high emotion, not logic and clear thinking. 

We all ache for the parents and loved ones of the Sandy Hook victims, but the Newtown tragedy shouldn't be used as a prop for anti-gun proponents, the most extreme of which want to register or ban all weapons, except those for police and certain security people. 

What will more gun laws really accomplish? Will they keep one criminal bent on carnage from a single school door?

In 1995, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a leading force in the failed 1994 assaults weapon ban, told CBS' "60 Minutes" that: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up (every gun) ... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in. I would have done it." Then what? Do we ban knives next? No law, no ban, no restriction will ever stop evil.

What will happen in Connecticut and Maryland when there is another shooting at an undefended target? Will politicians call for even "tougher" gun laws? There is much debate and anecdotal evidence about whether concealed carry laws deter criminals, but logic would seem to suggest they do. Isn't that why many homes have burglar alarms and security systems, as well as guns? If a burglar knows a home is defended doesn't logic suggest he might try a house that is unprotected?

Guns can never be completely outlawed, and human nature can't be changed by politicians. More laws aren't the answer. Perhaps, as the old saying goes, "The best defense is a good offense."

(Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.)

Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

Related Stories

Reid sets up Thursday test vote on gun legislation, fate unclear

Senate OKs Plan to Arm Pilots

Related Opinion

Fact vs. fiction in the gun control debate

View the original article here

When it comes to marriage, government should divorce itself

• 

  Kim Roberts, left, and her partner Lisa Mayes of Benicia, Calif. participate in a marriage equality rally on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at the Solano County Government Center in Fairfield before the Supreme Court hears arguments concerning the Defense of Marriage Act after it heard arguments contesting the constitutionality of the California's Proposition 8 on Tuesday. (AP Photo/The Reporter, Joel Rosenbaum)MANDATORY CREDIT

With the Supreme Court now hearing cases centering on the legality of a federal ban on gay marriage and California’s ban on gay marriage, the real way our nation should address marriage rights is to get government out of the marriage business, altogether.

It never made sense to have state or federal government intrude into personal affairs by giving it the power to sanction and legitimize the loving commitment of one individual to another. That is a matter for the adults involved, who should share their intentions and vows in a ceremony with family, friends and any religious institutions they choose (or not), then sign any financial documents they see as being appropriate and, perhaps, exchange rings.  End of story.

If two adults are mature enough to get married, they should be mature enough to envision and codify how they will deal with their finances, should that marriage end.

The government’s only interest should be in enforcing child support and fair child custody and visitation for each parent, in the event of a dissolution of the (government-free) marital bond.  Making certain that children do not descend into poverty, and spouses are not left without parental rights, would then be the only proper function of the state related to marriage—both triggered only when marriages end.  This would be no different than the state’s current role in enforcing child support, custody and visitation in non-married couples.

The legal sanctioning of, or refusal to sanction, any loving union between adults is inherently laden with cultural values.  And if it is determined that love and commitment should be the sole driving force behind state and federal marriage laws, then it is utterly and completely illogical to deny five people who love one another the right to marry as a group.  Heterosexual government-sanctioned marriage leads logically to homosexual government-sanctioned marriage, which leads logically to polygamy.  Anyone who suggests otherwise is suggesting that government should play favorites and show prejudice.

If two men can marry, despite having no biological ability to reproduce (which some argue is the government’s stake in heterosexual marriage) and without having both genders represented as role models in the household (which others argue is the government’s stake in heterosexual marriage), then certainly two men and a woman can marry.  No one can credibly argue that three people cannot be in love, and the three-parent structure would offer the children of this marriage a mother and two fathers—role models of both genders, with 50 percent more earning capacity than a two-parent family and many advantages, in terms of built-in child care.

Government should not play favorites or show prejudice. And the proper next step for government to take is a major step out of our personal lives. This can be done by neither showing a preference for or against marriages, nor deciding who should marry whom. Instead, that should be left to people and their loved ones and their religious institutions, if any.

All state, federal and corporate (as in, health insurance) preferences shown married couples, as opposed to those who are not married, are inherently prejudicial.  There ought to be no distinction between the rules for filing taxes, whether one is married, or not.  Every individual should file taxes under the same set of rules.  There ought to be no government rubber stamp via government-sanctioned marriage of whether someone has the right to act on behalf of another individual who is too ill to make decisions. That should all be codified in a prenuptial agreement or other legal documents.  There ought to be no automatic inheritance of assets by spouses, which should be codified in a will.

The gay marriage debate is a sideshow in the bigger debate we must have:  Why was government so intrusive as to be involved in marriage, in the first place, and shouldn’t government divorce itself from the concept of sanctioning marriage, altogether? 

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.

Dr. Keith Ablow

View the original article here

Sticking with what works when it comes to Medicare -- lessons for Republicans and Democrats

• 

The Democratic and Republican Congressional budget plans proffered by House and Senate budget committee chairs must be viewed more as acts of political theater than serious fiscal roadmaps. 

Even though symbolic votes have taken place, neither plan has a chance of passing the other chamber or becoming law. 

Making moderate spending cuts while preserving key pro-growth investments in job creation, infrastructure, health care, and education is critical. 

Republicans and Democrats would be wise to recognize the political value of sticking with what works in Medicare.

However, getting the calculus right requires necessary balance and making a point to replicate what's already working. In many ways, this is the key to moving beyond symbolism and ideology in our governing process, and enacting legislative proposals that the American people can really behind.

Consider the example of Medicare, which will be a focal point in every budget debate for the next several years. There are ways to drive cost savings in Medicare while delivering high quality health care for seniors and those with disabilities. 

This has already been tested and proven under the newest major part of Medicare: the Part D drug benefit, which provides prescription drug coverage to millions of seniors and disabled Americans. It relies on private sector competition, has a 90 percent approval rating among seniors and is on track to cost more than $340 billion less during its first 10 years than originally forecast.

And that’s one major place where I've seen problems with various proposals in recent weeks: some of them are focused on gutting Part D. While this often constitutes a talking point both in Washington and on the campaign trail, Republicans and Democrats would be wise to recognize the political value of sticking with what works in Medicare. 

Turning it into a voucher system, despite significant savings over time, isn't the solution as millions (especially those under 56) will be negatively impacted. 

Baby boomers already in retirement and those about to turn 65 are by most accounts paying closer attention as Medicare dominates political news cycles.

The same governing principle also applies to the need for comprehensive fiscal and budgetary reform, as well as an overhaul of the tax code to reduce rates and minimize or eliminate deductions. 

All should happen in a balanced fashion, but Americans will reward those policymakers who address our nation's fiscal challenges head on without going overboard and pursuing policies that will result in greater economic uncertainty. 

This will be increasingly important as the job market continues to improve and the economy finds its footing.

In aggregate, the Democrats’ vision presents a more practical approach to the country’s future. But members of my own party should take into account the importance of striving for balance, without disrupting what's already working. 

For both parties, offering a sincere, realistic and innovative vision for how we drive cost savings will send a signal that Washington is serious about enacting common sense reforms. 

Five months into the new campaign cycle and with the economy beginning to turn around, this can't be discounted.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton and is currently working with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of ten books including,“Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What it Means for 2012 and Beyond” (Rowman and Littlefield 2012). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.

Related Stories

Apply for Medicare if You Don't Need it Yet?

View the original article here

Here comes Team Obama's carbon tax

• 

The Treasury Department’s Office of Environment and Energy has finally begun to turn over documents about its preparations for a carbon tax in response to transparency warrior Chris Horner’s Freedom of Information Act request. The documents provide solid evidence that the Obama administration and its allies in Congress have every intention of implementing a carbon tax if we fail to stop them.

The Office of Environment and Energy, if you’ve never heard of it, is housed in Treasury’s Office of International Affairs and exists principally to wait for authority to administer the revenue from a cap-and-trade scheme or carbon tax. And, apparently, to trick Americans into supporting the tax to provide it the money.  So the documents they’ve reluctantly released are worth a careful look.

There’s the G-20 report titled “Mobilizing Climate Finance,” which pegs the price tag at $2.1 trillion “of investment requirement” in a “global carbon market.”

There’s the helpful IMF report from Ian Parry of the Fiscal Affairs Department on “Public Sources of Climate Finance.” Parry’s stated goal for the United States is “raising revenue and putting it to good use.” 

He suggests a $25 per metric ton carbon tax – right in the middle of the range suggested by the discussion draft legislation recently released by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee – and noted that $25 billion a year could be sent abroad “for climate finance.” 

He singles out aviation and maritime fuels as “under-taxed” and suggests new taxes on fuels or directly on aircraft and ship operators. Parry notes that this “will harm developing countries” – for the simple reason that it’s economically harmful -- and concludes “compensation needed for fairness.”  (Obama recently asked Congress to OK another $65 billion in increased IMF dues, no doubt so we can receive more of this kind of advice.)

By far the biggest document is from the World Bank. It’s titled “Inclusive Green Growth: The Pathway to Sustainable Development.”  The document itself is posted on the World Bank website, but that doesn’t mean its use at the U.S. Treasury Department doesn’t require scrutiny.  The report notes that “some observers, mostly in high-income countries, have argued against the need for more growth, suggesting that what is needed instead is a redistribution of wealth.”  It seems this “remains more relevant for high-income countries” like the United States.

The report goes on to outline how a carbon tax could be used to drive a massive redistributive scheme based on – believe it or not – Iran as a model of success: “The political economy of reform will likely require compensatory transfers to the middle class. In the Islamic Republic of Iran… 80 percent of households received significant transfers—no doubt contributing to the success of the reform.” It continues: “In the end, the redistributive impacts of a carbon price scheme depend on how revenues from the scheme are used.”

Such a redistributive scheme is a key element of carbon tax proposals from Waxman and from Barbara Boxer, the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  

It’s easy to foresee a “gas stamps” program much like food stamps that would provide a taxpayer-funded gas purchasing card to people up to some multiple of the federal poverty level.  Much like ObamaCare, a policy driving up costs would be paired with a huge new welfare program that would foster government dependency and political loyalty.

The World Bank paper also advises Treasury on how to convince the public. It says to call the carbon tax an “offset” instead of a “tax,” and downplay economic costs to “focus on framing green policies as a way to reach an ambitious and positive social goal (such as becoming carbon neutral by 2050 or becoming a leader in solar technologies).” 

This advice helps explain why an administration so heavily invested in implementing a carbon tax attempts to deny any such thing is going on.

What else are they hiding?  At least 10,000 emails from 2012 alone. Horner has filed suit, and Treasury can only stonewall for so long.  

One thing that’s already clear is that the preparations to pursue a carbon tax are very much proceeding in earnest.  

We need to be ready to fight back.

Phil Kerpen is president of American Commitment and author of “Democracy Denied.”

Related Stories

EPA Expected to Declare Carbon Dioxide a Pollutant

View the original article here

Facebook sharing comes to Netflix, at last

I know what you watched last summer.

Video-rental business Netflix has turned on a new social sharing features for U.S. users that lets them share what they watched on Facebook, after Congress finally updated a restrictive law from the era of the VHS tape.

"Movies and TV shows are better with friends," Cameron Johnson, a director of product innovation at Netflix, wrote Wednesday in a news post on its site announcing the new "Netflix Social" feature. 

"You'll see what titles your friends have watched in a new ''Watched by your friends' row and what they have rated four or five stars in a new 'Friends’ Favorites' row."

- Cameron Johnson, a director of product innovation at Netflix

"We get suggestions from our friends for new things to watch and we connect with our friends through the shared enjoyment of a great movie or TV show. Starting today, Netflix members in the U.S. can share their favorite shows and movies on Netflix with friends by connecting to Facebook and agreeing to share."

The change came about as a result of the “Video Privacy Protection Act Amendments Act of 2012,” which updates the old video-privacy act that had prohibited companies from disclosing their VHS and laser-disc rental history without a court order.

That law also prevented companies like Netflix and Hulu from sharing that history, as well as likes and dislikes and more, on social media sites.

Users in Canada and Latin America have had the ability to link Netflix and Facebook accounts and share viewed movies since 2011, but Netflix hasn’t offered it in the U.S. yet due to the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act.

U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) said the changes would let consumers share video viewing information via the Internet while preserving privacy protections already in the law.

“To protect the privacy of American consumers, the bill retains key privacy protections already in the VPPA which require that consumers “opt-in” to the sharing of their video viewing information,” Leahy said in December.

View the original article here

'Showing up' at work is not what matters most when it comes to being productive

Woody Allen once famously said, “Eighty percent of success is showing up,” the meaning of which, I always understood to be that if you’ve at least made the effort to appear in the flesh, you were well on your way to accomplishing your goal.  Logic would dictate that the same rate of success cannot be achieved virtually by videochat, Skype, telephone or via email or text.  
Perhaps Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer was embracing her inner "Woodman" when she announced her ban on working from home for Yahoo employees.

There is certainly tremendous value to be gained from face-to-face interaction in the workplace. In-person communications play a role in building relationships, fostering collaboration, hatching big ideas and solving problems. In many business circles, a firm handshake and direct eye contact can speak volumes, not to mention serve as a barometer of sorts for character and trust.  Side-by-side, people share ideas, confidences, dreams and aspirations…the soft stuff that can create hard returns.

The benefits of working at the office are well established. However, it is also important to keep in mind that just being there is not the same as being there. 

Consider this typical 2013 scenario: A meeting takes place in an office conference room. Four or five employees who work at the company along with an outside consultant or two are convened to discuss and solve an issue. 

The lights are dimmed for the slide presentation. The presenter is practically doing calisthenics at the front of the room to capture and hold the attention of the others, though he can already see two meeting participants on their iPhones, one on her laptop checking her Facebook and another has just been texted.  

Yes, everyone is physically there in that room, but how many are actually being there? How much productivity is really taking place given the distractions?  

Being there is as much a state of mind as it is a state of physicality.  While it is possible to have both, there’s no guarantee employers get the mind when they get the body.  Who is to say a disciplined, engaged employee working from home can’t be there for the employer?    

In my 25+ year career, I have worked both at the office and from home. Along the way, I have collaborated with many very talented colleagues. It didn’t matter to me, my partners, our employer, our clients or the success of our projects where we were sitting day-to-day, as long as we met face-to-face regularly, talked frequently, commented on and enhanced each other’s work products and were 100% engaged in the delivery of our best.  If anyone's attention strayed, it showed.

Considering how the pendulum has swung in the last twenty years from business dress to business casual, from nine-to-five to telecommuting, it seems likely that a middle ground will soon be identified that allows for  valuable, contributing employees—those who are at the office everyday and those whom, for a myriad of reasons, work from home.  

As CEO, Ms. Mayer has put a stake in the ground for herself and started a new iteration of the conversation about multi-tasking, focus and what is required to deliver the kind of innovation that will drive Yahoo forward. 

She has done a service for her company as well as other businesses by sounding a wake-up call about the importance of being there at work.  And for now at Yahoo, showing up is part of the deal.    

Sandra Stahl is a partner in a PR and marketing communications firm. She also writes for leading industry and national outlets.

View the original article here