Author: Serkadis

  • Watching movies on an iPad: What you see is what you get

    Filed under: ,

    Watching a movie on the new iPad will not as pleasurable experience as you might think. The screen being 1024×768 pixels is in a 4:3 ratio which is the exactly the same as an old CRT television set. Many of us are have gone on from there and are luxuriating in the glory of our 16×9 aspect HDTVs.

    It turns out that 16×9 will give you big honking black bars at the top and bottom of your screen as you can see by the green bar in the image above, and anything above or below it will be displayed as black bars.

    It gets worse, lots worse. Let’s say you’re playing a regular, non-widescreen movie which has an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. In that case anything above or below the blue area will be black bars.

    Now we get to ribbon-vision. Most widescreen films, from Star Wars to the new Star Trek were filmed in 2:35:1. This and all other resolutions mentioned refer to how wide the screen is as compared to how high. So these films are 2:35 times wider than they are high, and result in a mere ribbon on the iPad screen. Without measuring, it seems to me that a full half of the screen in landscape mode will be filled with black bars.

    One last kick in the pants. Having a resolution of 1024×768 pixels there is no way that you can display the gold standard of today’s high-definition of 1080p. There just aren’t enough pixels.

    So iBooks make sense, but movie watching will be somewhat limited. People frequently say that they really can’t watch movies on an iPhone or iPod touch, since the resulting display is so small. The iPad will absolutely be better, but still at a trade-off.

    Thanks to Blake Walters for creating the chart and tipping us off about this.

    TUAWWatching movies on an iPad: What you see is what you get originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

    Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

    Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

    Read Original Article

  • Microsoft Sues BitTorrent Tracker

    After already targeting a bunch of users of a popular Lithuanian BitTorrent tracker, Microsoft has apparently now tried suing the owner of the torrent tracker itself, though the guy claims he stopped running it at the end of last year. But, again, it seems backwards to sue the operator of a tracker, when that tracker does not host or transmit any copyrighted material itself. On top of that, Microsoft has sued for $43 million, when Lithuanian law apparently limits the potential damages in this case to $53,000. Either way, due to the case, the (previous?) owner of the site has had his assets frozen — which seems pretty extreme based on just an accusation, rather than a conviction.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story





  • How Obama’s Stimulus Hurt The Economy

    Show: CNN Newsroom
    Channel: CNN
    Date: 1/27/2010

    News Anchor: We’ll go to Capitol Hill where Congressman Ron Paul joins us now. Congressman, thanks for being with us.

    Ron Paul: Thank you.

    News Anchor: We have been talking extensively this week at CNN. First of all, we’ve been undergoing a stimulus project. We’re going through the stimulus bill, 57,000 projects, and seeing where the money is spent, whether it’s created jobs. You haven’t liked the stimulus bill from the beginning, from the first day it was even talked about.

    Ron Paul: Right.

    News Anchor: Let’s look at it a year later. What, in your opinion, has it done to the economy?

    Ron Paul: Well, it’s hurt the economy because even if you argue, as the administration does, that is has saved some jobs, we don’t know which jobs were lost or which jobs could have been created if the people were controlling the expenditures, if the capital was delivered by individuals rather than by the government.

    So could have had a lot of jobs created, but we don’t know that. For the government to take a lot of money out of the economy and try to stimulate the economy where it doesn’t want stimulated, it’s not a surprise that we’re not having growth. So I think they’re on a failed policy, and how long are they going to keep interest rates at 0% before they think, “Well, maybe we’re on the wrong track. Maybe it’s not working”.

    News Anchor: What’s the right tract, congressman? What would you do? Because right now the White House is looking at perhaps a shift in direction, or at least communicating one. What’s the right tract for them?

    Ron Paul: Well, I think the market should decide interest rates so that we go back to saving and the government quits wasting money, spending, running up deficits. Because if you had higher interest rates, we would start saving again and we would pay down our debt and then people would make market decisions.

    Maybe they would invest and the prices of the house come down low enough and the market is liquidated, then we go back to building houses and producing jobs again. But we don’t need more debt, and what we’re doing is borrowing more money.

    News Anchor: Fair enough, but let’s talk about this. The stimulus bill is above 800 billion dollars, according to the congressional budget office now. It was 787 billion dollars, they added 75 billion dollars. But really, I’ve been looking at the government’s interventions since the beginning of this crisis: somewhere above 4 trillion dollars. And a lot of that is money that the Federal Reserve put into the housing agencies to keep mortgage rates low. And that’s why we have 5% rates for a 30-year fixed mortgage. Isn’t that better for recovery than raising interest rates? Isn’t it better that we got low mortgage prices?

    Ron Paul: It delays the recovery because the liquidation of the bad debt isn’t liquidated, it’s propped up. The people end up buying these securities and these derivatives of securities, and they’re propping up a very bad system. So you want the prices of houses to come down faster and more dramatically, they should have been at this price a year ago. And now people are starting to buy these houses when they’re so desperately cheap. And that’s what you want.

    But we do everything in Washington to prevent the correction. But when something is sick, you want to correct it. But governments can’t do that because it doesn’t appeal to the politicians not to do anything. They have to do something so they try to have a correction, but they prevent the correction. We want the market to correct, and the sooner the government gets out of the business of allocating credit and creating money out of thin air, capital has to come from hard work and savings. The rest of this is nonsense. It has nothing to do with capital.

    News Anchor: Okay. So what do you want to hear from the president tonight if you wanted him to go a little further in your direction? What would you want to hear from him?

    Ron Paul: Well, next year we would not just pretend we’re freezing something a year from now and we know that’s not going to happen. But the country is not quite ready for free markets, so it’s not likely to happen. But what should be said is we’re cutting back on spending. We’re going to get rid of a lot of programs, we’re going to cut our militarism around the world by 50%. And we’re going to go back to free markets and individual liberties and property rights and rule of law and bankruptcies occur, and liquidate debt and get the correction over with.

    Before the Great Depression we used to allow corrections to occur. But since the Great Depression we are compelled to re-inflate all the time, because we’re destined to have the destruction of the dollar. That’s my biggest concern. So I would say, “Obama, don’t perpetuate this idea that printing money is a solution.” And they’ll say, “Oh, yeah. You’re right Ron, you’re right about this. But we’ll do that later on. But right now there’s a crisis.” But the crisis was brought on by too much spending, too much borrowing and too much printing and too low interest rates. That’s exactly what we’re doing. You can’t solve the problem by doing exactly the same thing. So I don’t see the recovery coming very soon.

    News Anchor: Congressman Paul. Good to talk to you, thank you very much for joining us today.

    Ron Paul: Thank you.

    News Anchor: Congressman Ron Paul joining us.

    Share/Bookmark

    Related posts:

    1. Barack Obama, Inflation and Economic Fascism Channel: CNN Date: 4/14/2009 Transcript News Anchor: …eventually went…
    2. Obama’s Budget: Self-Delusion or Fairy Tale? In today’s interview with Bloomberg TV, Ron Paul calls out…
    3. Ron Paul: New Regulations Will Prolong The Recession Date: 6/17/2009 News Anchor: More now on the President’s…
  • Epic Games’ Mark Rein thinks iPad has performance to run cool 3-D games (video)

    mark reinMark Rein, vice president at Epic Games, was at the premiere of the iPad tablet computer from Apple today. We caught up with him in a brief video interview to talk about making games for the iPad. Epic is known for its hardcore games such as Gears of War and Unreal Tournament. He thinks that the iPad will be a great platform for games in the future, even more so than the current iPhone.

    Mark Rein of Epic Games talks about the iPad from Dean Takahashi on Vimeo.


    Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

    Read Original Article

  • Round-up “iPad” Edition: All the coverage you could want

    ipadvb

    God forbid you were another company trying to launch a product today. Anyway, here’s a round-up of the most interesting coverage we saw today (from our blog and others).

    What gaming executives think: Here’s Dean Takahashi’s extended take on the device with interviews of entrepreneurs including SGN’s Shervin Pishevar and Smule’s Ge Wang on the tablet’s potential for gaming. Electronic Arts’ Travis Boatman offers his take here on prepping games for the device.

    McGraw-Hill gets axed for spilling the beans: One publisher was conspicuously missing from Apple’s demo today after its CEO spilled the beans about the tablet on CNBC yesterday.

    Developers decry Apple’s advancing “closed” model for software distribution: With the iTunes app store instigating a great deal of angst among developers because of its cryptic approval process, it’s no surprise that several observers lashed out again. The Free Software Foundation called the iPad “bad for freedom.” Media artist Peter Kirn said Apple’s mobile product line-up ”is doing immense harm to the computing legacy the company has forged.”Aaron Swartz, who helped create RSS and Reddit, said that the iPad spelled out the company’s vision of “total control by Apple. It’s a frightening future.”

    Gizmodo covers the device’s many weaknesses: No camera and no multitasking.

    Pogue and Mossberg each have a crack at the iPad: The Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg thought Jobs’ presentation made the iPad seem “more like a hybrid” of a laptop and phone than a radically new type of device.

    Fanboy Pogue cautions us to stay open-minded:

    “Like the iPhone, the iPad is really a vessel, a tool, a 1.5-pound sack of potential. It may become many things. It may change an industry or two, or it may not. It may introduce a new category — something between phone and laptop — or it may not. And anyone who claims to know what will happen will wind up looking like a fool.”

    Educational startup Inkling gears up to take advantage of the tablet: One San Francisco startup sees lots of opportunities for interactive educational modules on the device.

    Shareholders applauded the price, not the device: Investors weren’t actually all that jazzed about the device itself, as the tablet was already priced into the market. Shares headed lower during Jobs’ keynote, until he said the starting price point was $499 — half of what analysts had anticipated. That’s what triggered a spike.

    The name gets panned, with iTampon trending high on Twitter: Yep, it draws an instantaneous mental connection to feminine hygiene.

    ipad3



    Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

    Read Original Article

  • The Supreme Court Got This One Right

    Some of the elected class are expressing dismay at the recent United States Supreme Court ruling that overturned much of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law that was passed in 2002. That law limited soft money in campaign financing, issue ads and controversial campaign practices.

    Democrat National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine went so far as to call the ruling a decision that “must not be allowed to stand.” He also warned the Obama administration is preparing a forceful response. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) declared himself disappointed in the ruling.

    Remember this: If the elected class opposes it then the ruling must be good for the American people. And this one is.

    McCain-Feingold was an attack on free speech, plain and simple. It was, as some pundits have said, simply an election insurance bill that almost guaranteed the incumbent could waltz into the election against an opponent who had his hands tied. And special interest groups or corporations opposing the incumbent or big government-friendly legislation were forced to remain silent.

    After all, if you ban ads opposing certain positions or politicians you have stifled the type of speech the First Amendment to the Constitution protects. And an assault on one portion of one Constitutionally guaranteed right is an attack on all of them.

    As Thomas Jefferson wrote: “One of the amendments to the Constitution.. expressly declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others.”

  • FujiFilm FinePix S2500HD, S1730, S1600, and JX530 leak out

    We’re guessing FujiFilm planned to get official with these at or slightly before PMA next month, but a new batch of its cameras have somehow managed to leak out well beforehand, including the FinePix S2500HD, S1730, S1600 (pictured above), and JX530. All of those fall into the mid-level or “bridge camera” range, with the S2500HD filling out the high-end of the spectrum with an 18x optical zoom, mechanical image stabilization and, of course, HD video recording (720p, to be specific). That’s followed closely by the similar-looking S1730 and S1600, which each pack a 15x zoom and a 12-megapixel resolution, while the compact JX530 dials things all the way back to a 5x optical zoom and some considerably more basic point-and-shoot features. Still nothing the way of prices, availability or complete specs, but those should be leaking out (officially or otherwise) in the coming weeks.

    FujiFilm FinePix S2500HD, S1730, S1600, and JX530 leak out originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:47:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

    Permalink   |  sourceLetsGoDigital  | Email this | Comments

    Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

    Article

  • Apple iPad’s user interface in pictures

    The Apple iPad won’t be out for another 60 long days for us mere mortals, so we’ve got our hands on its SDK — it’s the next best thing for now, as you can see in the gallery of screenshots below. Strangely, the emulator’s bezel is a tad thinner than the real thing, but we’ll get over it. Enjoy!

    Apple iPad’s user interface in pictures originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:02:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

    Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments

    Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

    Article

  • Ron Paul on Fox Business: Geithner and AIG

    Channel: Fox Business
    Date: 1/27/2010

    Transcript:

    News Anchor: Well folks, we are joined right now by a very special guest, Congressman Ron Paul, who in a little while will get a chance to question the secretary as today’s hearing continues. Congressman Paul, what do you plan to focus on during your questioning with Mr. Geithner?

    Ron Paul: Probably why we need transparency of the Fed. I mean, he comes out and says, “Oh yeah, transparency and auditing the Fed is all fine, except for those things they want to keep secret”. But if we’d have clear knowledge about what’s been going on and what has gone on, maybe there wouldn’t be so much of this going on, all this secret bailing out to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and sticking the taxpayers with all these worthless assets. So to me it’s a travesty, and yet they say this is a wonderful system and Geithner takes the argument that if we wouldn’t have done it, it would have been the end of the world. Yet today, it’s the end of jobs for a lot of average citizens at the same time that Wall Street gets bailed out.

    News Anchor: Well, congressman, though it’s the same point. We’ve been listening and we’ve been monitoring his testimony over the last two hours, and he has said over and over, “I had no knowledge, I didn’t instruct AIG to cover up any type of payouts to the banks.” You’ve heard several other attorneys, people that worked on the deal from the New York Fed say, “Look, there were legalities involved with AIG and that we had to do the payouts. There were contracts made with the banks, between the banks and AIG. You can’t stop that, you can’t change the law midstream”. How would you respond to that?

    Ron Paul: Well, you’d wonder why they allow a company like Lehman to go bankrupt. They said this one was just too big to allow to go bankrupt. I just don’t happen to believe that. The good assets of AIG would have been bought up. There would have been no reason for us to have to buy these bad assets that have no value and bail out Goldman Sachs and the banks. That, to me, is just an atrocious action that we shouldn’t tolerate. These hearings are great. They make the point that the Federal Reserve is very much involved and it makes my point that we need more transparency, and we shouldn’t allow the Federal Reserve to be doing these things. It also makes the point that as much as I blame the Federal Reserve, I blame the Congress. The Congress created the Fed, they’ve exerted no oversight and I don’t think anything will ever be the same again. I think that from now on the American people know about the Fed and know why we should have transparency.

    News Anchor: Alright, Congressman Paul. I mean, I know that you propose legislation for more power to audit the Fed, I understand that. But should we not be focusing on Ben Bernanke? Why are we focusing today on Tim Geithner, who said over and over that he does not have anything to do with these payouts to AIG. Why not move over to the Fed today?

    Ron Paul: I think no. I don’t think anybody believes that. I mean, if it is true, how can you be the head of the New York Fed and say, “I didn’t even know what they were doing”. So we made him secretary of the treasury? I mean, if he didn’t know what was going on, he did make the important decisions. The only thing that he denies is that he had anything to do with keeping it secret. That’s what he is saying. He isn’t saying that he didn’t participate in the decision making. There is a big difference. And you know, when people in higher places need the people under them to make decisions, they conveniently allow them to make some decisions. But, nevertheless, the details of this are less interesting to me than the overall policy and overall monetary policy and the reason that we have to get a handle on the Federal Reserve.

    News Anchor: Alright. Well, Congressman Ron Paul from Texas, I know you got to get back in there. I know that your turn at the lectern is coming up. I’ll let you go. Thank you, Congressman Paul, great to talk to you, sir.

    Ron Paul: Thank you.

    Share/Bookmark

    Related posts:

    1. Ron Paul on Fox Business Channel: Fox Business Date: 3/24/2009 News Anchor: Today during…
    2. Ron Paul: We Need To Know More About What The Federal Reserve Is Doing Date: 8/31/2009 Channel: FoxBusiness.com Transcript Male News Anchor: [Congressman…
    3. Barack Obama, Inflation and Economic Fascism Channel: CNN Date: 4/14/2009 Transcript News Anchor: …eventually went…
  • Apple iPad Costs $499-$699, “Should Be Available In 60 To 90 Days”

    Ending one of the worst-kept secrets in the world of technology, Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled the much-hyped iPad tablet reader in San Francisco Wednesday.

    “We want to kick off 2010 with a truly revolutionary and magical product,” CEO Steve Jobs told a packed audience at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts.

    So everyone’s wondering just how much this thing is going to set us back. According to MSNBC.com, pricing starts at $499, and tech geeks can expect the gadget to hit shelves in 60 to 90 days.

    The iPad will cost $499 for a 16-gigabyte model, $599 for a 32 GB version and $699 for a 64-gigabyte model with Wi-Fi only, and will be available in 60 days. It will cost an additional $130 for units that also can use 3G, which should be out in 90 days, making the most expensive model $829. Jobs said AT&T will charge $29.99 a month for “unlimited use” and $14.99 a month for up to 250 megabytes. There will be no contract with AT&T required for the plans….

    The wireless device can be used with Wi-Fi, as well as run on AT&T’s 3G.


  • Korea: Translating The Tweets Of Novelist Lee Oisoo

    http://twitter.com/oisoo

    Lee Oisoo (Twitter profile photo)

    Lee Oisoo is a Korean novelist and artist who has been described as “an eccentric, a genius and a lunatic“. Even though he was named Korea's most popular novelist in a recent poll (he is especially popular with young readers), he is little known outside of his country because his work has not been translated into other languages. Writing since 1972, Lee Oisoo is recognised not only for his novels and essays, but for his work on radio and television, and online. When he set up a Twitter account last year he quickly amassed thousands of followers. Now his tweets are being translated into English in order to reach a wider audience. But how did a Bahraini blogger get involved?

    Lee Oisoo's translated tweets are being posted on a blog. This tweet introduced the novelist:

    소설가 이외수입니다. 대한민국 강원도 화천에 서식하고 있습니다. 세상이 개떡 같다는 생각이 들거나 인생이 눈물겹다는 생각이 들거나 사람이 못 견디게 그립다는 생각이 들면 로긴하겠습니다. 모기가 정력에 좋다는 설이 있습니다. 소문내서 멸종시킵시다.

    I am Korean novelist Lee Oisoo. I live in Gamseong Maul in Hwacheon, South Korea. Gamseong Maul actually means ‘Village of Feeling’ in Korean. This place makes one aware of one’s own drowsiness.
    I will log on twitter whenever I am displeased with society, whenever I am moved to tears in my life, or whenever I strongly miss human beings.
    According to a report from an unknown source, eating mosquitos improves people’s sexual capacities. Let’s spread this rumor and exterminate a species!

    One of the translators of the tweets is Hasan Hujairi, a Bahraini blogger and musician who lived in Japan for a number of years. In an interview with Global Voices, he explains how the project started:

    How did you get involved in this project? Who had the idea of translating these tweets?

    While I was in Japan, I had much access to East Asian culture and arts. One of the friends I made in Japan, Ohsoon Yun from Korea, personally knew Oisoo for years. I became interested in the works of Oisoo through Ohsoon's descriptions and was disappointed to find that his works are not easily accessible to non-Korean speakers. Once I arrived in Bahrain after spending four years in Japan, I was informed by Ohsoon that Oisoo just launched his own Twitter account.

    In regards to the idea of translating Oisoo's “tweets”, Ohsoon had mentioned to my surprise that Oisoo, though being famous inside of Korea and especially among youths, is relatively unknown to the outside world. We had discussed on several occasions the idea of making both Korean and Arabic literature more accessible to the rest of the world by translating different works and making them accessible through open mediums such as the Internet. When we heard of Oisoo's Twitter activities, we jumped into the translation project immediately!

    How does the translation process work? Do the participants work on the tweets individually or as a group?

    The translation process is certainly a team effort. There are three people involved in the translation process: Hasan Hujairi, Ohsoon Yun, and Hyoseon Eo. When Oisoo posts his tweets, Ohsoon would read his writings carefully, as she has an extensive knowledge of his works and also regularly contacts him with any questions she may have on his writings via email. She then produces a literal translation of the tweets as a rough draft for us to discuss and develop at a later stage. Once I am provided by Ohsoon with the new rough translations, we'd discuss them and explain how to present it in a style that comes close to capturing the voices used by Oisoo in his writings. We also discuss, when necessary, whether any footnotes on Korean culture or linguistics need to be made. Discussions are held online via video chat and/or email correspondences. Once we agree on the most suitable translation, we upload it to the website.

    The process is relatively flexible and doesn't terminate at the time the translations are uploaded online. We look at comments left by some readers and see how they react to our translations. In some cases, readers suggest changes and we discuss such suggestions carefully to see whether those changes need to be introduced to our translations.

    I must also add that a key member to this project is Hyoseon Eo, who is the technician of the group. He is the one who helps us out with any technical issues and suggested that Oisoo's translations should be presented through Tumblr.com in a way that isn't typical to how most would use the service to get around Twitter's limit of 140 characters per tweet.

    As the process suggests, the bulk of the work happens by interaction through the Internet. Lee Oisoo and Hyoseon Eo live in different parts of Korea, Ohsoon Yun lives in Tokyo, and I am currently based in the UK. I have personally never met Lee Oisoo or Hyoseon Eo, and yet we are managing to see this project through. Despite the physical distance between everyone involved in this project and despite the difference in time, the project is still underway thanks to today's technology and means of communication.

    시적인 포스팅에는 비교적 리트윗이 달리지 않는 편이다. 현저하다. 그러니까 여기서는 문화의 비경제적 부산물인 시가 확실하게 왕따를 당하고 있음이 분명하다.

    Poetic postings on Twitter do not garner many RTs (Retweets). It is notable. Therefore, it is clear that poetry – an uneconomic cultural by-product – is most definitely bullied on Twitter.

    Has Lee Oisoo been using Twitter for long? Does he read your translations?

    Oisoo started using Twitter in June 2009, but prior to that he used a Korean social-network service (SNS) called PlayTalk (similar to Twitter) between 2007 and the time he switched to Twitter. Incidentally, Oisoo is also known to have a very interesting approach to using the Internet in order to connect with readers. He launched his website back in 1998 and one of the key features of this site – along with his writings and illustrations – is the forum he maintains (and very often participates in), using it as a direct line of communication with thousands of readers. He is also known to use computers to make digital music and art at times, making him an artist with a contemporary approach to things. It may come as a surprise that Oisoo is in his 60s right now, yet knows how to communicate well with youth through modern ways. He also has a reputation of knowing how to talk to youth using their own terminology (he even knows how to use web emoticons effectively to the point in which he created his own unique emoticons and Internet-based expressions that are commonly used by Korean Internet users today!). This can only suggest that the Internet can be a very powerful and effective tool for artists both for communicating directly with their audiences and for in a sense using it to create art.

    In regards to whether or not Oisoo himself reads our translations and gives us feedback, I must say that Oisoo has been very supportive of this translation project. He does not personally give us feedback on his opinions as he does not know English, but his apprentices and friends directly report to him about the translations that are uploaded and what they think of them. As I mentioned earlier, Oisoo is very accessible and he always replies to any questions we may have about the meanings of his writings. I can't stress enough the fact that communication is seamless through the Internet is key to this project.

    What comes next, as far as this project is concerned?

    We intend to translate these messages until Oisoo stops using Twitter. A major publishing company which publishes all of Oisoo's works intends to publish Oisoo's tweets in a book. In March 2008, a book containing selected writings he posted on PlayTalk was published and is said to have sold over 500,000 copies in its first year in Korea. In a sense, this type of project is not Oisoo's first, but a work that also contains his translations within the same work is a new development. We hope that if this publication gains much attention, we will work on translating some of his novels that had a huge impact on modern Korean culture. We hope that this movement encourages people to find way to promote Korean literature and art as it remains relatively inaccessible to non-Korean speakers. If this could spur similar projects and collaborations with other artists (maybe even from places outside of Korea), I think that this would be a success in its own right. I would also like to translate some of his works into Arabic after seeing the reception we receive from the English translations.

    30년 이상을 글밥만 먹고 살았는데도 국수틀에서 국수가닥 뽑아내듯이 글을 뽑아낼 수는 없습니다. 140자밖에 안 되는 단문을 올리는 데도 장인정신이 필요합니다.

    Although I have been eating text-rice for over thirty years, I still cannot produce writings as a noodle machine does noodles. Even uploading a 140-character message on twitter needs an artisan’s spirit.
  • Full Text Of The State Of The Union

    Following is the prepared text of President Obama’s State of the Union address, delivered Jan. 27, 2010, as released by the White House:

    Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

    Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For two hundred and twenty years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

    It’s tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable – that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.

    Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history’s call.

    One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

    But the devastation remains. One in ten Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. For those who had already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

    This recession has also compounded the burdens that America’s families have been dealing with for decades – the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

    So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They’re not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I’ve witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana and Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children – asking why they have to move from their home, or when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

    For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don’t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn’t; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can’t afford it. Not now.

    So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope – what they deserve – is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories and different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared. A job that pays the bills. A chance to get ahead. Most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.

    You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids; starting businesses and going back to school. They’re coaching little league and helping their neighbors. As one woman wrote me, “We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged.”

    It is because of this spirit – this great decency and great strength – that I have never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.

    And tonight, I’d like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.

    It begins with our economy.

    Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there’s one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it’s that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal.

    But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn’t just do what was popular – I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.

    So I supported the last administration’s efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it more transparent and accountable. As a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.

    To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn’t keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

    As we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.

    That’s why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65% cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

    Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven’t raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

    Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

    The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That’s right – the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill. Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster. But you don’t have to take their word for it.

    Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act.

    Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created.

    Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn’t be laid off after all.

    There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.

    But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.

    Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America’s businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

    We should start where most new jobs do – in small businesses, companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides its time she became her own boss.

    Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and are ready to grow. But when you talk to small business owners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they are mostly lending to bigger companies. But financing remains difficult for small business owners across the country.

    So tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we’re at it, let’s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.

    Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete. There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

    Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help our nation move goods, services, and information. We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it’s time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America.

    The House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same. People are out of work. They are hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

    But the truth is, these steps still won’t make up for the seven million jobs we’ve lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America’s families have confronted for years.

    We cannot afford another so-called economic “expansion” like the one from last decade – what some call the “lost decade” – where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

    From the day I took office, I have been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious – that such efforts would be too contentious, that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for awhile.

    For those who make these claims, I have one simple question:

    How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?

    You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China’s not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany’s not waiting. India’s not waiting. These nations aren’t standing still. These nations aren’t playing for second place. They’re putting more emphasis on math and science. They’re rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.

    Well I do not accept second-place for the United States of America. As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may be, it’s time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

    One place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks, I’m interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.

    We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. We can’t allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.

    The House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And the lobbyists are already trying to kill it. Well, we cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back.

    Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history – an investment that could lead to the world’s cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year’s investment in clean energy – in the North Carolina company that will create 1200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put 1,000 people to work making solar panels.

    But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

    I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.

    Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.

    We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that’s why we will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

    Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people.

    This year, we have broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. The idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform – reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to inner-cities. In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education. In this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential.

    When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let’s take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs – because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

    Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle-class. That’s why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on Middle-Class Families. That’s why we’re nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving every worker access to a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That’s why we’re working to lift the value of a family’s single largest investment – their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments. This year, we will step up re-financing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.

    Now let’s be clear – I did not choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn’t take on health care because it was good politics.

    I took on health care because of the stories I’ve heard from Americans with pre-existing conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who’ve been denied coverage; and families – even those with insurance – who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

    After nearly a century of trying, we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we’ve taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care. And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make our kids healthier.

    Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office – the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress – our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

    Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what’s in it for them.

    But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I’m finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber.

    As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed. There’s a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Here’s what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.

    Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it’s not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It’s a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that’s been subject to a lot of political posturing.

    So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

    Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second Depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt.

    I am absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I’m proposing specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.

    Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.

    We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work. We’ve already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it.

    Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we will still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That’s why I’ve called for a bipartisan, Fiscal Commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The Commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.

    I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger. But understand – if we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery – all of which could have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.

    From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument – that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again.

    Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time to try something new. Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let’s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let’s try common sense.

    To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.

    That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why – for the first time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.

    But we can’t stop there. It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

    I’m also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

    Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don’t also reform how we work with one another.

    Now, I am not naïve. I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony, and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, have been taking place for over two hundred years. They are the very essence of our democracy.

    But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent – a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators. Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government.

    So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it’s an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together. This week, I’ll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. And I would like to begin monthly meetings with both the Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can’t wait.

    Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who’s to blame for this, but I am not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let’s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let’s leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future – for America and the world.

    That is the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We have made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security, and swifter action on our intelligence. We have prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of Al Qaeda’s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed – far more than in 2008.

    In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans – men and women alike. We are joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitment, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am confident we will succeed.

    As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.

    Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform — in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world – must know that they have our respect, our gratitude, and our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. That is why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades. That is why we are building a 21st century VA. And that is why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.

    Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people – the threat of nuclear weapons. I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April’s Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

    These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.

    That is the leadership that we are providing – engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We are working through the G-20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We are working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science, education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We are helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bio-terrorism or an infectious disease – a plan that will counter threats at home, and strengthen public health abroad.

    As we have for over sixty years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That is why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. That is why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; and we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity.

    Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

    We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.

    In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America – values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren’t Republican values or Democratic values they’re living by; business values or labor values. They are American values.

    Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions – our corporations, our media, and yes, our government – still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people’s doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

    No wonder there’s so much cynicism out there.

    No wonder there’s so much disappointment.

    I campaigned on the promise of change – change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change – or at least, that I can deliver it.

    But remember this – I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.

    Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths. We can do what’s necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what’s best for the next generation.

    But I also know this: if people had made that decision fifty years ago or one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, we wouldn’t be here tonight. The only reason we are is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and grandchildren.

    Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going – what keeps me fighting – is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism – that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people – lives on.

    It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, “None of us,” he said, “…are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail.”

    It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, “We are strong. We are resilient. We are American.”

    It lives on in the 8-year old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti. And it lives on in all the Americans who’ve dropped everything to go some place they’ve never been and pull people they’ve never known from rubble, prompting chants of “U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!” when another life was saved.

    The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people.

    We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don’t quit. I don’t quit. Let’s seize this moment – to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.

    Thank you. God Bless You. And God Bless the United States of America.

    Join the conversation about this story »

    See Also:

  • Tom Bihn announces two iPad bags

    Filed under: , ,

    And let the accessorizing begin! Tom Bihn, maker of messenger bags and laptop bags, has already announced two bags that will fit the iPad. One is a sleeve called the “Cache” that will come in a size specific to iPad, and the other is a vertical messenger bag, called the “Ristretto” that adds a shoulder strap for all your iPad-carrying needs.

    We’re quite sure that the market for iPad cases, covers, and accessories will be as swift as it was for the iPhone (Ed: Probably swifter, given all the excitement for the tablet). If nothing else, Apple’s zealous regard for industrial design has led to some gorgeous and stylish accessories for its products. I can’t wait to see what else is in store for the iPad.

    TUAWTom Bihn announces two iPad bags originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

    Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

    Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

    Read Original Article

  • New Firefox Email Is Easier to Use, But Not Easy Enough [Personal Technology]

    The good thing about open-source software is that it harnesses the talents of techies around the world. The bad thing about open-source software is that it’s too often geared toward such techies, not average folks. That’s why there haven’t been many widely popular open-source products for mass-market computer users. The shining exception is the Firefox Web browser, which is published by the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation.

    Now, Mozilla is trying for another win, with a new, overhauled version of the companion email program for Firefox, called Thunderbird. Unlike Firefox, Thunderbird never really caught on, partly because it was too complicated. The foundation has spent two years streamlining, simplifying and automating the email program. The result is the newly released Thunderbird 3, which will compete with products such as Microsoft Outlook on Windows and Apple Mail on the Mac.

    [ See post to watch video ]

    While many people these days are content to store and manage all their email using Web-based interfaces provided by Yahoo, Google and others, plenty of folks still want to use local programs. These save the messages to their own hard disks, include oodles of customized features, and can be more easily used offline.

    But the choices among such local email programs are dwindling. Outlook, which can be bloated and slow for consumers, has driven out many competitors on Windows, and the new Windows 7 doesn’t even come with a built-in email program. On the Mac, most people seem to use Apple’s very good built-in email program, Apple Mail, but it’s hard for third parties to customize.

    So, can Thunderbird 3, which is free and runs on Windows, Mac and Linux computers, become the Firefox of email, the go-to choice for average users looking for an alternative to the big guys?

    After testing the new edition for about a week, I believe that Thunderbird 3 is a significant improvement over earlier versions of the product. It is indeed a step forward, with some interesting new features and generally simpler operation. But, in my view, all the techie rough edges still haven’t been sanded off and it’s still clumsy in a few places.

    First, the pluses. Mozilla has brought tabs, now standard in Web browsers, to Thunderbird. If you simply double click on an email in a list, it opens in its own tab. That way you can consult key emails when you need them without opening a welter of overlapping windows. If you do a search, the search results appear in their own tab.

    The new Thunderbird also has a very cool filtered search system. It not only brings up all messages containing your search term, but shows a graphical timeline of the message traffic on that search term. In a left panel next to the list of search results, it lists all the people mentioned in the messages turned up by the search—even if you weren’t searching for them—and lets you further refine the results by just clicking on their names.

    There is also a rapid way to add email addresses in a message header to your address book: You just click on a star icon next to the name. There also are multiple ways to view folders. With one click, you can choose to see a list of only unread folders, or favorite folders, or recent folders.

    Another cool feature is an attachment reminder. If you are writing a message and you include words like “attachment,” “attached,” or “enclosed,” Thunderbird will pop up a yellow warning at the bottom of the screen reminding you to attach a file.

    And, throughout the program, the designers have tried to simplify things, so you don’t have to be an engineer to use it. One example, which is a catch-up feature, is an account set-up wizard that spares you from knowing the names of servers.

    But there are still too many issues for me. Thunderbird can’t be set to automatically show a CC or BCC line in a new email you’re composing. Every new address you add is set as a “To” address, and you must click on a drop-down menu to change it to CC or BCC—an extra step that becomes tedious quickly.

    In addition, unlike in Outlook or Apple Mail, you can only have a single signature for each account. The program also doesn’t support Microsoft Exchange for corporate mail, unless IT administrators make changes at their servers.

    And I found that the program’s preferences and settings, while improved, can still be too techie. For instance, to tell the program to display certain graphics in email, even though they can pose a security risk, you must choose an option called “mailnews.message_display.disable_remote_image.”

    To be fair, because Thunderbird is an open-source program, it relies on third-party add-ons and extensions for some features, such as multiple signatures. But some of the add-ins I tried, like a built-in calendar that can synchronize with Google, took multiple complicated steps that would likely deter a mainstream user.

    If you’re looking for a new email client, the new and improved Thunderbird is worth a try, but it’s not yet the Firefox of email.

    Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at [email protected].

    Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

    Read Original Article

  • First Impressions of the New Apple iPad [Mossblog]

    It’s about the software, stupid. While all sorts of commentators were focusing on how much Apple’s new $499 iPad tablet computer looks like an oversized iPhone, the key to whether it can be the first multi-function tablet to win wide public acceptance probably lies in whether consumers perceive it as a suitable replacement for a laptop in key scenarios. And that, in my view, depends heavily on the software and services that flow through its handsome little body.

    I have only spent a short time hands-on with the iPad–too short to fully run it through its paces and formally review it yet. But, after attending the rollout of the new device today, and trying out some of its features for myself, I have some first impressions.

    Apple CEO Steve Jobs positioned the iPad as belonging to a new category of device between the smartphone and the laptop (since the netbook, in his view and mine, is really just a small, cheap laptop). But, as the demos unfolded, I kept thinking it was more like a hybrid of the two. 

    It uses the iPhone’s basic user interface and physical design. But, taking advantage of a 9.7″ screen and a fast Apple-designed processor, the iPad adds some user interface elements and functionality that aren’t available–or at least typical–on smart phones, but look more like computer software. For instance, its photo program works more like iPhoto on a Mac than the photo app on an iPhone, and it will be available with a touch version of Apple’s iWork productivity suite, which is Apple’s take on Microsoft Office. This is a much more powerful program than the phone-based office suites for the iPhone or BlackBerry, and Apple (AAPL) is only charging $30 for it.

    [ See post to watch video ]

    Also, Apple has rewritten most of the core iPhone apps so they look more like, and have more of the features of, Mac or PC programs. But they aren’t mere clones of full computer apps. For instance, many forego standard menus for clever overlays and sidebars that work more naturally with the iPad’s multi-touch interface. Other app developers can do this, too. But, even if they don’t, the company said the iPad will run most of the current 140,000 iPhone apps, either in a small window on the screen, or in a full-screen mode. That’s a huge plus for a new device.

    Mr. Jobs said after the onstage program ended that he sees the iPad’s user interface as a fuller expression of the one on the iPhone, which had been limited by screen real estate.

    And, although the rumored video and music streaming services were nowhere to be seen at this preview, Mr. Jobs did offer a taste of how the iPad could deliver content, beyond simply downloads from the iTunes store. He showed off a new e-book reader app with built-in online book store that, visually at least, blew away the Amazon Kindle, even if it seemed to lack all of the Kindle’s features and may have a smaller catalog. Representatives of the New York Times showed an iPad digital version of their newspaper that seemed vastly more usable than the clumsy version now on the Kindle and its ilk.

    So, the iPad is more than just a giant iPod Touch or iPhone, even though it looks like one. But the question is, will that be enough to get consumers to shell out for it, and make it part of their daily lives? Or will it be a niche product, like Microsoft’s Tablet PC or Mr. Jobs’ own Apple TV?

    On the plus side, the device is handsome, feels comfortable and solid to hold, and has all that beautiful software built in. Oh, and it’s amazingly low-priced for an Apple product, with that modest $499 price tag for a base version with 16 gigabytes of memory and Wi-Fi, but no cell phone data connectivity. (A fully loaded model with 64 gigabytes, Wi-Fi and a no-contract 3G cellular data plan is $829, and there are variations in between.)

    It also boasts a decent 10 hours of battery life, and Mr, Jobs told me after the event that, for some functions, like playing video and music, the battery should last even longer. 

    But there are minuses. First, since it’s too big to go in a pocket, people might perceive it as just another thing to carry around, despite the fact that it’s only a half inch thick and weighs just 1.5 pounds. It also lacks a common and popular laptop feature–a web cam. So, it can’t be used for video chats or for the creation of web videos.

    Also, the carrier for the iPad’s 3G plan is the deeply unpopular AT&T–there were groans and boos among Mr. Jobs’ otherwise excited audience when this was announced. AT&T is offering bargain prices for iPad data service compared to what it charges laptop owners. But its network is overwhelmed in many big cities and many iPhone lovers, who are strong candidates to buy an iPad, curse the carrier daily.

    Steve Jobs behind the iPad's virtual keyboard.

    Finally, while it’s too early for me to say without lots of testing, the size of the iPad’s virtual keyboard may be a liability. I found it almost too wide for thumb typing, and a colleague who’s a whiz at touch typing and tried it briefly found it awkward to type on. Apple is offering an auxiliary physical keyboard that docks with, and charges, the iPad. But you won’t want to lug that around.

    Still, the software looked impressive, and that could help Steve Jobs do the one thing even he has never done in an amazing career: get the public to love not just a better version of an existing type of gadget, but a whole new category of gadget.

    Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

    Read Original Article

  • Understanding deep ocean circulation and climate modeling




    If you follow the latitude lines from much of Europe westward across the Atlantic, you tend to run into Canada. Even if you go to the southern tip of Spain, you’re not much further south than the Virginias. Canada, of course, has a reputation for being rather frozen and inhospitable, while Europe goes to pieces if it snows for more than an hour or two. The difference is mainly due to ocean currents.

    At the north edge of the Atlantic Ocean, warm surface water cools off and sinks, drawing in more warm surface water from the south, generating a warm surface current along Europe’s Atlantic coast. Portions of this current comes in from the tropics near Africa and South America, and more is drawn in from the Indian and Pacific Oceans. In addition to making Europe a pleasant place to live, this current also provides the main source of ocean mixing—that is, these currents act to cool the ocean surface temperatures and heat the deep ocean.

    Read the rest of this article...


    Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

    Article

  • RIM teases on Facebook, BlackBerry Tour 9650 release imminent

    BlackBerry Facebook 9650 Tease

    CrackBerry caught a quick screen shot of the BlackBerry Facebook account attempting to… actually, to be honest, we’re not sure what exactly they are trying to do. The post has been removed, but it read: “The BlackBerry Tour 9650 is coming! Check back soon for official news!” We’re a little perplexed as to why RIM didn’t go with the Tour2, like the Storm2 and why the announcement was made via their Facebook account (and on Apple’s Tablet day?). In any regard, any Tour 9630 owners feel a little shafted by the existence of the 9650? If RIM offered 9630 owners an upgrade — similar to the upgrade offered to Storm 1 owners — would you take it? Trust us, we’re not saying they will…

    Read

    Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

    Read Original Article

  • Video: Fake Steve Jobs on the Apple iPad

    Om caught up with Fake Steve Jobs (Steve Dan Lyons) and got his opinion on the launch of the Apple iPad today.

    A tad bit of not so safe for work language is used…you’ve been warned.

  • Taking solar urban: S.F. installs solar arrays in affordable communities

    sfpubsolar100111Providing two services in one: affordable power for low-income neighborhoods generated cleanly by photovoltaic panels, the city of San Francisco continues its push to integrate renewable sources of energy. Not only will the local residents benefit from the less expensive electricity produced by three new installations, but also the resulting 33 jobs.

    The plan is to continue these initiatives in the city’s Western Addition and Hayes Valley regions. To do so, city government has partnered with Sunwheel Energy Partners, a company that builds compact, user-friendly photovoltaic systems well suited to urban environments. Already, they have 375-kilowatts worth of panels online in three different sites.

    Deployed in other regions of California as well, Sunwheel’s other installations churn out about 2.3 million kilowatts of zero-emission energy for 1,500 households every year, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by up to 2 million pounds.

    The partnership between the Missouri-based company and the city fits into a larger movement toward distributed energy, even in urban areas. Before, solar arrays and wind farms were considered to be the best choices to deliver green energy to rural regions and resident living at the edges or off the national power grids. But they are increasingly becoming a metropolitan solution.

    Rooftop solar is a pretty well established concept, but San Francisco is also eying the potential for urban wind turbines. A report released at the end of September by the city’s urban wind power task force, recommended that more compact, lightweight turbines be installed throughout the windiest pockets of the city to help it reach carbon neutrality by 2030.

    San Francisco is well ahead of the game when it comes to solar, with 7,050 megawatts being generated on 1,350 rooftops spread across the city. When it comes to sheer megawatts, it’s still trailing Los Angeles and San Diego, which both enjoy sunnier climes. But it has six times the number of solar roof installations as L.A.


    Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

    Read Original Article