L.A. County Sheriff's Department intends to fire seven deputies

Seven Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies have been notified that the department intends to fire them for belonging to a secret law enforcement clique that allegedly celebrated shootings and branded its members with matching tattoos, officials said.

The Times reported last year about the existence of the clique, dubbed the Jump Out Boys, and the discovery of a pamphlet that described the group's creed, which required aggressive policing and awarded tattoo modifications for police shootings.

The seven worked on an elite gang-enforcement team that patrols neighborhoods where violence is high. The team makes a priority of taking guns off the street, officials said.

The Sheriff's Department has a long history of secret cliques with members of the groups having reached high-ranking positions within the agency. Sheriff officials have sought to crack down on the groups, fearing that they tarnished the department's reputation and encouraged unethical conduct.

In the case of the Jump Out Boys, sheriff's investigators did not uncover any criminal behavior. But, sources said, the group clashed with department policies and image.

Their tattoos, for instance, depicted an oversize skull with a wide, toothy grimace and glowing red eyes. A bandanna with the unit's acronym is wrapped around the skull. A bony hand clasps a revolver. Smoke would be tattooed over the gun's barrel for members who were involved in at least one shooting, officials said.

One member, who spoke to The Times and requested anonymity, said the group promoted only hard work and bravery. He dismissed concerns about the group's tattoo, noting that deputies throughout the department get matching tattoos. He said there was nothing sinister about their creed or conduct. The deputy, who was notified of the department's intent to terminate him, read The Times several passages from the pamphlet, which he said supported proactive policing.

"We are alpha dogs who think and act like the wolf, but never become the wolf," one passage stated, comparing criminals to wolves. Another passage stated, "We are not afraid to get our hands dirty without any disgrace, dishonor or hesitation... sometimes (members) need to do the things they don't want to in order to get where they want to be."

Department spokesman Steve Whitmore said starting the termination process shows that Sheriff Lee Baca "does not take any of this lightly and will move forward with the appropriate action."

Investigators were less concerned about the tattoos, and more focused on the suspected admiration they showed for officer-involved shootings, which are expected to be events of last resort. The deputy told The Times, however, that investigators reviewed their shootings and arrests and found nothing unlawful.

"We get called a gang within the badge? It's unfair," he said. "People want to say you have a tattoo. So do fraternities. Go to Yale. Are they a gang?.... Boy Scouts have patches and they have mission statements, and so do we."

"We do not glorify shootings," he continued. "What we do is commend and honor the shootings. I have to remember them because it can happen any time, any day. I don't want to forget them because I'm glad I'm alive."

If the firings are upheld, it would be one of the largest terminations over one incident in the department's history. In 2011, the department fired about half a dozen deputies who were also said to have formed a clique. Those deputies worked on the third floor of Men's Central Jail and allegedly threw gang-like three-finger hand signs. They were fired after they fought two fellow deputies at an employee Christmas party and allegedly punched a female deputy in the face.

As part of the widening federal investigation of the Sheriff's Department, a criminal grand jury recently subpoenaed the agency for materials relating to deputy cliques, specifically citing several of the groups including the "3000 boys" and the Jump Out Boys.

When the pamphlet revealing the existence of the Jump Out Boys was initially found, officials didn't know if the group was real. But eventually, one member came forward and named the others, according to an official who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The seven deputies can fight the department's decision to fire them.

robert.faturechi@latimes.com

Read More..

Microsoft Teases Future Surface Pro Accessories With Extra Battery Power

Days before Surface Pro’s release date, Microsoft is already teasing the types of accessories we’ll see for the device.

In a Reddit AMA hosted on Wednesday, members of the Surface Team responded to user questions, and suggested that a Surface Pro cover that would double as an extra battery pack is in the works. Good thing, too, since we found that the Surface Pro could barely get around four hours of normal usage.

Naturally, that’s a major concern for people considering buying the computer — Reddit members brought it up on multiple occasions. Asked about the new connectors at the bottom of the Surface Pro on either side of the cover port, a Microsoft rep said, “At launch we talked about the ‘accessory spine’ and hinted at future peripherals that can click in and do more. Those connectors look like can carry more current than the pogo pins, don’t they?”

The cryptic answer was fleshed out in another response. A redditor specifically asked if Microsoft plans to make a thicker keyboard with an extra battery pack.

“That would require extending the design of the accessory spine to include some way to transfer higher current between the peripheral and the main battery. Which we did,” a Surface Team member replied.

Considering that Microsoft already has released two covers for Surface Pro and Surface RT, along with a Surface-branded Wedge Touch Mouse, it’s not hard to imagine the company expanding its Surface accessory lineup. It’s a natural next step as the company continues to focus on its hardware division, which has traditionally offered accessories like mice and keyboards.

The Reddit AMA also covered issues like Surface Pro’s lack of storage space and whether the company plans to release a 3G or 4G Surface. The latter answer was a roundabout “no.” As for storage space, the Surface Team’s Marc DesCamp said, once again, that you can extend storage through the USB 3.0 port and microSDX card slot. He also mentioned that initial reports of available storage space (23GB for the 64GB model, and 83GB for the 128GB model) are conservative; you actually get around 6 to 7GB more than that.

Read More..

How Ang Lee Took a Tiger by the Tail to Create ‘Life of Pi’

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) – It would have been foolish to predict what “Life of Pi” – has become: a box-office phenomenon that has swept one country after another, a game changer in its use of 3D and computer graphics and a critical darling with 11 Oscar nominations including best picture, director, screenplay, cinematography and two for composer Mychael Danna.

“It still comes as a surprise,” director Ang Lee told TheWrap. “But a wonderful surprise. For a long time I felt that it’s a privilege to even make this movie. So we’re very happy.”

Everything about “Life of Pi,” based on the bestselling novel by Yann Martel, represented an uncommon risk. A pensive drama without a single movie star or, for that matter, a face vaguely familiar to American audiences, the project cost $ 130 million, highly unusual in today’s Hollywood. (Even “Les Misérables” cost just $ 60 million.)

Further, the movie takes place almost entirely on the ocean, in 3D and with a CG tiger, factors that required technological machinations not guaranteed to work. Beyond that, given its ponderous price tag, the movie had to appeal to a very broad audience to pay off.

And it has. An uplifting story about the survival of the human spirit and the power of imagination, “Life of Pi” has been embraced across cultures and nations around the globe, with the movie setting new benchmarks in China, sweeping Latin America and taking in $ 450 million worldwide while still in release.

“The pattern of how this movie plays is kind of strange. I’ve never experienced it before,” Lee said of “Pi’s” overwhelming international appeal. “It was made to be a big movie, with lots of commercials everywhere. But it’s a philosophical movie – an Indian boy, a digital tiger, an ambiguous ending. I didn’t know if it would work or not.”

The novel tells the story of a shipwrecked Indian boy, Pi, adrift on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, and adds a twist at the end to make you question everything you’ve read. “Pi’s” journey to the screen took the better part of a decade and began conventionally enough. Producer Gil Netter sent Fox 2000 veteran producer Elizabeth Gabler the book shortly after it was published, and they optioned it for Fox in 2002.

She commissioned a script from Dean Georgaris for director M. Night Shyamalan, but Georgaris never completed it. Director Alfonso Cuaron (“Children of Men”) signed on and then left. Jean-Pierre Jeunet (“Delicatessen”) picked up the project, then he dropped out, too.

Finally she approached Lee, whom she’d admired for years. “He told me I was crazy,” Gabler said. “I told him he had to do it.”

The problem was, most people considered the story of young Pi to be unmakeable.

You couldn’t film it with real tigers. Could a computer-generated tiger be believable? For Lee, who was revered for such movies as “Brokeback Mountain” and “Sense and Sensibility,” but who had also learned a lot making the tech-heavy but unsuccessful “Hulk,” the impossibility of the challenge was part of the appeal.

“That’s a small part,” he confessed. “That’s ego. But that’s not a good enough reason. Artistically, it’s a philosophical book. The movie has an unfriendly ending. It pulls the rug out from the audience’s feet. Your attention is mandatory.”

And those difficulties, to Lee, were irresistible. “It’s challenging, but it’s a thrill. If you can do it, you can swagger around. When people say, ‘How the hell did you do that?’ there’s a certain amount of satisfaction.” The night before Lee spoke to the TheWrap, he had been at a critics’ award ceremony where he was approached by Steven Spielberg. “He said to me, ‘I tried to figure out how you do that,’ Of course, that’s nice!”

But back to the movie: Lee dove into making the story his own, conducting intensive research on tigers and computer graphics, and investigating the logistics of creating a set where the ocean would seem like a real character. He decided to do the film in 3D. The price continued to rise – and with it the anxiety of then-Fox chairmen Jim Gianopulos and Tom Rothman.

Gabler recalled: “Tom and Jim said, ‘We can’t make this movie. It’s too risky. Give it back to him.’” Lee got on a plane to Los Angeles. At a meeting with the studio chiefs, he showed an animated mock-up of the shipwreck scene, complete with swimming zebras. And he showed them a 12-minute tape of an unknown actor, Suraj Sharma, reciting the monologue from the end of the movie: Pi, in a hospital bed, recounting an alternative, grisly fate that could have befallen the survivors of a shipwreck. “When we saw it, the lights came up, and they said OK,” said Gabler.

So the studio, in Lee’s words, “sweated it out” with him over four years, gambling on the notion that the film just might be the international hit it would have to be to make back Fox’s investment.

The time included three months of rehearsal with the inexperienced Sharma and another seven months shooting. The Taiwanese government gave favorite son Lee an abandoned airport where the filmmakers built a series of soundstages, saving the production millions.

One studio was used to build a massive water tank, where the challenge was to simulate the waves of a vast ocean and not see the water that bounced off the sides of a tank. They built 12 machines to suck in water and shoot it out, creating two-story waves and endless ripples.

The time included three months of rehearsal with the inexperienced Sharma and another seven months shooting. The Taiwanese government gave favorite son Lee an abandoned airport where the filmmakers built a series of soundstages, saving the production millions.

One studio was used to build a massive water tank, where the challenge was to simulate the waves of a vast ocean and not see the water that bounced off the sides of a tank. They built 12 machines to suck in water and shoot it out, creating two-story waves and endless ripples.

As for Sharma, Lee took the 17-year-old novice under his wing, teaching him method acting and guiding him in yoga practice. The two became inseparable, and Sharma watched as Lee increasingly took on the qualities of the character Pi.

“He himself is a very intense person,” Sharma told TheWrap. “Ang moved toward Pi right through the movie. It was really intense. And in many ways I feel like he was a little like Pi; the way he thinks is similar. The aura is similar. He has that similar patience with things but a certain perseverance to it. But nice at the same time – I can’t explain it. It’s the way his back is bent … Ang is a lot like his work. It’s very simple from the outside but it has a lot of complexities on the inside. Kind of like Pi.”

For Lee, the result was one that both exhausted and exhilarated him. The story of Pi, he says, is the story of the essence of filmmaking.

“It’s a project that examines illusion. The power of storytelling. The importance of illusion – is it more real than what we can prove?” he reflected.

“I’m a storyteller. I create illusions. I believe in that more than in things I can touch. And this gets to the bottom of it all.”

Movies News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: How Ang Lee Took a Tiger by the Tail to Create ‘Life of Pi’
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/how-ang-lee-took-a-tiger-by-the-tail-to-create-life-of-pi/
Link To Post : How Ang Lee Took a Tiger by the Tail to Create ‘Life of Pi’
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

Daniel Doctoroff Enlists Bloomberg in A.L.S. Research

Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times

Daniel L. Doctoroff, second from right, chief executive of Bloomberg L.P., at Columbia University’s Motor Neuron Center.

Daniel L. Doctoroff watched in pain as his father developed a limp one day, was found to have Lou Gehrig’s disease, and died within two years. Then an uncle also developed symptoms of the same disease, and died soon after.

Now Mr. Doctoroff, like many other relatives of Lou Gehrig’s disease victims, worries that he or his children may someday develop the illness.

But unlike many, he is in a position to try to do something about it. At a time when scientists are making rapid gains in the genetic roots of many diseases, Mr. Doctoroff, a former deputy mayor and private equity investor, is working with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and a private equity director, David M. Rubenstein, to put together a $25 million package of donations to support research to try to cure this rare and usually fatal degenerative neurological illness.

“This is a devastating disease,” Mr. Doctoroff said in an interview this week in the glass high-rise on the Upper East Side that houses Bloomberg L.P., the mayor’s media and financial information company, where Mr. Doctoroff is now chief executive. “Up to now, there’s been basically no hope. I have the resources, and I think it’s my obligation to do that.”

The gift is part of a wave of investment based on the booming field of genomic analysis. The money will go to a project called Target A.L.S., a consortium of at least 18 laboratories, including ones at Columbia and at Johns Hopkins, the mayor’s alma mater, working to find biological “targets,” like gene mutations, and the biochemical changes they cause in the spinal cord, that could be used to test potential drug therapies for the disease, formally known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

It comes on top of a previous $15 million gift by Mr. Doctoroff, Bloomberg Philanthropies and other donors. By comparison, the National Institutes of Health, the single largest source of research financing for the disease, expects to give $44 million in 2013.

This is not Mr. Bloomberg’s first time supporting charitable causes that are dear to his close associates. The mayor quietly gave at least $1 million to put the name of his top deputy mayor, Patricia E. Harris, on a new academic center at her alma mater, Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa.

Mr. Doctoroff said the conversation about A.L.S. in which he got Mr. Bloomberg involved “lasted about five seconds.” He declined to say what share of the money each of the three donors was giving.

Mr. Rubenstein, a founder of the Carlyle Group, said Wednesday that he had long been fascinated with A.L.S. because of its association with Gehrig, the baseball player who died of it. He wondered why more than 70 years later so little progress had been made in treating it.

He said he jumped at the chance to join in because he thought that A.L.S. research was underfinanced owing to the rarity of the disease, and that even a small amount of money could make a big difference.

In the Bloomberg administration, where he was deputy mayor for economic development and rebuilding from 2002 to 2008, Mr. Doctoroff was best known for his dogged — and ultimately dashed — attempt to bring the 2012 Olympics to New York City. (London got the Games.) Now that he has left City Hall, he no longer rides his bike to work — he says the 2.6-mile route from the Upper West Side to his office is too short — but he sometimes runs.

At Bloomberg, he sits in front of a conference room with walls of hot-pink glass, while carp swim in a giant fish tank nearby. He keeps no family photos or other personal mementos on his desk, and talking about his family’s disease history does not seem easy for him.

A.L.S. is rare, with about 2 new cases diagnosed a year per 100,000 people, according to the A.L.S. Association. A vast majority of cases are “sporadic,” in people who have no family history, while only 5 to 10 percent of cases are inherited. There appear to be no racial, ethnic or socioeconomic predispositions.

There is some speculation about environmental factors, like exposure to toxic chemicals and high physical activity that athletes might endure, “but nothing firm,” said Christopher E. Henderson, a researcher at Columbia and the Target A.L.S. project’s scientific director. Some researchers suspect a link between A.L.S. and head trauma suffered by professional football players.

Mr. Doctoroff’s father, Martin, an appeals court judge in Michigan, received the diagnosis in 2000 and died in 2002. One of Martin Doctoroff’s brothers, Michael, was found to have the disease in 2009 and died in 2010.

“When my father contracted the disease and passed away, it was very easy to chalk it up to bad luck,” Mr. Doctoroff said. “When my uncle got it, it obviously had broader implications.”

Given his family history, Mr. Doctoroff estimates that there is a 50-50 chance that he has the gene, C9orf72, that could lead to A.L.S. But he has chosen not to be tested, which would have implications not just for him but for his three children. “It’s very personal, but I’m not sure that I want to know,” he said.

Even when family members develop the disease, it can occur at vastly different ages, so he could still be in suspense even after testing. “Assuming you have the gene, you don’t know when you would actually get the disease,” he said. His uncle was 71. His father was 66. He is now 54.

Sheelagh McNeill contributed reporting.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 6, 2013

An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misstated Daniel L. Doctoroff’s title at Bloomberg L.P. He is the chief executive, not the executive director.

Read More..

DealBook: R.B.S. to Pay $612 Million Over Rate Rigging

A campaign to root out financial fraud secured a victory on Wednesday, as authorities took aim at the Royal Bank of Scotland for its role in an interest rate manipulation scheme that has emboldened prosecutors and consumed the banking industry.

American and British authorities struck a combined $612 million settlement with the bank, the latest case to emerge from the global investigation into rate-rigging. The Justice Department dealt another blow to the bank, forcing its Japanese unit to plead guilty to criminal wrongdoing.

The penalty for the subsidiary, a hub of rate manipulation, underscores a recent shift in the way federal authorities punish financial wrongdoing. The R.B.S. case echoed an earlier action taken against a UBS subsidiary, which similarly pleaded guilty to felony wire fraud as part of a larger settlement. These cases represent the first units of a big bank to agree to criminal charges in more than a decade.

“I want financial institutions to know that this department will absolutely hold them to account,” Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, said in an interview Wednesday.

Some of the world’s largest financial institutions remain caught in the cross hairs of the rate manipulation case, an investigation that could drag on for years. Authorities suspect that more than a dozen banks falsified reports to influence benchmarks like the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor, which underpins the costs for trillions of dollars in financial products like mortgages and credit cards.

A person involved in the investigation indicated that the first banks to settle were among the worst actors in the rate case. But they also received a “discount” for their eager cooperation, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

That approach raises the prospect that remaining banks could face high-priced settlements.

Deutsche Bank, which set aside an undisclosed amount to cover potential penalties and suspended five employees tied to the case, is expected to settle with authorities in late 2013, several people briefed on the matter said. But the timetable could shift. The bank is not in formal settlement talks and is not prepared to resolve the case, the people said.

While foreign banks have borne the brunt of the scrutiny, an American institution could be among the next to settle. Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase are under investigation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the American regulator leading the case, though actions are not imminent.

The R.B.S. action concluded a first phase of rate-rigging investigations for authorities, who are now planning to take a brief hiatus from filing cases. The next case is not expected until spring at the earliest, two of the people briefed on the matter said.

Some bank executives, fearful that fallout from the case will stain their firms, are pushing for a broad deal encompassing multiple institutions. But authorities are balking at a “global settlement,” people involved in the case say, arguing that investigations are proceeding at different stages and involve widely varying fact patterns.

As regulators continue to pursue actions, prosecutors are planning charges against traders involved in the scheme. The first charges came last year when the Justice Department filed actions against two former UBS traders.

“Our investigation is far from finished,” Mr. Breuer said.

The rate-rigging case has centered on how much banks charge each other for loans. Such figures form the basis of Libor and other rates. But banks corrupted the process. Government complaints filed over the last year outlined a scheme in which banks reported false rates to lift trading profits.

Authorities announced the first Libor case in June, extracting a $450 million settlement with the British bank Barclays. In December, UBS agreed to a record $1.5 billion settlement with authorities. The Justice Department also secured the guilty plea from one of the bank’s subsidiaries.

Royal Bank of Scotland, based in Edinburgh, had aimed to avert the guilty plea for its Japanese subsidiary, people involved in the case said. But the Justice Department’s criminal division declined to back down, and the bank had little leverage to push back. It decided not to formally appeal its case to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., another person said.

With fines coming from multiple authorities, the $612 million case amounted to the second-largest penalty levied in the multiyear investigation into rate manipulation. “The settlement with R.B.S. is much more than a slap on the wrist,” argued Bart Chilton, a member of the trading commission who is critical of soft fines on big banks.

The settlement represents the latest setback for Royal Bank of Scotland, which has struggled to shake the legacy of the 2008 financial crisis. The British firm, which is majority-owned by the government after a bailout, already has put aside $2.7 billion to compensate customers who were inappropriately sold loan insurance in recent years.

Since the financial crisis, the bank has shaken up its management team and refocused its operations, as part of an effort to repair its bruised image. On Wednesday, it announced plans to claw back bonuses to help pay for the latest settlement.

At a news conference in London on Wednesday, Stephen Hester, the bank’s chief executive, admitted that the rate-rigging episode significantly strained the bank. “It is one of the most difficult moments over the entire period,” he said.

As authorities stitched together the R.B.S. case, they seized on a series of colorful e-mails that highlighted an effort to influence the rate-setting process, a plot that spanned multiple currencies and countries from 2006 to 2010. One Royal Bank of Scotland trader mused in a 2007 message how the process was becoming a “cartel,” adding “its just amazing how libor fixing can make you that much money.”

The wrongdoing spread broadly, authorities say, noting that Royal Bank of Scotland “aided and abetted” UBS and other firms. A senior official at the Justice Department’s antitrust unit, Scott D. Hammond, contends that the bank “secretly rigged” interest rates.

A UBS trader, the department said, once asked a co-worker to “have a word with” another bank about Libor submissions. The UBS trader, Thomas Hayes, who was recently charged by the Justice Department with fraud, indicated that he had already approached R.B.S. for help.

The government complaints also portray a permissive culture that allowed rate-rigging to persist for four years. David Meister, the enforcement director of the trading commission, declared that “the environment was ripe for manipulation at R.B.S.”

The bank’s own records captured the scheme in striking detail, revealing how traders pressured other employees to submit certain rates. Submitters and traders sat in earshot of each other in London, forming what authorities termed a “cozy ring.” The bank eventually separated the employees, who then moved to make additional requests via instant messages.

To persuade employees who submitted Libor rates, some traders promised affection. Others offered steak and sushi. One trader resorted to begging, invoking a plea of “pretty please.” Another trader, after pressuring a colleague to submit a certain rate, offered a reward of sorts: “I would come over there and make love to you.”

When authorities began scrutinizing the bank, the traders adopted a more covert approach. In 2010, a Libor submitter rebuffed an instant message request to influence rates. But then the submitter called the trader to explain “we’re not allowed to have those conversations” over instant message.

The employees laughed, according to a transcript of the call, and the submitter reassured the trader that he would fulfill the request: “Leave it with me, and uh, it won’t be a problem.”

Read More..

Child porn suspect indicted by federal grand jury

A North Hills woman whom authorities allege plied a young girl with crack cocaine and photographed her being sexually abused by an older man was indicted Tuesday on federal charges of producing child pornography and sex trafficking.

Letha Montemayor Tucker was named Tuesday in a four-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury. If convicted of all the charges, Tucker would face a mandatory minimum federal sentence of 10 years and could get up to life in prison, authorities said.

The charges come a month after authorities sought the public's help in the investigation by releasing photographs of a man and woman depicted in a set of widely circulated child pornography photos.

Tips started pouring in immediately after the photos were released, investigators said.

Tucker, who goes by the name Butterfly, was located about 10 hours after the release of the photos and taken into custody, said Claude Arnold, special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations in Los Angeles, a division of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The alleged victim, who was about 12 when the photos were taken, was found within a week of the case going public, Arnold said. She is an adult now and is cooperating with authorities, he said.

In addition to photographing the girl being sexually abused by the man, authorities said, Tucker also committed sex acts with the alleged victim.

The photos were part of a child pornography collection known as the "Jen Series."

The 40-plus photos were first discovered by investigators in the Chicago area in 2007. Investigators said images in the series have been reported about 300 times and have been found on computers across the country.

The victim "didn't even know these images were out there," Arnold said.

"The horror of child pornography is it's for life, the victimization," Arnold said. "Once the photos are there in cyberspace, they're there forever."

The girl, identified in court records only by the initials J.M.M., lived in the same Los Angeles County residential hotel as Tucker, who worked as a prostitute, authorities said.

Around 2000 or 2001, the girl stopped attending school regularly and spent more and more time in Tucker's room, smoking crack cocaine Tucker provided, according to the indictment.

The girl was present when Tucker engaged in prostitution with clients and was usually high when this happened, authorities allege. Tucker instructed the child to take off her clothes in front of the clients, prosecutors alleged in court papers.

The faces of Tucker and the girl are "clearly visible" in the photos, according to the indictment. Tucker had an eyebrow piercing and a tattoo of a sleeping cat behind her shoulder, which made her easier to identify, authorities said.

The face of the man, however, is blacked out in the photographs. Authorities are still trying to identify the man, Arnold said.

"Obviously, we want him also to answer for his crimes," Arnold said.

Arnold said the alleged victim is "going to be dealing with this for a long time."

Now that she has been identified, she will receive a victim notification every time one of the images turns up in an investigation, he said.

Tucker is being held without bond and is scheduled to be arraigned in federal court on Feb. 13. Her attorney could not be reached for comment.

hailey.branson@latimes.com

Read More..

Don't Call It a Tablet

The Surface Pro looks like a tablet, but it’s not a mobile device. It’s a portable device.

Sure, put the Surface Pro next to the Surface RT and it’s hard to spot many differences. One’s a little thicker, but their shapes are otherwise identical. Both have the same matte-black, magnesium-based casing. They both can be used with snap-in keyboards and they’re both propped up into typing position by built-in kickstands.

It’s a full-blown computer, but one that folds up into a tablet-sized package.

While the differences are blurry on the outside, if you use them both for a little while, the dissimilarities become distinct. The Surface RT is thoroughly a tablet, and it exists to directly challenge the iPad. It closely matches Apple’s larger slate in size, weight, performance and price. The Surface Pro, however — which goes on sale Feb. 9 for a starting price of $900 — is something more ambitious than a tablet. It’s a full-blown computer, but one that folds up into a tablet-sized package.

It’s also more expensive than a tablet — and comes with many hidden costs — but is far more capable since it runs full Windows 8 Pro. And though it isn’t perfect, the Surface Pro is certainly very compelling.

Ever since Windows 8 launched in October of last year, Microsoft’s hardware partners have been experimenting with ways of incorporating the OS’s touchscreen capabilities into their computer designs. The result, so far, has been a flood of tablet/PC Frankenbeasts with keyboards that twist, slide, fold, or otherwise play peek-a-boo beneath the touchscreen. The success of these devices varies, but most are flimsy and awkward. They want to be tablets, but they don’t want to leave the laptop behind, and they end up stuck somewhere in the middle.

The Surface Pro is more well-constructed and thoughtfully designed than any of them. It’s the best of the hybrids. The quality of the hardware, the performance, and the simplicity of the design make it a success.

But let me be clear: The Surface Pro is not a tablet. Many people have confusedly asked me if the Surface Pro is even a good tablet. The answer is a clear and resounding, “No.” It’s heavy and thick. It doesn’t invite you to curl up with it on the couch. It’s tough to read with it in bed, and it works much better propped up on a desk than it does resting on a knee or in a lap.

And while it’s portable, it isn’t an amazing laptop, either. Microsoft’s Touch and Type covers don’t come bundled with Surface Pro — you have to pay an extra $120 or $130, respectively, if you want to avoid touchscreen typing (and trust me, you will want to avoid touchscreen typing). And with either keyboard attached, the thing is so top-heavy, it’s physically challenging to use on your lap.

So why bother? Because the Surface Pro is a Windows 8 PC through and through. It comes with an Intel Core i5 processor, and it can run all of your legacy desktop applications. You can surf using your favorite browser, you can type and save and share using the full versions of Office and all your other regular work applications. You can freely download software from the web without depending on the (still anemic) Windows Store.

Microsoft has also given the Surface Pro a killer screen. The 10.6-inch, 1980×1080 pixel resolution display is a visible step up from the Surface RT. With the same 16:9 aspect ratio, it’s great for watching movies. It feels a little silly to use it in portrait mode because it’s so tall, but text is much crisper on the higher-res display, so browsing the web and reading text is more pleasurable. It’s not quite on par with the iPad’s Retina display, but I could barely see a difference between the two. Ten-point touch gestures are supported, as well as the standard swipe gestures.

The touchpads found on both keyboard covers don’t support the standard swipe gestures. They’re accurate enough for pointing, but if you try to swipe in from the right for Charms, or from the left to switch applications, they won’t respond. You’ll need to reach up and use the screen, or buy an extra mouse or trackpad like Logitech’s Rechargeable Trackpad ($80, another additional cost).

The Surface Pro does come with a great pressure-sensitive pen that magnetically attaches to the power connector. The pen really shined in handwriting-driven apps like One Note, or the painting app, Fresh Paint. And the top of the pen acts as an eraser, which is neat.

Performance is generally excellent across all Windows 8 apps I tested. However, one thing that stuck out is a general problem with screen rotations. When switching between portrait and landscape modes, it takes about a second for the Surface Pro to register the rotations. I found this lag to be disconcerting. Also, some apps displayed rotation quirks. The worst offender was Chrome. The desktop version worked flawlessly, but when I used the version made for the tile-based Windows 8 interface, the app repeatedly refused to resize properly when I flipped between landscape and portrait modes. Likewise, whenever I put Chrome in Snap View mode — a Windows 8 trick that lets you run two applications side-by-side in a split-screen arrangement — the Chrome window got smaller and would not readjust back to full-screen size when I exited Snap View.

Otherwise, I was happy with Windows 8 Pro on the Surface. All the apps I used during my tests were super-responsive. Scrolling was smooth, and there were no input latency problems to speak of.

Pages: 1 2 View All

Read More..

Meryl Streep, Jean Dujardin returning to the Oscars

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) – Three-time Oscar winner Meryl Streep will likely get to induct Daniel Day-Lewis into that triple-Oscar club on February 24 at the Dolby Theatre, while “The Sound of Music” star Christopher Plummer will probably hand the Best Supporting Actress award to a new screen-musical star, Anne Hathaway.

Those are two conclusions to be drawn from the Academy’s Tuesday announcement that last year’s acting winners, Streep, Plummer, Jean Dujardin and Octavia Spencer, will return to serve as presenters on this year’s Oscar telecast.

Streep won her third Oscar for “The Iron Lady,” while Dujardin, Spencer and Plummer won their first for “The Artist,” “The Help” and “Beginners,” respectively.

The previous year’s Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor winners typically present the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress awards, and vice versa. And the immediate past winners are traditionally the first Oscar presenters to be announced.

So far, Oscar show producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron have announced a number of musical participants, including Barbra Streisand, Norah Jones and a tribute to musicals of the past 10 years.

Movies News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: Meryl Streep, Jean Dujardin returning to the Oscars
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/meryl-streep-jean-dujardin-returning-to-the-oscars/
Link To Post : Meryl Streep, Jean Dujardin returning to the Oscars
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

Vote This Week May Close Long Island College Hospital

State university trustees will vote this week on whether to close Long Island College Hospital, officials of the Brooklyn hospital said on Tuesday, despite protests from doctors and nurses that northern Brooklyn would lose an essential source of emergency care.

Dr. John Williams, president of SUNY Downstate Medical Center, which runs Long Island College Hospital, said on Tuesday that he would formally recommend closing the hospital at a SUNY meeting in Manhattan on Thursday, followed by a public hearing that same day.

An executive committee of the SUNY board will vote on the recommendation on Friday and is expected to approve it, which would clear the way for the state Health Department to make the final decision, based on whether comparable care is available to people now served by the hospital. About 2,000 doctors, nurses and other employees would be in danger of losing their jobs.

Dr. Williams said that after five months on the job, he had concluded that the financial losses at LICH, as the hospital is called, threatened to sink SUNY Downstate, which includes a medical school that he said had trained one out of three doctors practicing in Brooklyn and one out of nine doctors practicing in New York City.

He said it was necessary to sacrifice LICH to save the rest of the enterprise. “I have to put on the big hat when I look at the campus and say what works and what doesn’t work,” Dr. Williams said in an interview on Tuesday. “The last thing I want to do is have people lose their jobs, but LICH could bring down SUNY Downstate and that’s something I’m trying to prevent.”

But doctors — many of whom heard of the plan at a meeting held Monday by Dr. Williams — said that the closing of LICH would leave more than 50,000 emergency room patients a year without a nearby hospital to go to. They accused Dr. Williams of opting to close LICH, which lies in the gentrifying Cobble Hill neighborhood, rather than more antiquated facilities in East Flatbush or Bay Ridge, because it has the most valuable real estate, and the sale could prop up SUNY Downstate’s faltering operations.

Dr. Williams said that he had chosen to close LICH, rather than facilities in lower-income areas, because Downstate’s mission was to take care of poor and underserved patients. He said that it would cost $75 million to $200 million to upgrade LICH’s aging plant. Besides, he said, in recent years, LICH had been largely abandoned by residents of the surrounding neighborhoods of Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn Heights, Red Hook and Boerum Hill, who often worked in Manhattan and preferred to go to hospitals there, forcing the hospital to reduce its beds.

But Julie Semente, a registered nurse in LICH’s intensive care unit, said Tuesday that when it came to emergencies, those patients still went to LICH; Brooklyn ambulances, she said, generally do not go to Manhattan. If LICH closed, she said, they would have to go to hospitals deeper in Brooklyn and farther from their homes and families.

“My patient who was hemorrhaging had to call an ambulance,” Ms. Semente said of one recent patient. “He lives in Brooklyn Heights. The ambulance doesn’t go over the bridge. It came to Long Island College Hospital and his life was saved because he went to the hospital in the neighborhood.”

She said that SUNY Downstate was already “in a mess” financially before acquiring LICH in 2011 from Continuum Health Partners, which also runs St. Luke’s, Roosevelt and Beth Israel hospitals in Manhattan. “LICH is being closed because it is more attractive and it will bring them more money in a sale” than other facilities, she said.

The state comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, said in an audit last month that SUNY Downstate had $117 million in operating losses in 2011, of which $44 million was attributable to the acquisition of LICH. The audit said that LICH had annual operating losses for 17 years going back to 1994. A report in November 2011 by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s panel on Brooklyn hospitals identified LICH as one of six hospitals that “do not have a business model and sufficient margins to remain viable and provide high-quality care to their communities as currently structured.”

Read More..

Economic Scene: Immigration Reform Issue: The Effect on the Budget

The stars could hardly have shone brighter on the prospects for immigration reform than in the early months of 2007.

The coalition pushing for change included the oddest of bedfellows — roping together business groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce with the Service Employees International Union, the fastest-growing union in the country. It had an impeccable bipartisan pedigree, including President George W. Bush and Senator Jon Kyl, a staunchly conservative Republican, as well as the Democrats’ liberal lion, Senator Ted Kennedy.

The economy was growing. The unemployment rate was at its lowest level since the dot-com bubble burst six years before. And the flaws of our immigration laws — impotent to stop a river of unauthorized immigrants drawn across the border by job opportunities — were obvious to all.

Immigration reform, however, was not to be.

Immigrants’ rights groups balked at the hurdles put in immigrants’ path toward legalization. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. hated a provision creating temporary work visas, arguing that it was a license for businesses to bring in cheap foreign labor. Then, a Senate Democrat, Byron Dorgan, offered the coup de grâce with an amendment to phase out the worker visa program after five years. Though proposed at the behest of organized labor, the amendment got the support of some of the most anti-union Republicans in the Senate. And it killed the entire enterprise, stripping away corporate America’s main reason to support a deal.

Today, the economy is not growing much. Unemployment remains stubbornly high. Yet President Obama thinks the stellar alignment may be  better than six years ago. He is proposing a wholesale change to the same flawed immigration laws. He trusts that Republicans, who lost the Hispanic vote by an enormous margin in November, cannot afford to further alienate Hispanics by voting against their top priority.

Despite the strong case for an overhaul, however, changing our immigration laws may be tougher than the president appears to believe. While we may have overcome some of the obstacles of 2007, reform will probably face deep-seated opposition from many Americans — including most conservative Republicans — to what they will view as a potentially large expansion of welfare.

President Obama’s proposal is based on principles similar to those of the 2007 attempt: a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants in the country, a legal channel for future immigrant workers and their families, and a plan to better enforce the nation’s borders and immigration laws.

Yet immigration reform today means something quite different than it did in 2007. Notably, the elements needed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants north are much less important to the enterprise. The Obama administration has already spent huge amounts of money on border enforcement. Today, border policing costs about $18 billion a year — nearly 50 percent more than it did in 2006. And deportations have soared. What’s more, illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle, as Mexico has grown more robustly than the United States. The illegal immigrant population has even been shrinking in the last few years. And it may continue to do so as the Mexican population of prime migration-age people stops growing.

Also, many employers have already gotten some of what they wanted: the number of workers entering the United States on temporary visas for low-end jobs in agriculture and other industries has increased sharply.

“The discussion is in a different environment,” said Gordon H. Hanson, an expert on the economics of immigration at the University of California, San Diego. “The flow of new immigrants is not the story anymore.”

This might help the cause of reform in some ways. It could allow the discussion about work visas to focus on the highly educated workers coveted by technology companies and pre-empt the kind of argument between business and labor over visas for cheap immigrant workers that sank reform in 2007. The A.F.L.-C.I.O., for instance, has heartily embraced President Obama’s plan.

But what supporters of an overhaul of immigration law seem to be overlooking is that these very changes could also make it more difficult to build a coalition across the political divide. If reform is mainly about granting citizenship to 11 million mostly poor illegal immigrants with relatively little education, it is going to land squarely in the cross hairs of our epic battle about taxes, entitlements and the role of government in society.

It’s hard to say with precision what impact offering citizenship would have on the budget, but the chances are good that it would cost the government money. Half to three-quarters of illegal immigrants pay taxes, according to studies reviewed in a 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office. And they are relatively inexpensive, compared with Americans of similar incomes. Their children can attend public schools at government expense — putting a burden on state and local budgets. But they are barred from receiving federal benefits like the earned-income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid. Only their American-born children can get those.

Government revenue might not change much with legalization. Most illegal immigrants who don’t pay taxes probably work in the cash economy — as nannies or gardeners — where tax compliance among citizens is low. Costs, of course, would increase. Once they became citizens, immigrants would be entitled to the same array of government benefits as other Americans. For Social Security and Medicare alone, offering citizenship to illegal immigrants would mean losing a subsidy worth several billion dollars a year in payroll taxes from immigrants who can’t collect benefits in old age.

The White House and other backers of reform have made much of a 2007 Congressional Budget Office analysis concluding that the failed immigration overhaul would have increased government revenue by $48 billion over a decade while adding only $23 billion to direct spending on entitlements and other programs. But the report also said that including the costs of carrying out the new law would actually increase the budget deficit by $18 billion over the decade and several billion a year after that. What’s more, it noted that most of the expected new tax revenue came from new immigrant workers, not from the newly legalized population.

Our history suggests we could have much to gain by turning illegal immigrants into citizens and putting an end to unauthorized immigration. The last time we permitted illegal immigrants to legalize, in 1986, incomes jumped for those who took advantage of the opportunity. Their children became more proficient in English and completed more years of school — becoming more productive and paying more taxes over their lifetimes.

But the same history underscores how immigration sets off fears about further sharing of government resources. Ten years after the immigration reform of 1986, reeling from some public anger, Congress passed a law barring legal immigrants from means-tested government services. The same issue is likely again to be a major flash point. Professor Hanson pointed to “the older white man who sees his entitlements at risk because of the demands placed by legalization on our fiscal resources.”

Conservative Republicans set on cutting government spending share those concerns. And for all their reasons to reach out to Hispanics, they might not find making illegal immigrants legal politically advantageous. On Tuesday, Republicans in the House argued against granting citizenship to illegal immigrants at all.

Hispanics are more liberal than the general population on economic matters, polls suggest, and more supportive of Big Government initiatives. Granting them citizenship would give them the vote.

As Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, an advocacy group in Washington that favors more limits on immigration, said, “They will see legalization as a voter-registration drive for Democrats.”

E-mail: eporter@nytimes.com; Twitter: @portereduardo

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 5, 2013

An earlier version misspelled the first name of one of the two United States senators from Arizona.  His name is Jon Kyl, not John.

Read More..