Hasta La Gadget!

We reported earlier this month that Snapchat was testing location aware filters and today the company has gone through with the official launch. They’re called Geofilters and they only become available when the user takes a snap in a particular area or a particular city. Geofilters are only available for a handful of locations right now but it wouldn’t be wrong to assume that Snapchat will expand them in the near future.

To use Geofilters users will have to enable location services in the app. Snapchat doesn’t clearly say why it does need this feature to be turned on but to appease people who might have privacy concerns the company writes in its blog post that “we don’t store your location.”

Most of the filters available right now are for locations in Los Angeles and New York City. The video which announces this feature shows specific filters for a coffee shop, Disneyland, a Soul Cycle location and more. All users have to do is take a snap at that particular location and swipe right on the preview screen to check out available filters.

While Snapchat says that none of the locations have paid it as yet to include filters it is believed to be one of the ways Snapchat is going to make money off of its user base.

Snapchat Unveils Location-Based Geofilters

, original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

After months of endless speculation there is good news for Windows Phone users who have a Lumia device. Since majority of the WP devices out there are Lumias today’s announcement concerns the bulk of WP’s user base. It has finally been announced today that the Lumia Cyan Windows Phone 8.1 update has been released. Not only does it bring Windows Phone 8.1 which was unveiled earlier this year but exclusive features for the Lumia lineup as well.

Last week we did report that the Cyan update with Windows Phone 8.1 was being released in select markets. That was probably a small scale test of the roll out procedure. Now evidently the update is ready for primetime and has been released for all supported Lumia smartphones out there.

All Lumia smartphones that run Windows Phone 8 are supported so the update will be available for all of them. The company has said that this update starts rolling out today and in a few weeks time will cover all WP8 Lumia devices across the globe.

Windows Phone 8.1 brings the digital assistant Cortana, a new Word Flow keyboard, a notification center and a lot more. Lumia Cyan updates includes an app that collects data for fitness services, Bluetooth 4.0 LE support, miracast support as well as improved camera algorithms that improve camera performance on the Lumia Icon, Lumia 1520 and the Lumia 930.

Since the update is rolled out in stages it may take a while for it to go live across all countries. Rest assured though it going to land on your device soon enough.

Lumia Cyan Windows Phone 8.1 Update Released

, original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Last week I wrote about the trap that gay groups may have set for themselves in a post-Hobby Lobby world, having previously backed a broad religious exemption in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). By week’s end, most major groups had pulled their support for ENDA, following a few that pulled out before the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision. But believe it or not, right now some Republicans are working feverishly to get support for ENDA in the GOP and try to pass it in the House in this session, with the dangerous religious exemption that caused LGBT groups to withdraw support.

The irony here is off the charts, but the idea being floated is that Republicans should realize that LGBT rights are inevitable, and that anti-gay GOPers should therefore grab at the chance to pass a bill that could broadly give an exception to religious organizations and the businesses they own and enshrine that discrimination forever.

As an added bonus, the Supreme Court might view the exemption as a way to expand that allowable discrimination to “closely held,” for-profit companies owned by people who have religious objections to gays, as it did in the Hobby Lobby case regarding religious objections to some forms of birth control. One of the court’s rationales in Hobby Lobby was that the Obama administration was giving an exemption to nonprofit religious institutions, so why not give it to massive for-profit companies that happen to be mostly owned by individuals with religious objections? Legal scholars who’ve studied the Hobby Lobby decision disagree about whether or not it could affect LGBT legal protections, now or in the future — though all bets seem to be off if Justice Kennedy retires or dies while a Republican president is in office. But that’s beside the point. It’s all about what’s happening right now.

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Florida), who is among the eight GOP co-sponsors of ENDA, told the Washington Blade that he’s still pushing to get it passed, with the broad religious exemption, because, among other things, the largest gay group, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), still backs it, and he sees hope in attaching ENDA to some larger legislative vehicle. That, ironically, was one option, however unlikely, that many gay groups were banking on for ENDA (before pulling support), knowing it was next-to-impossible that House Speaker John Boehner would actually bring ENDA up for a vote on its own.

HRC does still back passage of ENDA in this session (as does House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, openly lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin and other Democrats), but in response to the pulling of support by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Transgender Law Center and others, HRC president Chad Griffin wrote in an op-ed last week that the group wants to “narrow” the exemption and also said the community should “throw its weight behind” a comprehensive civil-rights bill. If ENDA doesn’t pass, he wrote, that bill would include employment as well as public accommodations, housing, education and credit — something a lot of us have been demanding for a long time. However, Griffin didn’t give any details or timeline regarding what would be an ambitious undertaking and a massive bill, and he refused to give interviews. And his group does still continue to lobby Republicans to support the current ENDA.

As Metro Weekly‘s Justin Snow reported and discussed with me on my radio program yesterday, the Log Cabin Republicans are dismayed by the pullout of the other groups, and they too are working the Hill trying to get Republican co-sponsors to pass ENDA in the House, as is the American Unity Fund, the group founded by conservative hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer, who backed Mitt Romney in his failed presidential bid. Their selling point to fellow GOPers: ENDA protects religious liberties. You heard that right. Here’s Log Cabin leader Gregory T. Angelo, from Snow’s piece:

From a lobbying standpoint, I think this [debacle over the exemption] could potentially help ENDA in the House, because it underscores what has long been a lobbying strategy we have employed: this bill is going to pass sooner or later, and Republicans who care about religious liberty and equality would do well to prioritize its passage in this congress.

In truth, Hobby Lobby was an opportunity the other groups used to back out of a bill with an exemption they’d spoken out against for over a year, even as they backed passing ENDA with the exemption in the Senate last year, where it got over the 60-vote threshold with the help of GOP senators who voted for it because of the broad exemption. It’s highly unlikely that ENDA will get passed in the House via any option available, with or without the gay groups onboard (and HRC’s idea of “narrowing” the exemption would mean going back to the Senate again), but wouldn’t it be the nightmare scenario if it did pass, with this exemption, and then LGBT groups had to demand that President Obama veto a bill he and Democrats had heralded for months?

Again, it’s highly improbable that it would get to that, but I write this to underscore how this entire episode was amateur hour for the LGBT community. It’s hard to believe it hasn’t irked long-time supporters among both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House (and the White House) who had the rug pulled out from under them.

ENDA should never have been pushed and passed in the Senate with a religious exemption, not in 2013 — nor should we have even thought of doing that in 2012, 2011, 2010, or, frankly, 20-anything. HRC, in its usual arrogance, and with blinders on, refused to listen to the community and the growing chorus among the grass roots, the people who’ve experienced the progress we’ve made on marriage equality and support by the American public and who were saying “no” to an exemption for years. HRC assured our allies in the House and Senate that the community was behind it, and HRC was expected to keep a coalition together. It failed miserably.

The rest of the gay groups shouldn’t be let off the hook either. They all backed ENDA, even after expressing serious reservations, and should have pulled out before the Senate vote. They were likely afraid of HRC’s ability to affect their fundraising or their relationships with the White House and leaders on Capitol Hill. Hopefully they now have gotten some guts and have realized that HRC often needs a check on its myopic, access-driven, win-at-all-costs strategies, especially under a new leadership that refuses to even give interviews to the LGBT press, not responding to requests, its president only speaking to the community via vague, meticulously crafted op-eds. There’s a critical need for more leadership, and it’s time for these other groups to stand up.

John Milton, the great English poet, once pondered, “For what can war, but endless war, still breed?” The answer: flawed Supreme Court decisions, countless email fundraising solicitations, and a surge of new attack ads.

The “war on women” is back. Following the Hobby Lobby decision, Democrats have resurrected the narrative first popularized in the 2012 campaign. Senator Barbara Boxer, often credited with coining the expression, argued, “five Republican-appointed men on the Supreme Court” gave “bosses… total power to deny critical medical care to their employees.” Democratic Party Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz went further, declaring, “Republicans want to do everything they can to have the long hand of government, and now the long hand of business, reach into a woman’s body and make health-care decisions for her.” When introducing legislation to overturn the decision on July 9th, other prominent Democrats used similar rhetoric.

Hobby Lobby represents but one battle in the “war on women.” After gaining 680 state legislature seats in 2010, Republicans acted decisively to limit women’s reproductive rights. In 2011, for example, Republicans in 24 states enacted 92 abortion restrictions, surpassing the 2005 record when state legislatures approved 34 laws curbing abortion. As many pro-life activists have acknowledged, the laws serve a simple purpose: return America to a pre-Roe v. Wade environment, where women in certain parts of the country do not have access to safe, legal abortion. Congressional Republicans also defunded Planned Parenthood, slashed funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), delayed reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, and mocked women’s claims of pay discrimination in the labor market. The results have not just been bad policy, but bad politics for Republicans; in a recent CNN poll, 59 percent of women indicated that the GOP is out of touch with their gender.

Yet the GOP’s hostility towards women does not just touch public policy and rhetoric. It infects the core of the party’s culture. Women are dismally represented in positions of leadership and power in the Republican Party. The “war on women,” as used in the contemporary public discourse, often overlooks this reality. Moreover, the lack of Republican women exacerbates the “war” itself. Ultimately, this underrepresentation empowers many male party members whose views and policies are inimical to women.

Consider Texas, a citadel of conservatism. In June, the Texas Republican Party nominated only one woman, Representative Kay Granger, among 50 candidates for top statewide, congressional, and judicial positions. Although the Lone Star State is composed of 50.3 percent women, only one individual, two percent of leading Republican candidates, is female. The result? Even for a Southern state, the Texas GOP stands out for rhetoric and policies especially insensitive to women’s needs. Greg Abbott, the Texas Republican nominee for Governor, has compared Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization. In June, Texas Republican delegates approved a platform that advocates abstinence-only sexual education and a permanent ban of the morning after pill. The platform even favors fetal personhood after “fertilization” and “total constitutional rights for the unborn child,” a move that would outlaw abortion in cases of rape and numerous forms of contraception.

The underrepresentation of Republican women is not just a Texas problem. Today, four out of every five female U.S. Senators are Democrats. So are three out of every four female U.S. Representatives. In 2012, Democrats nominated 118 women as candidates for the House of Representatives. Republicans nominated a meager 48 female House candidates. In other words, 71 percent of women who ran for Congress in 2012 were Democrats. Women are even underrepresented in the employment rosters of powerful Republicans; they compose just 36.6 percent of the staff in the House Republican leadership.

The partisan gender disparity was once nonexistent. Thirty years ago, women were equally represented in both parties. Since then, Democratic female representation soared while Republican female representation stagnated. Perhaps unsurprisingly, women voters have gravitated away from the Republican Party during the same period. The “gender gap” in 1992 presidential race was only four percentage points; in 2012, it was 10.

Some Republicans acknowledge the problem. The Growth and Opportunity Project, a Republican National Committee (RNC)-endorsed study that explored Republican defeats in the 2012 election, recognized “the Party’s negative image among women.” Notably, the analysis urged the RNC to “understand that women need to be asked to run.” It implored the party to provide “training programs” for female candidates in light of the “unique challenges” they face when running for office. In this regard, the GOP should start by examining the Democrats’ successful female recruitment and support operations, including Women Lead, Emily’s List, Annie’s List, and Off the Sidelines.

Yet to solve a problem, you have to acknowledge that there is, in fact, a problem. Many Republicans are unwilling to take this basic step. Rep. Paul Ryan and RNC Chairman Reince Preibus dismissed the “war on women” as tantamount to a “war on left-handed Irishmen” and “war on caterpillars,” respectively. A 2013 ABC News poll revealed that 60 percent of Democrats agreed, “it would be a good thing to elect more women to Congress.” Only 23 percent of Republicans concurred.

The problem will only worsen as the Republican Party continues on its inexorable slide to the right. Political scientists link the gradual, conservative domination of the GOP to fewer female candidates. Ideologically, women are more likely to be liberal. Women candidates are more likely to be perceived as liberal. As more and more Republicans demand rigid ideological conformity, correspondingly high numbers of women are disqualified from party participation.

If Republicans are serious about ending the “war on women,” they should tack to the center. This move would certainly be beneficial for our country’s democracy and government. The American people are weary of the Tea Party, its stranglehold on the Republican Party, and the obstruction and gridlock that defines Washington. As an added benefit, centrism would enable the party to attract and elect more female candidates. Unlike many women in anti-abortion states today, Republicans have a choice: continue down a path that alienates women, or try something else.

Pregnant moms are used to hearing all kinds of questionable things throughout their terms. But actress Elizabeth Berkley, known for her role on “Saved By The Bell,” is having none of that. When Perez Hilton tweeted about pregnant Christina Aguilera’s “ballooning bump about to burst,” Berkley called him out for his choice of words.

@PerezHilton pls honor mamas more by not referring to their bumps as “ballooning” “abt to burst”- there is precious life in there

— Elizabeth Berkley (@ElizBerkley) July 14, 2014

The actress and mother of a toddler then tweeted a few more thoughts regarding how society refers to pregnant women.

That last tweet was directed to a photo of @xtina aguillera who looks like a goddess pregnant…women carrying life are stunning ❤️

— Elizabeth Berkley (@ElizBerkley) July 14, 2014

In our culture, it has become ok to refer to pregnant women w/descriptions I find to be dishonoring of this precious time. #letschangethat

— Elizabeth Berkley (@ElizBerkley) July 14, 2014

Let’s try #glowing #carryinglife #amazing #beautiful #goddess #mamatobe thoughts @CTurlington @ROOTEDFORLIFE ? Xxx

— Elizabeth Berkley (@ElizBerkley) July 14, 2014

Hear, hear!

@media only screen and (min-width : 500px) {.ethanmobile { display: none; }}

Like Us On Facebook |
Follow Us On Twitter |
Contact HuffPost Parents