Apple’s Cheapest 13-inch MacBook Pro Is No Longer Available

It is no secret that Apple’s new MacBook Pros are expensive. In fact even ahead of the refresh, the previous generation of MacBook Pros weren’t exactly considered cheap either, but compared to the newer models, you could say that they were somewhat more affordable, but that is no longer the case.

It seems that if you were hoping to get your hands on an affordable MacBook Pro, it looks like Apple has officially discontinued the 2015 13-inch MacBook Pro which was the most affordable laptop in the MacBook Pro range. Sure, it didn’t necessarily have the latest specs or features like Touch ID or the Touch Bar, but for those who wanted a reliable computer that didn’t cost an arm and a leg, the 2015 13-inch MacBook Pro was an option.

Apple had kept the model around even after launching last year’s MacBook Pro refresh, but it looks like following the update to the MacBook lineup at WWDC earlier this week, the company has decided that maybe it was time to retire the 2015 model. If you wanted a more affordable MacBook Pro, your best bet would be the base 13-inch model without Touch Bar which is going for $1,300.

Alternatively you could always keep an eye out for a refurbished model which is usually sold for less, although if you have an issue with pre-owned electronics then maybe it might not be for you.

Apple’s Cheapest 13-inch MacBook Pro Is No Longer Available , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Konami Is Thinking About Bringing More Games Onto The Nintendo Switch

Konami might have gotten quite a bit of flack with the way they handled the Metal Gear franchise and how the game’s producer Hideo Kojima left the company, but that all seems to be in the past (for the most part) as the company has churned out a hit and winner in the form of Super Bomberman R for the Nintendo Switch.

Now Konami has many titles attached to its name and it looks like the company still has plans for bringing more of its titles onto the Switch. Speaking with Miketendo64, Konami’s Richard Jones revealed that the company has been holding a lot of internal discussions regarding what titles they could be bringing to Nintendo’s console.

According to Jones, he acknowledges that Castlevania is a popular title that many gamers are interested in seeing arrive for the Switch, but he also tempered expectations by saying that discussions are still ongoing and that nothing is set in stone. “So we do know there is a demand for a new game, but right now nothing is set in stone as the discussions are still on going.”

He also states that there are still quite a few big updates for Super Bomberman R on its way, such as more stages, and that they could potentially be adding more costumes and characters further down the line.

Konami Is Thinking About Bringing More Games Onto The Nintendo Switch , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Apple’s 2018 Apple Watch Could Adopt Micro-LED Displays

We wouldn’t exactly call the Apple Watch a bulky device, but could it be even more low-profile? That might be the case, especially in 2018 when Apple is rumored to adopt micro-LED display technology for its wearable devices, which at the moment is pretty much only the Apple Watch in Apple’s product lineup.

This is based on a report from Nikkei whose sources have suggested that Apple’s adoption of the technology could be as soon as 2018. This has led to speculation as to whether or not Apple could be cutting ties with Samsung for OLED display production for the Apple Watch, although MacRumors does point to a rumor that Samsung is looking into micro-LED production with a possible acquisition of a micro-LED manufacturer.

According to an anonymous executive with close knowledge of display technology, “Apple is working very hard to foster the micro-LED technology … the company could push the use of new display tech as early as next year. At this point, Apple is the only company who is able to roll out micro-LED, a technology that is still at an early stage of development, and cover the high costs incurred by the low yield rate.”

As for micro-LEDs finding their way into smartphones, it seems that it might be too early for that due to the larger displays required, and that it will be 2020 at the earliest that we could see smartphones adopt the technology.

Apple’s 2018 Apple Watch Could Adopt Micro-LED Displays , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Amazon Open To Bringing Siri Onto The Echo

As it stands the Amazon Echo and other Echo-related devices are powered by Amazon’s Alexa AI. With Google, their devices use Google Assistant, and Apple’s recently launched HomePod is powered by Siri. This makes sense as all these technologies are proprietary to the company that made them.

However it seems that Amazon isn’t opposed to the idea that maybe one device could house more than one AI software. Speaking to CNET, Amazon’s senior vice president of devices David Limp stated that the company is open to the idea that maybe other software such as Siri or Google Assistant could be installed in the Echo.

Limp was quoted as saying, “We’re open to that. If Apple or Google want to come call, my phone number is out there. They can call. I hope there is a day when that happens. I don’t know if I can envision it, but I hope it happens, on behalf of customers.” Given how in the past Apple has been accused of having a walled garden strategy, it’s hard to imagine that they would want to encourage customers to buy another company’s product to access its services.

Google might be a different story, although there is no indication that the company plans on collaborating with Amazon anytime soon. It’s an interesting approach but what do you guys think? Do you like the idea that you could buy an Echo speaker that came with Alexa, Siri, or Google Assistant?

Amazon Open To Bringing Siri Onto The Echo , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Link To Malware Found Hidden In Instagram Comments

On the profiles of famous Instagrammers, especially celebrities, you can expect to find all sorts of comments ranging from the adoring, to the hateful, to the trollish, and more often than not you would find spam-like comments too that advertise products or just don’t make any sense at all. Usually you would shrug them off, but maybe we shouldn’t.

According to a report from Slovak IT security company ESET Security, it seems that hackers have managed to hide Russian malware within Instagram comments. The malware itself isn’t in the comments since it’s just text, but what it does is that it provides a link that instructs the malware on how to get in touch with its controllers.

A report from Popular Mechanics writes, “For this comment, it would scan through looking for certain characters including hashtags and an invisible one called a “Zero Width Joiner” which is usually used to combine two emoji parts (like “Man” and “Light Skin Tone”) into a single combo-moji. Finally, it would take the letters that occurred after these flag characters, and use them to make part of a Bit.ly link where the malware would actually connect with its controllers.” In the screenshot above and in that particular comment, it basically converts it into a link.

According to ESET Security, they are suggesting that this might only be a “test” and have linked the malware to a group called Turla. It should also be noted that this malware was hidden in a Firefox browser extension that pretended to be a security feature, so it is unclear how widespread it is, so the next time you see comments that don’t seem to make sense, it could be more nefarious than just simple spam.

Link To Malware Found Hidden In Instagram Comments , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Samsung Gear S3 Classic LTE arrives at Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile

Back in March, Samsung announced that it was bringing LTE to the Gear S3 Classic, enabling users to access a mobile network without being tethered to their smartphone. At the time, Samsung said its upcoming wearable, aptly named the Gear S3 Classic LTE, would be launching through the three big carriers: Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. That day has finally arrived, … Continue reading

Major self-driving car projects are heading to Ohio via new collaboration

Intel subsidiary Wind River has announced a new collaboration with The Ohio State University, Transportation Research Center, and the City of Dublin in Ohio to further progress with self-driving cars and related autonomous technologies. The collaboration will happen in the Columbus region, according to a statement from Wind River, and will involve, among other things, testing ’emerging technologies’ with the … Continue reading

New York Times Stands By Trump-Russia Report That James Comey Disputed

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

The New York Times is standing by a disputed bombshell report from February that associates of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign “had repeated contacts” with senior Russian intelligence officials. 

During a Senate hearing Thursday, former FBI Director James Comey challenged the accuracy of the story, responding “yes” when Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked whether it would be “fair to characterize” the Times’ Feb. 14 story “as almost entirely wrong.”

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) similarly asked Comey whether it would be “a fair statement” to say the Times report “was not true.”

In the main, it was not true,” he responded. 

Comey didn’t specify which details he believed to be inaccurate, a point The Times made in a Thursday article on the former FBI director’s remarks. That piece was written by Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo, the three reporters behind the February story. 

“Multiple news outlets have since published accounts that support the main elements of The Times’s article, including information about phone calls and in-person meetings between Mr. Trump’s advisers and Russians, some believed to be connected to Russian intelligence,” the paper reported. 

Though its “original sources could not immediately be reached” following Comey’s remarks, the Times noted that “in the months since the article was published, they have indicated that they believed the account was solid.”

A Times spokesperson said in a statement that the new report had “found no evidence that any prior reporting was inaccurate.” 

“Neither the F.B.I., nor Mr. Comey would comment or elaborate on what Mr. Comey believes to be incorrect,” the spokesperson added. “Should they provide more information, we would review that as well.”

While Thursday’s hearing was damaging for the president, with Comey recalling Trump’s requests to stop investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn and blasting the administration for lies and attempts to defame him, the criticism of the Times’ story gives ammunition to the president’s supporters who view the news media as overhyping the ongoing Russia investigation. The Republican National Committee blasted out an email Thursday afternoon with the subject “The New York Times Has Some Explaining To Do.”

Comey’s remarks Thursday may give weight to previous denials from the Trump White House, which routinely dismisses critical and unflattering news stories as inaccurate or “fake.” 

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said Feb. 19 on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that officials at the “top levels of the intelligence community” had assured him the Times story “was grossly overstated, and inaccurate and totally wrong.”

Five days later, CNN reported that Priebus had asked the FBI to rebut both the Times’ and its own reporting on communications between Trump campaign officials and Russian intelligence. White House officials responded by claiming Priebus asked Comey and then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to knock down the reports after they privately told him the information wasn’t accurate.

New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet said amid the earlier White House criticism that “the Times had numerous sources confirming this story” and “attacking it does not make it less true.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

NRA Once Again Tries To Discredit Doctors With Alt-Right Nonsense

One of these days, public health researchers will stop getting all hot and bothered about gun injuries and turn their attention to serious threats to health, like fatalities from dog bites (20-30 per year,) or deaths from bee stings (upwards of 100 per year,) or worst of all, getting strangled by a Python – it happened to a guy in 2006.  It really did.  

But gun injuries, particularly injuries to kids? Give me a break. Everyone knows that guns don’t hurt people. People hurt people. And this isn’t just a scientific fact. You can also find this evidence in Biblical texts. Don’t believe me? Just take a look at this survey conducted by the American Culture and Faith Institute conducted in 2012.

So why do these public health researchers and those meddlesome doctors keep bugging us about the so-called risks of guns to children’s health? Because, according to our friends at the NRA, what the medical profession really wants to do is “advocate for handgun bans/registration and licensing/storage restrictions.” In other words, get rid of our guns.

Now the fact that guns protect us from crime, the fact that every time we pick up one of our guns we are expressing and fulfilling our civil rights, that’s entirely beside the point. Everyone knows that Muslim Obama and his gun-grabbing friends have been trampling on the Constitution for the last eight years; everyone knows that disarming America is the first in a series of steps to spread Socialist controls. And don’t take my word for it – you can get all the true facts from Breitbart, Alex Jones or the American Renaissance.

This may come as a surprise to some of the more rational people who read my columns, but the NRA has lately become entrenched within the alt-right media universe to the point that some of their messaging is clearly moving beyond the fringe. I put this down to the drop-off in sales and interest in guns since Trump moved into the White House, the latest data from FBI-NICS shows a decline in background checks from April to May of 12 percent. To be honest, gun sales always slow down as we get into May because protecting ourselves from all those criminals and street thugs just isn’t as much fun as a day at the beach. But don’t expect Smith & Wesson to be hanging a ‘Help Wanted’ sign out front when Summer comes to an end.

Anyway, back to the pediatricians from Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City who discovered again what we already know, namely, that if you put a loaded gun in the hands of a kid, someone’s going to get badly hurt. And what I love most of all about how the NRA responded to this remarkable state of medical affairs was their comment that the study is entirely bogus because anyone who knows anything about medicine knows that kids above the age of fifteen aren’t kids. That’s right – the Mt. Sinai research covered everyone between the ages of zero to nineteen who was admitted to a hospital with an unintentional gun wound, and since more than 80 percent of the patients were between 16 and 19, this proves that guns aren’t dangerous at all to the younger set.

Let me say it as bluntly as I can: the attempt by the NRA to discredit medical concerns about gun violence is completely and totally a crock of you know what. First, pediatric practice always covers patients up to age 18, some practices go several years higher, but none go below. Second and more important, denying that guns hurt people panders to the same, alt-right stupidity which denies global warming or claims that Sandy Hook was a hoax.

Come to think about it, the NRA has been attacking medical science for at least twenty-five years. If anything, their recent descent into alt-right lunacy isn’t a case of catching up with the mob that follows Trump. When it comes to denigrating facts and scientific thinking, the NRA has been leading the charge.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Those 'Moderate' Senate Republicans Are Caving Fast On Obamacare Repeal

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

It looks as if some of the Republican senators who were determined to protect the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion aren’t so determined after all.

On Thursday, while most of Washington was watching former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony on Capitol Hill, Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) indicated he would support an emerging deal that, in the course of repealing Obamacare, would eventually cut off new federal matching funds for the law’s Medicaid expansion.

Those matching funds, which enable states to open up the government insurance program to those whose incomes are below or just above the poverty line, are hugely consequential. Thirty-one states have taken the money, and, as a result, 11 million to 12 million newly eligible people have gotten health insurance.

Without those funds from Washington, most states would likely restore the narrower eligibility for Medicaid ― effectively wiping out the coverage gains, leaving millions of low-income Americans with worse access to health care and more exposure to crushing medical bills.

The American Health Care Act, the bill that passed the House in early May, would stop funding new expansion enrollees in 2020, which means ― thanks to the constant churn of people in and out of the program ― that states now receiving expansion funds would lose most of them within two years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Precisely how the Senate would alter the House proposal isn’t clear, partly because negotiations are still underway and partly because GOP senators are writing their legislation in private and without formal committee hearings. But the basic idea under discussion, as senators, aides and lobbyists have confirmed, is to introduce some sort of seven-year timeline ― either postponing the date when expansion funds stop, reducing the expansion funds over a period of time or both.

“I support seven, I support seven,” Heller said on his way into a Capitol Hill meeting, according to an account by The Hill’s Peter Sullivan. “So do a number of us, including [Sen. Rob] Portman [R-Ohio] and others who have been working on this.”

Heller’s endorsement, such that it is, is politically significant because he is probably the most vulnerable Republican incumbent seeking reelection in 2018 and Nevada is among the 31 states that have taken the extra federal money.

In April, during a contentious town hall meeting, Heller spoke about the importance of protecting access to health care and noted that “we have 200,000 people here in the state of Nevada that now have access.” A few weeks later, after the House passed its bill, Heller issued a statement that he couldn’t support the House bill because, among other reasons, “we cannot pull the rug out from under states like Nevada that expanded Medicaid.”

It’s the same argument that Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) once made. Appearing on CNN in March, in response to a question about whether Medicaid expansion funding would be part of final legislation, Capito said, “It’d better be.”

Capito has talked about the importance of Medicaid expansion in West Virginia, where an estimated 175,000 have gotten coverage from it, and the critical role the program plays in combating the state’s opioid addiction crisis. But Capito has indicated she, too, supports the seven-year phase-out.

In fact, according to several reports, she is among those who have crafted the deal. One of her collaborators is Portman, whose state also expanded Medicaid and who, like Heller and Capito, spoke out repeatedly against the House bill’s treatment of the Medicaid expansion.

Portman has described the proposal as offering a “significant glide path,” as if slowing down the withdrawal of federal funds represents a major change to the House bill. But a handful of states have “trigger” provisions in the legislation authorizing Medicaid expansion in which eligibility reverts to pre-expansion levels as soon as they stop receiving that extra money from Washington. And even in the other states, the ultimate effect would be the very same if the only change to the House bill was the timing of the cut.

“Delaying or phasing in the cost shift to the states under the AHCA would not stop the eventual end of the expansion and steep reductions in Medicaid enrollment,” a recent briefing from the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes. “The bill still would reverse the historic gains in health coverage and access to care that have been made under the expansion.” 

Of course, slowing down the Medicaid expansion cut would mean more spending in the Senate bill, relative to its House counterpart, because the federal government would be supporting insurance for more people for a few years. Republicans would have to find the money to cover that, either by cutting spending elsewhere or allowing some of the Affordable Care Act’s tax increases, which the House bill phases out, to remain in place longer.

That wouldn’t go down well with conservatives, who want to end everything about Obamacare as quickly as possible. But for Portman, among others, pushing some or all of the Medicaid expansion cuts into the future means pushing the pain of those cuts past the years in which they will be up for re-election.

Which isn’t to say they are not still subject to political pressure. One reason senators from expansion states spoke out against the House bill back in March, when President Donald Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and other GOP leaders were promoting it aggressively, was the furious reaction it generated among constituents.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his allies are doing their best to avoid a repeat by minimizing public scrutiny until a deal is in place and then voting as quickly as possible, which is the strategy House GOP leaders used to get legislation passed. McConnell’s strategy may be working, in part because Comey and related controversies are soaking up all of the attention in Washington.

Opponents of repeal could still turn their attention back to health care and change the course of the debate. But they are running out of time.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.