Danh bạ website hay

Thứ Tư, 15 tháng 5, 2013

Here's why it's a great time to buy a new TV

Large screen HDTVs like this 46-inch model from Samsung are far more affordable than ever before.Samsung

Obsolescence may be the biggest fear shoppers face when considering a high-tech purchase. Is this smartphone going to be bested next month? Should I get a laptop or is that rumored tablet going to be better?

Perhaps the most difficult choice of all tech decisions: Is it the right time to buy a new TV?

Most of us hold onto our televisions for several years -- seven years or more according to some market research. So you want to get the best picture you can afford since it's going to be sitting in your living room for a long time. Meanwhile, prices of HD TVs keep falling, by as much as 25 percent last year in some segments of the market. So the temptation is to wait for even lower prices. However, now may just be the time to strike -- especially if you have a tax-refund check burning a hole in your pocket.

Prices on HD TVs could be near the bottom for some time to come.

Analysts have been painting a bleak picture for television manufacturers. Paul Gray, a leading analyst at research firm NPD DisplaySearch, recently noted that for the first time ever, LCD shipments were down last year, falling 1 percent. Gray, whose remarks were made at press conference in advance of the IFA consumer electronics show coming up in Berlin this September, wasn't more sanguine about TV sales this year. He predicts that the LCD market will be flat. So prices on HD TVs could be near the bottom for some time to come.

In other words, what may be bad for manufacturers can be good for consumers. Prices have fallen to a point where a solid performing 50-inch HD TV with built-in Wi-Fi and connected services like Netflix can be found for under $650.

Indeed, most TV makers are now focusing on price and convenience, rather than snazzy new features like 3D, which went over like a lead balloon. So getting a new TV now doesn't mean that you also have to pay to upgrade the rest of your home theater equipment.

Even Samsung, known for cutting-edge features like video conferencing and voice recognition, will be emphasizing friendlier features for couch potatoes. According to Samsung spokesman Michael Zoeller, this fall the company will be underscoring "discovering TV." In other words, it will be touting better video search features rather than gee-whiz picture technologies.

But what about new and supposedly better TV formats like 4K that are coming? Won't that make current TV sets obsolete?

While it is true that so-called 4K or Ultra HD sets are already on the market and offer up to four times the resolution of standard HD sets, the 4K models are expensive -- $5,000 for a 55-inch set -- and face compatibility issues. A broadcast standard for such higher definition programs has not been worked out, for example, there are issues about the type of connectors needed for such sets, and while there's general consensus on how Ultra HD video may be streamed online, few households have the kind of ultra high-speed Internet connection necessary to accommodate such video feeds. Consequently, NDP DisplaySearch's Gray doesn't expect Ultra HD to become a practical reality for at least 3 years.

In fact, it may never take off. Broadcasters are already talking about even sharper video formats, such as 8K. So people who buy Ultra HD sets today may be pining for 8K sets in a few years.

Moreover, popular LCD sets aren't likely to be usurped by another technology any time soon. OLED (organic light-emitting diode) screens, for example, are brighter and deliver arguably better colors than LCDs, but manufacturers have struggled to produce large screen sizes reliably.

So this may be the ideal time to get a deal on a large screen TV. While the most popular sets used to be in the 42-inch and 46-inch category, consumers are moving to ever larger sets. The 50-inch category may be the most popular this year, but some families are taking advantage of deals to move to bigger sizes, such as 60- and 65-inch displays.

Indeed, prices are so good couples have stopped fighting over where to put the TV. "I'm surprised, but people are willing to rearrange their furniture now to fit them in," said Gray.

Follow John R. Quain on Twitter @jqontech or find more tech coverage at J-Q.com.

View the original article here

Why your cell phone will never be stolen again

The new touchscreen BlackBerry Z10 smartphone, which the company hopes will mark a turnaround in its battle against the iPhone and Google's Android.AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

Michael "Don't drink the Big Gulp" Bloomberg may be a bit of a Pollyanna, but there's one thing the mayor of New York City is right about: smartphone thefts are today's version of chain snatching. An epidemic? Perhaps. But certainly deterring such thefts would be a good thing.

While there's still no foolproof way to protect your phone (or you) from a mugging, there is a growing trend toward better solutions that one day may mean the end of smartphone thefts.

Locate-and-track programs are available for every stripe of phone. Apple has a free Find My iPhone app, for example, that lets you use another iOS device to locate a missing phone. It can also sound a pinging alert, display a message to any erstwhile crook--or good Samaritan--or erase all the personal information on your iPhone remotely.

For Android users there's the popular security app Lookout. The free version of the software can target your device on Google Maps, scream to alert you if it's nearby (even in silent mode), send you its last know location if the battery is about to die, and also perform remote locking or the deletion of data.

(One caveat about any tracking software is that there are no specific laws relating to how or with whom this information might be used in the future. But even so, the trade off between privacy and security seems worth it.)

In addition to backup and malware scanning, Lookout also recently added a stealth camera function that will e-mail you a picture of anyone who tries unsuccessfully to unlock your phone three times. (Several other apps offer this, and a journalist from Mexico City put me on to the $1.99 GotYa! app, which I've also used successfully.)

This last feature raises the essential point that anyone who owns a smartphone should lock it with a password. And not with the sort of password that kids on shows like Shake It Up ridicule (hint: "1,1,1,1" is not a good password). Not only is the lack of a security code an open invitation to folks to snoop on you, it also means that once someone turns on the phone, they can delete most tracking and remote wipe programs, include Apple's app and Lookout. (There are other security programs that attempt to conceal themselves, but professional criminals who know what to look for can defeat those too.)

Ideally, an embedded security program that could not be deleted would be best. In fact, one company, Absolute Software, makers of the Lojack for Laptops, recently proposed just that. Its tracking software will be embedded in the firmware of new Samsung Galaxy devices beginning in May as part of Samsung's Knox security solution. The Samsung initiative is aimed at buttoning down some of Android's security issues in order to make its phones even more appealing to corporate computing departments.

According to John Livingston, the CEO of Absolute, the software will call home if someone tried to tamper with or delete the visible app. "Physically locate and recover, that's our mission," he told FoxNews.com. The company will help owners file a theft report and work with local law enforcement.

Absolute uses GPS data, Wi-Fi network information, and IP (Internet Protocol) addressing to determine where a phone is, but since the new embedded version will only work on one brand of phone to begin with, it's not much of a deterrent (well, at least not in New York City). Better would be a digital version of the old locking steering wheel bars that used to be a prerequisite to New York City car ownership; although people still smashed windows to steal anything visible inside the car.

To really stop smartphone muggings, there need to be industry-wide systems in place that prevent smartphone users from becoming targets by making it all but impossible to use a stolen phone. The wireless carriers may be slowly getting to that point. AT&T points out that it now has a stolen phone database that not only allows customers to block a purloined device but also enables AT&T to share that information with other GSM carriers.

Taking the idea one step further, the CTIA Wireless Association trade group and major U.S. carriers are working to complete a database for GSM and LTE phones that would prevent a reported stolen device from being reactivated. So there would no longer be a market for stolen phones since they would be virtually useless. The database is scheduled to go live this coming November.

All of this is not to discount the many stories of good Samaritans returning lost phones, even going out of their way to FedEx them back to their owners. Each time that happens to a friend or business associate, it renews my trust in the human race.

Unfortunately, sometimes that trust needs a little security boost.

Follow John R. Quain on Twitter @jqontech or find more tech coverage at J-Q.com.

View the original article here

Can you train your brain? Lumosity, BrainHQ say yes

Call it the great brain train.

Baby boomers, students, and the elderly all share at least one anxiety: Are my mental abilities holding me back? So it's not surprising that online cognitive exercises, or brain training, are finding a particularly receptive audience these days.

One popular service from Lumosity now has 40 million members. Its exercises are generally entertaining -- if a little humbling at first. New users fill out a very simple questionnaire about their concerns and focus (do you want to better remember people's names or improve your concentration and avoid distractions). Then Lumosity creates a daily regime of exercises for you.

Typical tasks include remembering ever more complex patterns, visual positions, or recalling multiple symbols or images in quick succession. The idea is to continually challenge the user in an attempt to increase particular mental functions, including working memory and executive function. Lumosity is $14.95 a month. A similar program, Posit Science's BrainHQ, is $14 a month. I've tried both and found them each to be engaging -- at least for 20 minutes a day.

'It's still the early days [in cognitive training research].'

- Dr. Joe Hardy, vice president of research and development at Lumosity

With Angelina Jolie' revelations about her breast cancer risk this week, it's particularly interesting to note a new study also released this week of women who had undergone breast cancer treatment. Dr. Shelli Kesler, a neuropsychologist at Stanford University, used a subset of Lumosity's exercises to work with 41 breast cancers survivors in order to see if it could help them overcome what can be the mentally enervating effects of cancer treatment. She focused on executive functions, the ability to make decisions.

"This approach has the advantage of adapting and changing the difficulty level," Dr. Kesler told FoxNews.com of the computer-based training, which the patients performed on their own, "but were highly motivated." She said most patients exhibited significant improvement in executive functions after the 20- to 30-minute sessions, which occurred 4 times a week for 12 weeks.

In spite of several studies that show brain training can be effective -- including a large study know as ACTIVE or the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly that showed it can be effective even years after the training is finished -- such cognitive exercises have been controversial. A recent overview of research conducted by professors at the University of Oslo concluded that the exercises only made people better at...doing the exercises. However, the Oslo study only looked at one aspect, working memory, and did not take into account the tremendous variance in the ages of the participants in the studies. In other words, it cast a skeptical eye on cognitive training but was not by any means conclusive.

There is always reason for some skepticism. Even in research that yields positive results, not every person experiences gains. And it can vary depending on the goal. It helped women subjected to chemotherapy but does it help students with learning issues? Can people in their 50's experience improvement or is it too late? (Please don't say it's too late.)

"It's still early days," in cognitive training research Dr. Joe Hardy, vice president of research and development at Lumosity told FoxNews.com. Consequently, the company is committed to doing further studies and continually improving its exercises based on new data. He said that's why Lumosity is involved in 38 different university research projects at the moment.

True, other popular, supposedly intelligence enhancing techniques have fallen flat. Crossword puzzles, for example, were supposed to boost our intellectual prowess. However, a recent National Institutes of Health funded study of over 600 individuals demonstrated no appreciable gains from doing the Sunday puzzles, whereas cognitive training exercises did show some positive results.

It's obvious that at a very fundamental level you can train your brain. You can learn a new language or learn how to play the clarinet. But the issue isn't whether practicing an instrument makes you better at playing an instrument. The question is, can brain games make you better at other intellectual endeavors?

In at least one specific area I've found it personally effective: Driving. So-called useful field of view exercises do seem to increase awareness on the road. I found that regular training gave me a heightened focus while behind the wheel, especially in city traffic, and independent studies seem to confirm the effect.

In an era in which healthy kids are taking ADHD drugs just to get better scores on their SATs, online cognitive training looks harmless and possibly quite beneficial. But it's important to note that another factor plays an extremely important role in intelligence and mental alacrity: Exercise. Dr. Kesler emphasizes that exercise is essential in creating new neurons.

Of course, just as all the weight training and cardio workouts in the world won't turn me into Roger Federer, simply exercising your brain on Lumosity won't help you pass a test in American history if you didn't study the revolutionary war. You've got to do some work on your own.

So keep your expectations in check. Remember: Flash cards do make you better at performing mathematical calculations, just don't expect them to turn you into Einstein.

Follow John R. Quain on Twitter @jqontech or find more tech coverage at J-Q.com.

View the original article here

Apple 'iRadio' service set for summer release, rumors suggest

One of a series of early advertisements for Apple's iPod points to the company's deep connections to the music industry -- but will Apple be able to sell a new digital radio service?Apple

Turning Apple into cider is a popular sport these days. And Apple is certainly experiencing a lacuna in innovative product introductions (where's the Apple television? where's the Apple watch, when is Apple going to make a better-than-Samsung phone?). Now, the rumor mill is heralding the introduction of Apple radio this summer -- but it may be too little, too late.

Streaming music services are an odd beast in the digital world. Depending on the week, they are the savior of the music business, the devil that will put musicians in the poor house, or they're about to all go bankrupt. Be that as it may, streaming music seems to be the future, from Pandora to Rara, Spotify to Rdio, Rhapsody to Slacker. Also in the music marketplace are services like TuneIn, which gather online feeds from traditional radio stations and Internet-only channels into electronic program guides that let you listen to Tokyo rap or Nigerian classic rock.

'Apple has a lot of catching up to do.'

- TuneIn CEO John Donham

So unlike when iTunes launched more than a dozen years ago, there's competition aplenty. And since the success of iTunes didn't translate into success for the music companies and artists -- revenues are roughly half of what they were in the 90s -- music execs (and artists) are a lot more skittish about making deals with Apple today.

Still, while disc sales continue to fall -- down 13 percent last year according to Nielsen SoundScan and Nielsen BDS -- and digital track sales are up -- just over 5 percent compared to the previous year -- more of us are relying on streaming services to rock on. Revenues from subscription and ad-supported streaming services grew 59 percent last year from $360 million to $571 million.

Part of the leaked information on Apple's iRadio is that the company wants to play less than everybody else to play: 6 cents per 100 song feeds, versus a rumored 12 cents that Pandora pays and 35 cents than Spotify pays. However, this is comparing Apples to oranges; not every one pays the same people. Some pay artists, others pay labels, for example. And of course, these various leaks are all designed to influence negotiations currently underway, so the truth is far from clear.

What is clear is that any deal that is seen as unnecessarily favorable to Apple would launch a thousand lawyers in music business ships directed at renewed negotiations. Pandora, which has a different arrangement from other music services that deliver specific songs on demand, would surely argue that the rates that it pays through SoundExchange are too high compared to Apple (or more pointedly compared to what Sirius XM pays).

More directly related to Apple's bottom line is the fact that creating another "free" service that relies on advertising would be difficult. It could cannibalize the company's own iTunes song sales faster than you can say Nicki Minaj. And a for-pay subscription service while helping to balance the books is still a niche play. Rhapsody has something on the order of one-sixtieth of Pandora's listeners (depending on how you count them). Most of us still prefer free to subscriptions.

There are also other major players coming to market. Google is said to be working on its own service, and since the company now can brag that it has the world's most popular smart phone platform, it has an obvious advantage in the mobile marketplace. (Incidentally, Android tablets are also projected to surpass iPad shipments this year.)

Aside from cutting deals with record labels, the biggest hurdle Apple faces is reaching listeners. And it cannot do that on its own. It's not about computers and iPods, it's about cars.

"Fifty percent of all radio listening is in the car today," notes TuneIn CEO John Donham. Furthermore, nearly every automaker in the world has connected its cars to online streaming music services, from Aha to Pandora, Porsche to Ford. Getting a music app into a car, however, is not an easy feat.

"The fragmentation in automotive platforms is the largest barrier to entry for tech companies to develop in cars," says Jake Sigal, CEO of Livio, which helps music services and other apps make the connection to automobiles. "Pandora has set the bar since 2008 working with auto companies across multiple mobile devices and automotive platforms," he notes.

So any company that wants to reach car listeners -- or for that matter people listening on smart TVs or Internet connected stereo equipment -- is going to have to cooperate with scores of different manufacturers (including telling them when a new cable connector is going to appear). Playing well with others is not a hallmark of Apple.

On the other hand, there's a new sheriff at Apple and the company has made a lot of smart moves that don't always follow conventional wisdom, such as recently apologizing to Chinese consumers about the company's warranty policies (this was a very intelligent move). And it's impossible to judge an iRadio service until we listen to it. Is it better at making recommendations? Is the sound quality better? Does it have more songs?

TuneIn's Donham, who sees an Apple entry as competing more with the likes of Pandora and Spotify than traditional radio, thinks it could be "potentially a great thing." It will increase consumer awareness of streaming digital music in general and spur adoption. "But Apple has a lot of catching up to do. So it's a story that's going to play out over the next 5 to 7 years," he says.

Follow John R. Quain on Twitter @jqontech or find more tech coverage at J-Q.com.

View the original article here

In tweets we trust ... or not. Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel debate tech industry

Will technology save us and save the economy or is it just spinning its wheels and contributing to stagnant wages and intellectual torpor?

It's a popular dinner-time discussion among tech CEOs, venture capitalists, and entrepreneurs these days. The concern is that with all the hype about the democratization of information, smart phones, wearable computing, and ever faster processors, not a lot has actually been accomplished recently. Playing Angry Birds while waiting in line or posting pictures of your dinner on Facebook isn't doing much to advance the human race -- or eliminate famine, war, or poverty.

At a recent panel discussion between Marc Andreessen (he of Netscape and now mega venture capitalist) and Peter Thiel (he of PayPal and another big tech investor) the issue was raised again. What was most interesting about the discussion was the entrenched mythology that Silicon Valley continues to labor under. It might be why more programmers off highway 101 seem to be working social networking pages rather than figuring out how to make more efficient solar panels.

Myth 1: The Media Bashes Technology.
One interesting theme of the discussion was how we -- the media -- are all a bunch of skeptical, naysaying Luddites. Andreessen said he was experiencing schadenfreude as The New York Times struggled with the Internet age, something the paper ridiculed back in the early '90s.

Actually, the reporter Andreessen singled out -- Peter Lewis -- wrote a lot of the early positive stories about the potential of the Web as "a powerful new communications tool -- inexpensive, open 24 hours-a-day and global in reach" even back in June 1994. (Full disclosure: I contribute to The New York Times, and I knew Mr. Lewis when he was at the paper.) He also wrote about earlier technological innovations, such as external modems, Next Computer and Compaq's first laptop.

Rather than making fun of innovations and inventions, generally, the media has hyped, rather than harmed technology (and encouraged investment along the way). That said, Windows 8 still really stinks, wireless carriers charge too much, and Angry Birds is a time sink.

Myth 2: Technology Good, Hollywood Bad.
If the movie industry would just make some positive movies about technological advances, it would incite people to work harder toward making a better future. We need more encouragement, was Thiel's message about the bad rap Hollywood has been giving Silicon Valley.

It's true that we love dystopian, blow-up-all-the-robots movies. But the truth is, we've always loved those stories. Today's sci-fi blockbusters are often derived from the science fiction stories that people who head up today's tech firms grew up with in the '50s and '60s. Isacc Asimov and Philip K. Dick form the foundation of yesterday's and today's digital fantasies, and those futuristic visions (no matter how disastrous), rather than discouraging budding young scientists, actually has encouraged them.

Myth 3: Technological Change is Rapid.
We should certainly question whether the high-tech business is headed in the right direction. Businesses have to place bets, financial and otherwise, and it's important to place them carefully and expect failure.

However, the effects of a technology can take time. Andreessen used this point to defend today's technological developments, such as digital communications tools. He's got a right to think so.

When Microsoft was moved to squash a start-up called Netscape (Andreessen's company) back in 1994, it was because it was thought that Web-based services like word processors and online storage would kill the PC software business. For various reasons -- anti-trust trials included -- it's taken nearly 20 years for that to start happening. Some think it's already happened. Theil referred to Microsoft as part of the digital rust belt, and this week '80s software stalwart Adobe caved, putting PhotoShop online for $50 a year.

Myth 4: Twitter Will Save the World.
Andreessen and Theil both think Twitter is the future -- well, at least for the next decade. However, their reasons differ. Andreessen believes services like Twitter are world-changing. Theil is considerably less enthusiastic but believes Twitter workers will have "great job security for the next decade ... perhaps a lot more than people working at The New York Times." (One wonders what people will tweet about if there are no New York Times stories to tweet about.)

Unfortunately, Twitter isn't quite the influencer that they may think. In countries experiencing political upheaval, despotic governments can and do shut it down with a push of a button. Demographics are not helping Twitter, either, with most 20-somethings regarding the service as something for old people.

The brand is entering the ad market in a major way this month, which may further dilute its authority. Many companies have already been "advertising" for free on Twitter (so-called social engineering), pretending to be users of products extolling the virtues of their widgets. The value of this free digital communications tool seems even more questionable when one considers that 140 characters can trick gullible Wall Street firms into sending the market plunging.

Most myths are used to prop up the establishment and maintain the status quo. Silicon Valley's mythology seems no different. Perhaps it's time to abandon those myths, be a little less "social," and look toward solving our long-term problems. Or maybe I'm just being negative.

Follow John R. Quain on Twitter @jqontech or find more tech coverage at J-Q.com.

View the original article here

Cars that squeal (on you)

March 27, 2013: Ford cars are among those on display at the New York International Auto Show, in New York's Javits Center.AP Photo/Richard Drew

Just when you thought it was safe behind the wheel of your large automobile, government attorneys are trying again to monitor your movements.

Back in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled against the Justice Department stating that warrantless GPS tracking by government authorities amounted to unreasonable search and was thus protected by the constitution. The case involved police that had monitored the location of a suspect's SUV, a modern-day version of GPS eavesdropping.

However, yesterday, a U.S. Assistant District Attorney at an appeals court hearing on a different case in Philadelphia argued that planting a GPS device on a suspect's vehicle -- without a warrant -- followed relevant legal precedents.

Disturbing as many motorists may find the idea of a GPS device sending authorities messages about their every movement without any judicial oversight, this particular case is just the tip of the potential iceberg.

A flood of data about drivers is about to be unleashed, and there are few if any laws protecting privacy in this area.

A veritable flood of data about drivers -- every turn of the wheel, every application of the brakes -- is about to be unleashed into the open market. (Some privacy advocates argue that it's already out there, thanks to smartphones.) And at the moment, there are few if any laws protecting privacy in this area or specifying how or for what purposes such information can be used.

To give you an inkling of what's to come, today at the New York International Auto Show, Ford officially launched a new experimental program that will allow researchers to access not just basic car diagnostic data, but also details about driver behavior that was until now restricted to, well, just to the car. The idea is to help developers create innovative safety, fuel economy, and personalization features. You could be alerted that there's black ice ahead, for example, based on the information sent from other vehicles ahead of you on the road. Or a dashboard device could tell you ways to improve fuel economy (slow down and avoid traffic ahead).

No final products will come of the Ford program without the automaker's approval (a separate arrangement with the company will have to be made before any product hits the real world). However, the open source initiative -- the first of its kind -- offers a glimpse at a future in which information such as aggressive braking, rapid steering wheel turns, and wiper blade activity are all shared among commercial app developers and companies.

Drivers are very sensitive when it comes to sharing such information. There's something very personal about the American automobile, and even small perceived violations of that status are met with opprobrium. Witness the reaction from owners when GM decided to change its OnStar terms and conditions with amendments that would allow it to sell driving data to outside companies.

The reaction of GM owners was vociferous, to say the least, and GM ended up backtracking. Ford is well aware of GM's public relations missteps, and Ford representatives emphasize that the company is sensitive to these concerns. It wants to focus on safety and fuel economy, offering for example, driving tips (you didn't come to a full stop at that sign) and advice (you're accelerating too hard and wasting gas).

While the private market may be sensitive to consumer's concerns -- and any possible backlash -- government authorities need not be as receptive. They want to be able to use all available technology to thwart crime. Already, cameras in many cities and towns, such as Tiburon, California, record, track, and check every license plate that enters their municipalities. LPR or license plate readers are common, so why stop there? GPS tracking may seem relatively innocuous by comparison.

Stopping criminal activity is no doubt a laudable goal, but randomly searching every residence is not allowed. So too should the warrantless use of such digital tools to monitor our movements be illegal.

The Supreme Court decision on this issue hinged partly on people's expectation of privacy (citing an article by this reporter on the topic). We clearly do things behind the wheel (singing off-key to an Adele song or swearing like a truck driver) that we would not do in public. Conversely, the 20-something crowd that's grown up with Web cams and smart phones that record our movements and messages seems less worried about privacy. So if more people expect less privacy, could this right evaporate?

There are some bills before Congress intended to prevent just anyone, such as a private detective or security firm, from tracking you with a GPS device. The Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act (H.R. 1312), introduced in the House by Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and in the Senate by Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), would restrict such use and require warrants. It's particularly important in light of the fact that soon every car will be built with a black box that could contain a wealth of such information.

But even without legislation or court rulings, criminals will soon catch on and adopt measures to stymie police monitoring. GPS jammers are illegal but cheap and readily available, for example. So anyone with bad intent could still evade the authorities. Meanwhile, the rest of us would still be followed along the open road.

Follow John R. Quain on Twitter @jqontech or find more tech coverage at J-Q.com.

View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013

Fox News Poll: 70 percent say build the Keystone XL Pipeline

Fox News Poll: Majority for building Keystone XL Pipeline

A Fox News poll finds most American voters support building the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline. In addition, just over half blame the Obama administration for the recent increase in gas prices.

By a wide 70-23 percent margin, voters support building the pipeline that would transport oil from Canada to refineries in the United States.

Support for the pipeline is mostly unchanged from last year, when 67 percent favored building it and 25 percent were opposed (February 2012).

The three percentage-point uptick in support comes from Democrats: 57 percent say build it, up from 50 percent a year ago. At the same time, support among Republicans holds steady at 87 percent.

Sixty-six percent of independents back the pipeline, down from 69 percent in 2012.

CLICK TO VIEW THE POLL

On Friday, the State Department issued an environmental impact statement for the Keystone pipeline and ultimately concluded there would be “no significant impacts.” It’s unclear how the Obama administration will rule on the pipeline given the competing constituencies -- environmentalists who oppose the pipeline and unions who want the jobs it would bring.

The poll, released Monday, also finds 51 percent of voters think the Obama administration is at least somewhat responsible for the recent increase in gas prices. That includes 24 percent who say the White House is “very” responsible. Some 44 percent don’t think Obama is to blame for their pain at the pump.

Republicans (66 percent) are more likely than independents (44 percent) and Democrats (41 percent) to blame Obama for high prices at the pump.

The national average price for a gallon of gasoline is $3.78 -- the highest February price on record.

No wonder gas prices topped a list of gripes. The 84 percent of voters who say they are “fed up” with high gas prices, exceeds the number who feel that way about the growing federal budget deficit (81 percent) and gridlock in Washington (78 percent). And to really put it in perspective, it’s almost twice as many as say they are fed up with people having loud cell phone conversations (43 percent).

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,010 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from February 25 to February 27. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

View the original article here