Humodour

It won't be Windows that pulls this off, though. Canonical (the guys behind Ubuntu Linux) have demonstrated merging the kernel of Android Linux and Ubuntu Linux such that when you dock your Android phone or tablet or smart TV or whatever, it switches seamlessly to full desktop Ubuntu, with the phone's existing 3G and/or wireless connections providing internet access. You can take calls in Ubuntu, access past SMS's and send new ones, make video calls, etc. You can also open up Chrome or Firefox, and when you do so it loads all the tabs you had open in your broswer in Android before you docked the phone. This is only possible because Ubuntu and Android share the same Linux kernel. Ubuntu demonstrated it in February and is in the process of seeking OEMs like HTC or LG or Samsung to build it into their Android phone. Unfortunately they can't release it to individuals because it requires closed-source driver access to fully utilise the hardware (Qualcomm, ARM drivers, etc) which only the OEMs have access to. So an Android phone builder needs to work with them. But if one does... well, I can picture a future where I have Ubuntu and Steam for Ubuntu on my smartphone **** desktop (note to mods: c-u-m is not a dirty word - fix this!). February 2012 video: Official Ubuntu for Android website: http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/android Wikipedia description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_for_Android Interestingly, Ubuntu for Android + Steam would be a push back in the direction of Intel over ARM, because you (as a company) wouldn't need to recompile any of your Steam games for the ARM platform to make them work on Android smartphones. Intel mobile chips have now become fairly energy efficient.

No one has come forward to explain how Australia's Carbon Tax helps the environment or Climate change. Plenty of people have come forward. Most of them scientists and economists. You and your ilk have just repeatedly chosen not to listen. Is it really that difficult to grasp the concept of supply and demand? Price of good goes up, demand goes down. Savvy companies increase efficiency or switch to less polluting methods and components (plenty have already moved to do this) to reduce or remove their pollution price burden. Savvy companies sell goods cheaper than polluting companies due to extra profit margin. Consumers choose the savvy company's goods/services over more expensive (more polluting) goods. Pollution goes down. That's how charging companies to pollute works. It's a basic application of market economics and its called pricing in negative externalities. And did you seriously expect a sudden change in behaviour when the pollution price has been in for less than a year? Do you have no conception of long-term planning? Clearly not given you don't care about global warming. And China has introduced their own pollution prices to try and account for this. Australia can't dictate what the Chinese do, but thankfully they're already acting. China produces the most electricity from renewable energy of any country. China is implementing an ETS in their most populous states and then rolling it out to all their states. If you produce renewable electricity in China, people are forced to buy it before they buy fossil fuel derived electricity. Don't tell me China isn't doing anything. It's a stupid lie. Stop spreading stupid lies.

Oh come on, this is worthy of some celebration - that bastard got gaol time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6TiXUF9xbTo

delete

What do you think of Apple? Me? This is how Apple makes me feel:

Australia is the biggest polluter of greenhouse gases per person in the developed world. Our total greenhouse gas output amounts to roughly 2% of the world's total - the same as the UK's. Do you really think that it makes sense for Australians to be polluting 3 times more per person than people in the United Kingdom? We've also got one of the most urbanised populations in the world - so its not like transport emissions account for even a fraction of the reason. We even pollute 22% more per person than people from the USA! Thank the stars our population is not the size of theirs. It would be absolutely disgraceful if that Tony Abbott arsehole got his way and we never charged these companies to dump their pollution into our atmosphere. So, don't get me wrong - the main problem with the USA is not that it is polluting so damned much (which it is). That would be excusable if they acknowledged this and took steps to curb it. The problem is that they are acting like they aren't polluting and like the horrible consequences of pollution don't exist (with all due respect to those in the few states that actually give a damn about the future, like California). Oh, and as for the whole "Australia is going it alone on global warming" lie you're implying, let me educate you (because heck knows Rupert Murdoch's press never will): Other countries which now charge corporations that pollute the air: CHINA (state-based action) The Chinese Government plans to develop emissions trading schemes in seven key cities and provinces from 2013. These schemes will cover around 250 million people. The Chinese Government aims to work towards a nation-wide approach after 2015. UNITED STATES (state-based action) There is no nationwide carbon tax levelled in the USA, although a few states have introduced the tax. The United States Administration has not been able to secure support for legislation to set either a price or a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. However, emissions trading has operated in the power sector in nine states since 2009. California’s emissions trading scheme will start in January 2013. CANADA (province-based action) Canada does not have a federal carbon tax, but two Canadian provinces have existing carbon taxes (Quebec and British Columbia). Alberta implemented emissions trading in 2006 and Quebec’s scheme will start in 2013. A further two provinces, British Columbia and Ontario, are considering emissions trading schemes.The Canadian Federal Government has no immediate plans to implement national emissions trading. INDIA (tax on coal) In July 2010, India introduced a nationwide carbon tax of 50 rupees per tonne (less than $A1) of coal both produced and imported to India. SOUTH KOREA The Republic of Korea passed legislation in May 2012 for an emissions trading scheme to start from 1 January 2015. The emissions trading scheme will cover facilities producing more than 25,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions – expected to be around 450 of the country’s largest emitters. JAPAN In April 2012, Japan legislated for a carbon tax of approximately ¥289 per tonne ($A3.30) by increasing existing taxes on fossil fuels (coal and LPG/LNG) with effect from 1 October 2012. Half the revenue will fund low-emissions technologies. Japan has emissions trading schemes operating in the Tokyo and Saitama regions, covering 20 million people. EUROPE (national-based action) The European Union emissions trading scheme began in 2005 and now covers the 27 countries of the European Union, and three non-European Union members: Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. Their current target is a 21 per cent cut of 2005 emissions by 2025 (Australia’s is a 5% cut of 2000 emissions by 2020). A carbon tax was proposed by the European Commission in 2010, but a carbon tax has not been agreed upon by the 27 member states. The current proposal by the European Commission would charge firms between 4 and 30 euros per metric tonne of CO2. Several European countries have enacted a carbon tax. They include: Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. FINLAND Finland introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990, initially with exemptions for specific sectors. Manly changes were later introduced, such as a border tax on imported electricity. Natural gas has a reduced tax rate, while peat was exempted between 2005 and 2010. In 2010, Finland’s price on carbon was €20 per tonne of CO2. THE NETHERLANDS The Netherlands introduced a carbon tax in 1990, which was then replaced by a tax on fuels. In 2007, it introduced a carbon-based tax on packaging, to encourage recycling. SWEDEN In 1991, Sweden enacted a tax on the use of coal, oil, natural gas, petrol and aviation fuel used in domestic travel. The tax was 0.25 SEK/kg ($US100 per tonne of C02) and was later raised to $US150. With Sweden raising prices on fossil fuels since enacting the carbon tax, it cut its carbon pollution by 9 per cent between 1990 and 2006. NORWAY In 1991, Norway introduced a tax on carbon. However its carbon emissions increased by 43 per cent per capita between 1991 and 2008. DENMARK Since 2002, Denmark has had a carbon tax of 100 DKK per metric ton of CO2, equivalent to approximately 13 Euros or 18 US dollars. Denmark’s carbon tax applies to all energy users, but industrial companies are taxed differently depending on the process the energy is used for, and whether or not the company has entered into a voluntary agreement to apply energy efficiency measures. SWITZERLAND A carbon incentive tax was introduced in Switzerland in 2008. It includes all fossil fuels, unless they are used for energy. Swiss companies can be exempt from the tax if they participate in the country’s emissions trading system. The tax amounts to CHF 36 per metric tonne CO2. UK In 1993, the UK government introduced a tax on retail petroleum products, to reduce emissions in the transport sector. The UK's Climate Change Levy was introduced in 2001. The United Kingdom participates in the European Union emissions trading scheme and is covered by European Union policies and measures. The United Kingdom has put in place regulations requiring all new homes to have zero emissions for heating, hot water, cooling and lighting from 2016. IRELAND A tax on oil and gas came into effect in 2010. It was estimated to add around €43 to filling a 1000 litre oil tank and €41 to the average annual gas bill. COSTA RICA In 1997, Costa Rica enacted a tax on carbon pollution, set at 3.5 per cent of the market value of fossil fuels. The revenue raised from this goes into a national forest fund which pays indigenous communities for protecting the forests around them. BRAZIL The state of Rio de Janeiro is exploring options to implement a state-wide cap and trade system. SOUTH AFRICA South Africa introduced a carbon tax on new vehicle sales in September 2010. South Africa is planning to introduce a carbon tax from 2013, starting at R120 ($A15) per tonne for emissions above a threshold. Each company will have 60 per cent of its emissions tax exempt, with higher exemption thresholds for cement, iron, steel, aluminium, ceramics and fugitive emissions as well as trade exposed industries. Agriculture, forestry, land use and waste will not be taxed. NEW ZEALAND The New Zealand Government set up an emissions trading scheme in 2008. The scheme covered forestry initially, and was then expanded in 2010 to cover stationary energy, transport, liquid fossil fuels and industrial processes. Source: http://www.sbs.com.a...round-the-world

What you're describing isn't Libertarianism. Don't try to mask Libertarianism as sunshine and lollipops - it's not. I haven't met a US Libertarian yet who doesn't want to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency, tax the rich and corporations less (if at all), and take an axe to spending in healthcare and similar. The US Libertarian's hero is Ayn Rand and they tend to be very selfish people. Libertarianism isn't the cure to the US's problems. It's drinking poison to get rid of a bad stomach ache. If you don't believe in the extremism of laissez faire capitalism (a model in no way applicable to real life), then don't call yourself a Libertarian. You're confusing your terminology. Should the USA be fiscally responsible? Should the US stop being so corrupt? Hell yes! But there are ways of being fiscally responsible and non-corrupt without adopting the cancerous selfish extremism of Libertarianism. And there are plenty of countries to look to as examples of how to do so.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/26/david_attenborough_on_climate_change_obama_romney_have_heads_in_the_sand.html Worth reading the interview. No doubt the usual denialist crowd will pop up in this thread. To them I say: grow up, educate yourselves, or **** off.

*set. Singular. ARM is RISC - Reduced Instruction Set Computing. It doesn't imply a limitation in performance. All the previous consoles (Wii, Xbox 360, PS3) were also RISC. The fastest computer currently in existence is uses a reduced instruction set architecture. Microsoft already uses ARM for their tablets and phones. So your reasoning for Microsoft not using ARM is invalid in that part. But yes, choosing x86 does make more sense. So wow. I find myself impressed with Microsoft. They're still overpriced closed-source proprietary bull****, but at least they're not also low-quality tech - so they're no different to Apple.

Way to apologise away a horrible flaw in your electoral system with logic that seems to apply badly when applied to other countries. If it's just so easy for people to generalise into a liberal-conservative divide, then why is the USA the only European country with a 2-party system? Name another European country with 2-party system. Australia? No. Canada? No. Britain? No. New Zealand? No. The Netherlands? No. Germany? No. Ireland? No. Austria? No. Portugal? No. Spain? No. Italy? No. Finland? No. Denmark? No. Sweden? No. Norway? No. Iceland? No. Greece even? No. Switzerland? No. Luxembourg? No. South Africa? No. Japan? No. South Korea? No. Taiwan? No. Indonesia? No. Brazil? No. India? No. The USA is, yet again, an outlier compared to the rest of the world. It is the only real democracy in the world which does not have a multi-party system. What you've basically said is "the right wing of my country is so extreme that the centre-left and centre have to join together and forget about any progressive agenda if they have any hope of beating the extreme right due to my country's first past the post voting system". Oh joy. This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Australia has this system too, yet we also have preferential and proportional voting and we have an excellent electoral system. When people talk about electoral reform, they're not talking about reforming the electoral college - they're talking about making the electors for each state proportional and/or preferential. E.g. if New Hampshire has 4 and 3 parties get between 30 to 40% of the vote, then each party would get an electoral vote. That's proportional. But preferential would probably appeal more to the conservative nature of Americans, and it would go: if party A got 27% of the vote, party B got 33% of the vote, and party C got 40%, and party A likes party B more than party C, then party B wins New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes. The same concept applies to house and senate member elections (this is house Australia does it). The only change to your voting system from the voter's perspective? People don't vote for a single party, they vote for the parties they want in order of fondness, from 1 to say 9. It turns out mathematically to provide a far superior outcome. For instance: suppose two progressive parties get 30% of the vote in your current system - that's 60% of the popular vote. And the conservatives get only 40%. In your system, the conservatives win. So the 'third party' slowly dies as the people have to give up on the concept of a multiparty system in order to defeat a minority party - the conservatives. Sound far fetch? Go take a look at Canada's last election result - completely against the will of the majority of the voters, but perfectly legal by the first past the post electoral system. Thankfully Canadians haven't given up on a multi-party system yet, but without the removal of first past the post there, it's only a matter of time. Britain's implementation of first past the post only produces a multi-party outcome because different areas vote for at least 3 different parties (something that also happens with Canada, but never the USA). If the same average vote share in the UK was distributed evenly amongst seats, it would be an entirely two-party system.

What if the next XBox runs Windows 8? Hmm. It would be contradictory of Microsoft NOT to do that - one operating system for every device, right? And Microsoft loves its console division a lot. But the XBox 360 is very overdue for an upgrade - it is now 7 years old. I don't like Microsoft, but it would definitely shake things up if they did that. It's a powerful move which Linux and OS X just can't replicate ever. Although Android might get there with the Ouya, and from there Ubuntu for Android might also be integrated. If Microsoft chose ARM as the architecture for the device instead of PowerPC, things would get even stranger. Because Microsoft already compiles for ARM because of tablets and phones running Windows 8. So no extra software work would be required by Microsoft to maintain the non-ARM, non-x86 architecture. AND no more work would be required by game developers because they'd only have to compile for ARM and x86 (currently it is x86 and PowerPC). But the benefit would be that game developers could then EASILY port their games to tablets and Windows phones simply by adjusting the user input method (from keyboard and mouse or gamepad to touchscreen). So Microsoft strengthens its ecosystem. But Apple's got no way to fight the move. They just don't do consoles. Well, yet. I guess at the end of the day one thing is for sure: there's a ****load of innovation happening in the IT industry at the moment. I'm actually kind of surprised by Microsoft. They've actually got a big, long-term game plan just like Google and Apple. I don't think they're out of the game yet. EDIT: Because at the end of the day, a game console with 4 64-bit ARM cores each running at 2 GHz with an excellent graphics processor, 8 gig of RAM and a solid state hard drive would be more than enough to run excellent games.

And this is why a third-party should come in. Because the Dual-Dictatorship currently present is too much entrenched in pickering and ideological warfare, they can't really act unless they're willing to loose a lot. A third-party wouldn't really have anything to loose, hence they would be more likely able to act and make unpleasent decisions. America's system - first past the post, does not mathematically allow the long-term (or even short term) existence of third parties in single-winner races. Really, only proportional or preferential systems reliably allow for third parties. It's probably one of the main reasons that the USA is so broken.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. But I was pissed off and in a rush to get to class so I typed the first thing that came to mind. Nothing more to it. I don't owe Blizzard any good press. I used to absolutely love Blizzard. It's not like my hate was instant. It was caused by a slow and persistent erosion of consumer goodwill. So yeah, I see a company I justifiably hate and I go to work on them.

I just upgraded to Ubuntu 12.10 on my Win 7 comp 3 days ago. I dual boot until Steam comes out for Ubuntu early next year. Works like a charm. I've used Ubuntu before, so there will be things to get used to for people new to Linux. But that's just as true for Windows 8, too. Folders, the task bar, Chrome, Open/Libre Office, Firefox, VLC, torrents, etc all work just as you would expect them to on pretty much any OS. And so will Steam soon. I used it for an hour on a mate's laptop. No way. It's Windows 7 with a **** new skin that GUI designers have stated is confusing and non-intuitive. Hello Vista ME. But hey, I never liked the upgrade from XP to Windows 7, either (and still don't). Hint: you don't need to uninstall, backup, or in any way do anything about your Windows install for Ubuntu to install itself as an OS option for selection at boot while completely preserving your Windows install.

Thing is, Diablo 3 tells us EXACTLY the direction Blizzard is taking their gaming division. Torchlight 2 tells us EXACTLY how badly Blizzard failed. I probably wouldn't despise Blizzard as much as I do if I hadn't been exposed to Torchlight 2 - although all Diablo 3 would still have left a very bad taste in my mouth. But to me, hiring Zynga employees is extremely telling. Zynga isn't a gaming company. They're a highly manipulative advertising company. Blizzard has access to all the awesome minds of indie and non-indie game developers alike, but they're really chaffing at the bit to hire Zynga employees. Because Zynga's model of gaming has also become Blizzard's model of gaming. Alanschu, you will have to forgive the CinemaBlend link. There are other sources of this news. I avoid journalists and companies I know are bad, but I've never been exposed to CinemaBlend before and thus have no prior knowledge of their level of editorial standard. I'd rather you didn't use this choice to insult me, though. But this issue of Linux users playing D3 through WINE being banned has become so widespread (although only a fraction of WINE users) that it's very unlikely to be cheating. I originally wrote the first reports of it off as cheating myself, when it started happening shortly after D3's release many months back.

A full 1/3 of those are governmental mouthpieces every bit as much as much as RT. BBC is cowed by potential funding cuts and says whatever the brit government wants on foreign policy (see for example their censoring of the Syrian rebels using unwitting suicide bombers, throwing prisoners off apartment blocks etc). Al-J is outright owned by Gulf State Oligarchs and it's absolutely obvious with their editorial slant- their Kalifah pals in Bahrain barely rate a mention with their loveable doctor torturing hijinks. Anyone who doesn't think that western media gets stampeded into stupidity and facile lead following should think back to the lead up to Gulf War II and exactly how much hapless flag waving, soundbite parroting and absolute and total lack of critical faculty was on show there. Hasn't changed, won't change and given how much more beholden media are to groupthink and concensus in an internet age where Outrage!!!!1!! at non conformist articles can be mustered by a few facebook or twitter postings it is unlikely to change, ever. Which is absolutely and totally how politicians like it since it means they don't face effective scrutiny. Sheesh, look at the Beeb's coverage of the "pro-democracy" demonstrations in Russia. No comment whatsoever on all the Soviet and Russian Imperial Flags. People waving those aren't really 'democratic' in the soppy hand wringing western sense, yet they're made out to be brave heroes of freeeeedom. All you'd get if they were elected is some ossified fossil like Brezhnev Zyuganov and they'd be even less democratic. And marches an order of magnitude larger in Britain itself somehow got far less coverage. Demonstrations in Beirut? Saad Hariri's party and the asterisking Phalange, who were probably the worst bunch in a conflict notable for having a lot of bad bunches (for example, see Sabra and Chatila; their particular brand of nutbartastic ethno-religious zealotry was largely responsible for civil war in the first place), yet somehow you got the impression that it was some sort of unified Lebanese response and one of the Phalangist leaders got a patsy interview by the beeb. You'd also not have the slightest inkling that there's still fighting going on in Libya, with the glorious freedom loving ex rebels levelling another city with their heavy weapons because according to the beeb et alia everyone in Libya actually hated Gaddafi. It's all narrative based fairy tale telling of good guys and bad guys, and anything that doesn't fit the preprepared script gets dropped like a rock. I don't disagree with you, although the bias of the sources I quoted is generally at least an order of magnitude less, and an order of magnitude less common, on average than that of the RT or Xinhua. RT and Xinhua are about as useful as Fox News: they're bull****. They're just not worth anyone's time because the noise to signal ratio is so permanently high. When you're sourcing your material from all the sources I suggested (and making sure you check each source against at least 2 others for any one story) you'll do fine. Obviously there are other sources you should consider, but the fact remains that the RT and Xinhua should never be on your list.

But it took the worst financial crisis since the great depression to get the Italian voters to get rid of the corrupt bastard. Meh.

I watched some of your video, but there is only stomach so much of Russia Today. Seriously, it is like the Fox News of Russia, only even more biased. I do not even consider it a legitimate news source. I agree. Russian TV is the most biased and propaganda fulled News Channel I have ever had the unfortunate pleasure of being afflicted to watch. RT is a global English-speaking news network. "Russia Today is a government-funded Russian television network". Doesn't mean what they say is necessarily untrue, it'll just have that spin on it. Edit: Ninja'd... I went for a cuppa in the middle of that post ;P To be fair you could say that about Xinhua. But people will laugh at you. Really, the same applies to RT. There's just such a high noise to signal ratio that it's not worth bothering with anything that comes out of Xinhua or RT. There are far more independent, objective, and reliable media sources out there that do cover the things you'd never hear in an unbiased manner from a US news source - BBC, Guardian, Christian Science Monitor (yeah, OK, it's US, my bad), Reuters, Bloomberg, Al Jazeera, etc. If something Xinhua or RT says is true, accurate, and relevant, a more reliable source will pick up on it.

Yeah, it's really sad that so many Americans hold such a twisted belief.

http://www.cinemable...sers-48593.html **** Blizzard. What a **** company they have become. Thanks Activision!

Which is pretty much the only acceptable role some supernatural being could play in our modern understanding of science. It's the view my moderately Catholic mum subscribes to. I'm fine with it, because it allows a theist to accept the discoveries of science (such as evolution and the mind as emergent behaviour of causal systems) through an objective filter. Curiously, this is the worldview which Einstein subscribed to (although he believed in nature/the universe, not any intelligent or supernatural being - but they become essentially equivalent at this point anyway). Personally I'm inclined to lean towards our universe nucleating as a bubble off another universe (no big bang), as that's where the physics is leaning - but that still doesn't resolve the question: who codes the coders? I.e. what created god? Did god create itself? That's a tautology and doesn't provide any useful information. It is equivalent to "the universe created itself". So I don't really care too much to delve into it, or feel strongly about who or what another person deigns to believe the coder is, or why it exists. It's beyond our comprehension and always will be as far as I can tell, because it lies outside the realms of causality (I know there are logical systems that aren't causal and which a causal subset of logic can stem from, but it does my head in thinking about them).

Perhaps you should dedicate your life to finding a flaw in one of the fundamental axioms of, say, arithmetic? For example proving "for every number x in the set of natural numbers, x=x... except when it doesn't." Yeah, I find it funny that Orogun suggests we'll find a problem with our axioms and then those damn scientists will rue the day! Except of course that axioms can't be proven nor disproven and thus to talk about falsifying them or finding a 'bug' in them is utter nonsense. Scientists have had to deal with axiom shifts multiple times (when they discover that the axioms they are using don't adequately describe our universe). The most well-known one was the shift from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry for spacetime (i.e. Newton vs Einstein). Contrary to it taking all those "science zealots" down a notch, it started a scientific and technological golden age, revolutionised our understanding of the world and filled in even more of the gaps previously assigned to those various gods and supernatural forces which people believe in. To imply that someday we'll find that our axioms don't match our world and that a new set of axioms does, and that these axioms will allow for any subset of the mystical nonsense Humans like to believe in is... very wishful thinking, and contrary to the results of historical axiom shifts in science. I mean, I guess I can't ever definitively rule it out (and I'm still not certain of the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems) - but I can ignore uneducated people grasping at straws and go do some useful science.

It says no such thing. You are acting like science has answered all the mysteries of the universe. We are nowhere near that point in our understanding of the universe, we seem to be creating more questions than answers at this stage. Science does not address whether there is a mystical force or not. You are choosing to believe there is not. No, you are trying to fit a God into the gaps. Let science do its work, stop being impatient, and in the meantime don't jump to conclusions.

So according to yet another Republican Senate candidate, this time in Indiana, pregnancy resulting from rape is just part of god's plan. Reading between the lines that sounds rather like claiming that pregnancies from rape are a gift from their god. Even without reading between the lines, it's a damn horrible comment to make. Romney endorses this candidate and refuses to dis-endorse him for his comments. Hurlshot, tell me again how the Republican party is actually pretty moderate and us foreign observers don't understand how things really work over there? Because I feel like I'm getting a pretty clear picture of an emerging religious extremist party akin to those found in the Middle East. http://www.google.co...d86ea1ac7fc.4c1 The really sad thing is that the Senate candidate which this tea party moron beat was Republican Senator Richard Lugar - a reasonably moderate guy (only by Republican standards) who was known for being willing to work with the Democrats to some extent. Fat chance of that with a teabagger. From Wikipedia: "Lugar is currently the third most senior senator, behind only Daniel Inouye and Patrick Leahy. He is also the longest-serving Senator in Indiana's history, and is the most senior Republican member of the senate. In 2012, however, he lost the Republican primary for a seventh term and his service in the Senate will end in January 2013."