Poll Shows Lead for Democrat on Eve of Massachusetts Senate Election

BOSTON â€" The most recent poll in a special Senate election in Massachusetts showed the Democratic candidate, Representative Edward J. Markey, leading Gabriel Gomez, his Republican challenger, by 10 percentage points.

The election, being held Tuesday, is for the Senate seat vacated by John Kerry, who stepped down to become secretary of state.

The campaign has run for less than two months, and Mr. Markey has consistently polled ahead of Mr. Gomez, though the margins have varied. Mr. Markey was first elected to Congress in 1976, and Mr. Gomez has never held elective office.

The poll, released Monday by the Suffolk University Political Research Center, showed Mr. Markey with the support of 52 percent of likely voters and Mr. Gomez with the support of 42 percent.

In three bellwether towns, which have accurately reflected the statewide vote in previous elections, Mr. Markey was leading Mr. Gomez by as much as 15 percentage points. The towns are Lowell, Dartmouth and South Hadley.

Q&A: Renaming a Windows 7 Computer

Q.

How do you change the name of a Windows 7 laptop?

A.

Unless your network administrator or Internet service provider requires your computer to use a certain name, you can change it in just a few short steps in Windows 7. When updating the name from its factory default (or whatever you called the machine when you originally set it up), keep in mind there are some restrictions.

You cannot use a name made up solely of numbers. Also, spaces, mathematical symbols and most punctuation marks are not allowed. You can use a hyphen, however, as well as the numbers 0 to 9 and the full alphabet (upper and lower case).

One way to get to the settings is to click the Start button, right-click Computer and choose Properties to open the System box. (You can also get to the System box by pressing the Windows key along with the Pause/Break ke on the keyboard.) In the bottom right corner of the System box, click “Change settings.”

On the Computer Name tab of the System Properties box, click the Change button. In the box that opens, type a new name into the “Computer name” field and click the OK button. Restart the computer to have the name change take effect.

Q&A: Renaming a Windows 7 Computer

Q.

How do you change the name of a Windows 7 laptop?

A.

Unless your network administrator or Internet service provider requires your computer to use a certain name, you can change it in just a few short steps in Windows 7. When updating the name from its factory default (or whatever you called the machine when you originally set it up), keep in mind there are some restrictions.

You cannot use a name made up solely of numbers. Also, spaces, mathematical symbols and most punctuation marks are not allowed. You can use a hyphen, however, as well as the numbers 0 to 9 and the full alphabet (upper and lower case).

One way to get to the settings is to click the Start button, right-click Computer and choose Properties to open the System box. (You can also get to the System box by pressing the Windows key along with the Pause/Break ke on the keyboard.) In the bottom right corner of the System box, click “Change settings.”

On the Computer Name tab of the System Properties box, click the Change button. In the box that opens, type a new name into the “Computer name” field and click the OK button. Restart the computer to have the name change take effect.

Q&A: Saving the Phone’s Battery Power

Q.

I need to have my phone’s GPS feature on all day, even though it eats through battery juice like crazy. Since I can’t turn off the GPS, what else can I do to make the battery last longer between charges?

A.

Keeping your phone’s screen brightness set as dimly as you can stand it helps preserve battery power, as can disabling live wallpapers and adjusting the screen to automatically switch off quickly. Turning off notifications, push mail and background data from apps, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth (if you do not need them), and vibrating alarms can also save power.

Apps that manage and analyze power consumption may help as well, like Android’s Power Control widget or third-party options. Your phone’s manufacturer or wireless carrier may have other tips specific to your model. Apple has suggestions for iPhone owners and the Android Authority site offers a good general guide for those with Android handsets.

If you find your phone’s battery still slipping into the red zone too soon, packing additional power extends the time between charges. External batteries like the Mophie Juice Pack for iPhone and some Android models or Belkin’s Power Pack 2000 add extra life.

Live Analysis of Supreme Court Decision on Affirmative Action

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a case concerning affirmative action. Times reporters and editors are analyzing the decision and its implications, as well as the public’s reaction to it.

Auto-Refresh: ON

Turn ON

Refresh Now

Feed

Twitter

10:19 A.M. Court Rules in Affirmative Action Case

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Monday in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a case concerning affirmative action.

From SCOTUSblog:

The opinion by Kennedy. The Fifth Circuit is vacated and remanded. The holding is because the Fifth Circuit did not hold the university to the demanding burden of strict scrutiny articulated in Grutter and Bakke, its decision affiming the district court’s grant of summary judgment was incorrect.

There is one dissent. It is 7-1. Ginsburg dissents alone. There ! are separate concurring opinions by Scalia and Thomas. Kagan was recused.

â€" The New York Times

9:32 A.M. Explaining The Times’s Coverage of the Decision

We realize that people will be eager to know what the ruling means as soon as it comes out (and you can read the decision yourself when it is posted on the court’s Web site). But we also want to point out that the immediate descriptions of any ruling may not be very meaningful.

For one thing, a ruling could be complicated, as were last year’s health care ruling and the 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling, and not amenable to instant summarizing. The court cold even announce one portion of a decision â€" especially on same-sex marriage, given the two different cases â€" before it releases another portion.

Dozens of Times journalists, in Washington, New York and around the country, are covering the ruling and the reaction to it by the public and those affected by it. At the center of the coverage is Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court reporter (and a lawyer) of The Times, who will be in court to hear the ruling.

We plan to explain the ruling the moment we feel comfortable with its basic meaning â€" which could be almost immediately. We promise not to bombard you with guesswork or unintelligible legal technicalities. The Times will also run blog posts from the legal experts at SCOTUSblog on our own site, as well as ask other outside experts to help readers understand the decision. Once the fundamentals of the ruling are clear, Times reporters and editors will be analyzing it in real time, on our live blog dedicated to the ruling and on stories appea! ring acro! ss our digital platforms. We will also post updates to Twitter on @thecaucus and @nytimes, and post selected reactions from readers.

We expect to have Mr. Liptak’s initial story about any ruling by late morning or shortly after noon, not long after the court’s session has ended. Whatever happens Thursday, we also expect at least one major ruling to come next week.

Thanks for being with us.

â€" The New York Times

The Early Word: Legalese

Today's Times

• The Supreme Court is expected to release a ruling this week on a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which some are arguing adds an unfair burden during compliance, Campbell Robertson reports.

•  Many Washington institutions are making the high-tech transition, but the nine Supreme Court justices continue to appear publicly oblivious to social media, Michael D. Shear writes. The high court's annual rulings remain stubbornly opaque, until they are handed out (on paper, first) by the court's public relations team.

•  Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, has made a complete about-face on the immigration issue, reflecting a new political reality in which conservative Democrats are uniting with moderate Republicans to help carry the legislation across the finish line, Jonathan Weisman writes.

Around the Web

• Representative Nancy Pelosi was booed and heckled on Saturday when she said that Edward J. Snowden, the former national security contractor who leaked information about government surveillance programs, violated the law, The Hill reports.

 Happenings in Washington

• President Obama will meet with business leaders in the White House for a discussion on immigration reform.

A Guide to The Times\'s Supreme Court Coverage

This week is expected to be one of the more consequential ones at the Supreme Court in recent years. The justices have yet to rule on 11 cases from the 2012-13 term, including the four most closely watched: two on same-sex marriage and one each on affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. The court will issue rulings sometime after 10 a.m. Eastern on Monday, including potentially on one or more of those major cases.

We realize that people will be eager to know what a ruling means as soon as it comes out (and you can read the decision yourself when it is posted on the court's Web site). But we also want to point out that the immediate descriptions of any ruling may not be very meaningful.

For one thing, a ruling could be complicated, as were last year's health care ruling and the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, and not amenable to instant summarizing. The court could even announce one portion of a decision - especially on same-sex marriage, given the two differe nt cases - before it releases another portion.

Dozens of Times journalists, in Washington, New York and around the country, are covering the major rulings and the reactions to them by the public and those directly affected. At the center of the coverage is Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court reporter for The Times (and a lawyer), who will be in court to hear the ruling. He offered an overview of this week, and what it will say about the justices' vision of equality, in Sunday's New York Times.

The moment that we feel comfortable with a ruling's basic meaning, which could be almost immediately, we plan to explain the decision. But we promise not to bombard you with guesswork or unintelligible legal technicalities. The Times will also run blog posts from the legal experts at SCOTUSblog on our own site, as well as ask other outside experts to help readers understand the decision. Once the initial meaning of the ruling seems clear, Times reporters and editors will be analyzing it in real time, on our live blog dedicated to the ruling and on stories appearing across our digital platforms. We will also post updates to Twitter on @thecaucus and @nytimes, and post selected reactions from readers.

We expect to have Mr. Liptak's initial story about any ruling by late morning or shortly after noon, not long after the court's session has ended. Whatever happens Monday, we expect the court to issue more rulings later this week, on days yet to be announced.

- For background on same-sex marriage, we recommend: Mr. Liptak's article on the history of gay clerks at t he Supreme Court; on the legal strategy, with roots in San Francisco, that helped push the cases to the court so quickly; on the shadow of Roe v. Wade; and on the two days of oral arguments earlier this year. We also recommend Ashley Parker's article on younger opponents of same-sex marriage; Sheryl Gay Stolberg's article on Ken Mehlman, a former Bush adviser turned advocate for same-sex marriage; Michael D. Shear's article on the decisions that may await President Obama; and a recent New York Times/CBS poll, as described by Ms. Stolberg and Dalia Sussman.

- On affirmative action: an article by Nelson D. Schwartz and Michael Cooper about affirmative action in Texas; Richard Perez-Pena's a rticle about obstacles on class-based affirmative action; Mr. Liptak's article about the plaintiff and the University of Texas, as well as his article about oral arguments; and my article about the role that fairness and diversity played at oral arguments.

- On the Voting Rights Act: Mr. Liptak's article from Shelby County, Ala., the plaintiff in the case, as well as his article about the oral arguments; Campbell Robertson's article, in Monday's Times, about the act; Nate Silver's blog post about the use of statistics during oral arguments; and a graphical overview of the act.

Thanks for being with us.

The Early Word: Legalese

Today’s Times

• The Supreme Court is expected to release a ruling this week on a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which some are arguing adds an unfair burden during compliance, Campbell Robertson reports.

•  Many Washington institutions are making the high-tech transition, but the nine Supreme Court justices continue to appear publicly oblivious to social media, Michael D. Shear writes. The high court’s annual rulings remain stubbornly opaque, until they are handed out (on paper, first) by the court’s public relations team.

•  Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, has made a complete about-face on the immigration issue, reflecting a new political reality in which conservative Democrats are uniting with moderate Republicans to help carry the legislation across the finish line, Jonathan Weisman writes.

Around the Web

• Representative Nancy Pelosi was booed and heckled on Saturday when she said that Edward J. Snowden, the former national security contractor who leaked information about government surveillance programs, violated the law, The Hill reports.

 Happenings in Washington

• President Obama will meet with business leaders in the White House for a discussion on immigration reform.

A Guide to The Times’s Supreme Court Coverage

This week is expected to be one of the more consequential ones at the Supreme Court in recent years. The justices have yet to rule on 11 cases from the 2012-13 term, including the four most closely watched: two on same-sex marriage and one each on affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. The court will issue rulings sometime after 10 a.m. Eastern on Monday, including potentially on one or more of those major cases.

We realize that people will be eager to know what a ruling means as soon as it comes out (and you can read the decision yourself when it is posted on the court’s Web site). But we also want to point out that the immediate descriptions of any ruling may not be very meaningful.

For one thing, a ruling could be complicated, as were last year’s health care ruling and the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, and not amenable to instant summarizing. The court could even announce one portion of a decision â€" especially on same-sex marriage, given the two different cases â€" before it releses another portion.

Dozens of Times journalists, in Washington, New York and around the country, are covering the major rulings and the reactions to them by the public and those directly affected. At the center of the coverage is Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court reporter for The Times (and a lawyer), who will be in court to hear the ruling. He offered an overview of this week, and what it will say about the justices’ vision of equality, in Sunday’s New York Times.

The moment that we feel comfortable with a ruling’s basic meaning, which could be almost immediately, we plan to explain the decision. But we promise not to bombard you with guesswork or unintelligible legal technicalities. The Times will also run blog posts from the legal experts at SCOTUSblog on our own site, as well as ask other outside expert! s to help readers understand the decision. Once the initial meaning of the ruling seems clear, Times reporters and editors will be analyzing it in real time, on our live blog dedicated to the ruling and on stories appearing across our digital platforms. We will also post updates to Twitter on @thecaucus and @nytimes, and post selected reactions from readers.

We expect to have Mr. Liptak’s initial story about any ruling by late morning or shortly after noon, not long after the court’s session has ended. Whatever happens Monday, we expect the court to issue more rulings later this week, on days yet to be announced.

- For background on same-sex marriage, we recommend: Mr. Liptak’s article on the history of gay clerks at the Supreme Court; on the legal strategy, with roots in San Francisco, that helped push the cases to the court so quickly; on the shadow of Roe v. Wade; and on the two days of oral arguments earlier this year. We also recommend Ashley Parker’s article on younger opponents of same-sex marriage; Sheryl Gay Stolberg’s article on Ken Mehlman, a former Bush adviser turned advocate for same-sex marriage; Michael D. Shear’s article on the decisions that may await President Obama; and a recent New York Times/CBS poll, as described by Ms. Stolberg and Dalia Sussman,

- On affirmative action: an article by Nelson D. Schwartz and Michael Cooper about affirmative action in Texas; Richard Perez-Pena’s article about obstacles on class-based affirmative action; Mr. Liptak’s article about the plaintiff and the University of Texas, as well as his article about oral arguments; and my article about the role tht fairness and diversity played at oral arguments.

- On the Voting Rights Act: Mr. Liptak’s article from Shelby County, Ala., the plaintiff in the case, as well as his article about the oral arguments; Campbell Robertson’s article, in Monday’s Times, about the act; Nate Silver’s blog post about the use of statistics during oral arguments; and a graphical overview of the act.

Thanks for being with us.

A Guide to The Times’s Supreme Court Coverage

This week is expected to be one of the more consequential ones at the Supreme Court in recent years. The justices have yet to rule on 11 cases from the 2012-13 term, including the four most closely watched: two on same-sex marriage and one each on affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. The court will issue rulings sometime after 10 a.m. Eastern on Monday, including potentially on one or more of those major cases.

We realize that people will be eager to know what a ruling means as soon as it comes out (and you can read the decision yourself when it is posted on the court’s Web site). But we also want to point out that the immediate descriptions of any ruling may not be very meaningful.

For one thing, a ruling could be complicated, as were last year’s health care ruling and the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, and not amenable to instant summarizing. The court could even announce one portion of a decision â€" especially on same-sex marriage, given the two different cases â€" before it releses another portion.

Dozens of Times journalists, in Washington, New York and around the country, are covering the major rulings and the reactions to them by the public and those directly affected. At the center of the coverage is Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court reporter for The Times (and a lawyer), who will be in court to hear the ruling. He offered an overview of this week, and what it will say about the justices’ vision of equality, in Sunday’s New York Times.

The moment that we feel comfortable with a ruling’s basic meaning, which could be almost immediately, we plan to explain the decision. But we promise not to bombard you with guesswork or unintelligible legal technicalities. The Times will also run blog posts from the legal experts at SCOTUSblog on our own site, as well as ask other outside expert! s to help readers understand the decision. Once the initial meaning of the ruling seems clear, Times reporters and editors will be analyzing it in real time, on our live blog dedicated to the ruling and on stories appearing across our digital platforms. We will also post updates to Twitter on @thecaucus and @nytimes, and post selected reactions from readers.

We expect to have Mr. Liptak’s initial story about any ruling by late morning or shortly after noon, not long after the court’s session has ended. Whatever happens Monday, we expect the court to issue more rulings later this week, on days yet to be announced.

- For background on same-sex marriage, we recommend: Mr. Liptak’s article on the history of gay clerks at the Supreme Court; on the legal strategy, with roots in San Francisco, that helped push the cases to the court so quickly; on the shadow of Roe v. Wade; and on the two days of oral arguments earlier this year. We also recommend Ashley Parker’s article on younger opponents of same-sex marriage; Sheryl Gay Stolberg’s article on Ken Mehlman, a former Bush adviser turned advocate for same-sex marriage; Michael D. Shear’s article on the decisions that may await President Obama; and a recent New York Times/CBS poll, as described by Ms. Stolberg and Dalia Sussman,

- On affirmative action: an article by Nelson D. Schwartz and Michael Cooper about affirmative action in Texas; Richard Perez-Pena’s article about obstacles on class-based affirmative action; Mr. Liptak’s article about the plaintiff and the University of Texas, as well as his article about oral arguments; and my article about the role tht fairness and diversity played at oral arguments.

- On the Voting Rights Act: Mr. Liptak’s article from Shelby County, Ala., the plaintiff in the case, as well as his article about the oral arguments; Campbell Robertson’s article, in Monday’s Times, about the act; Nate Silver’s blog post about the use of statistics during oral arguments; and a graphical overview of the act.

Thanks for being with us.