|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Freshmeat Releases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slashdot News
|
 Department: still-winning-the-version-race-against-firefox Date: 2013-05-22T03:05:00Z Comments: An anonymous reader writes "Google on Tuesday released Chrome version 27 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. The new version features a big boost to page loads (now 5 percent faster on average) as well as significant updates for developers. The speed improvement is thanks to the introduction of 'smarter behind-the-scenes resource scheduling,' according to Google. Starting with this release, the scheduler more aggressively uses an idle connection and demotes the priority of preloaded resources so that they don’t interfere with critical assets."Read more of this storyat Slashdot. 
  
Department: i-don't-think-you'll-find-them-up-there Date: 2013-05-22T02:03:00Z Comments: Wired reports on a cluster of mini-satellites that will soon be launched into orbit that will assist U.S. special forces personnel during manhunts. "SOCOM is putting eight miniature communications satellites, each about the size of a water jug, on top of the Minotaur rocket that's getting ready to launch from Wallops Island, Virginia. They’ll sit more than 300 miles above the earth and provide a new way for the beacons to call back to their masters." When special forces are able to tag their target, the target can be tracked and located through the use of satellites and cell towers, but coverage is poor in many areas of the world. The satellites going up in September will help to fill in some gaps. "This array of configurable 'cubesats' is designed to stay aloft for three years or more. Yes, it will serve as further research project. But 'operators are going to use it,' Richardson promised an industry conference in Tampa last week."Read more of this storyat Slashdot. 
  
Department: go-big-or-go-home Date: 2013-05-22T00:00:00Z Comments: An anonymous reader writes "When in early 2010 Google shared with the public that they had been breached in what became known as the Aurora attacks, they said that the attackers got their hands on some source code and were looking to access Gmail accounts of Tibetan activists. What they didn't make public is that the hackers have also accessed a database containing information about court-issued surveillance orders that enabled law enforcement agencies to monitor email accounts belonging to diplomats, suspected spies and terrorists. Whether this was the primary goal of the attacks as well as how much information was exfiltrated is unknown. current and former U.S. government officials interviewed by the Washington Post say that the database in question was possibly accessed in order to discover which Chinese intelligence operatives located in the U.S. were under surveillance."Read more of this storyat Slashdot. 
  
Department: it's-actually-cobol-in-a-funny-hat Date: 2013-05-21T23:20:00Z Comments: 1 An anonymous reader writes "Seth Ladd has an excellent write-up of Dart: 'When Dart was originally launched, many developers mistook it for some sort of Java clone. In truth, Dart is inspired by a range of languages such as Smalltalk, Strongtalk, Erlang, C#, and JavaScript. Get past the semicolons and curly braces, and you'll see a terse language without ceremony. ... Dart understands that sometimes you just don’t feel like appeasing a ceremonial type checker. Dart’s inclusion of an optional type system means you can use type annotations when you want, or use dynamic when that’s easier. For example, you can explore a new idea without having to first think about type hierarchies. Just experiment and use var for your types. Once the idea is tested and you’re comfortable with the design, you can add type annotations."Read more of this storyat Slashdot. 
  
Department: appropriate-dose-of-overreaction Date: 2013-05-21T22:36:00Z Comments: 4 New submitter QuantumPion writes "The Environmental Protection Agency released draft guidelines last month that could significantly relax radiation hazard standards in the case of a radiological event in the United States by using risk-based decisions. The goal is to have limits that make sense in an emergency that are different from the limits in day-to-day life. From the article: 'Currently, the only guidance are the extremely strict standards that apply for EPA Superfund sites and nuclear plant decommissioning, which are as low as 0.010–0.025 rem/year, far below the natural background levels in the U.S. of 0.300 rem/year, and even well below the average amount of radioactive materials that Americans eat each year. And these guidelines aren’t really different from the 1992 PAG, except in the area of long-term cleanup standards and, perhaps, standards for resettlement. What’s the big deal here? As radworkers, we’re allowed to get 5 rem/year. 2 rem/year doesn’t rate a second thought. ... No one has ever been harmed by 5 rem/year, so setting emergency levels at 2 rem/year is pretty mild and more than reasonable. ... Think of it this way. The situations covered by these new guidelines are similar to someone dying of thirst who has the chance to drink fresh water having 2,000 pCi per gallon of radium in it. While the safe drinking water levels are 20 pCi/gal for Ra, 2,000 pCi/gal is of no threat, especially if you’re going to die from imminent dehydration. Of course, a bag of potato chips has 3,500 picocuries, so go figure.'"Read more of this storyat Slashdot. 
  
|
|
|
|
Latest from Techdirt.com
|
Tue, 21 May 2013 17:00:00 PDT
Completely autonomous drones that can decide who or what to strike are still many years away from becoming a reality, but the military has already developed various unmanned aircraft that it's been using primarily for gathering intelligence (rather than for attacking targets). Here are a few more examples of some of the high-tech flying weapons that exist today.If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!)Techdirt postvia StumbleUpon.
Permalink|Comments|Email This Story
   
Tue, 21 May 2013 16:02:45 PDT
Prenda's not having a very good day (or month, for that matter). We noted yesterday that Paul Hansmeier had asked the appeals court to put a stay on the attorney's feesawardedby Judge Otis Wright in California. The courtrejectedthe request, partly on procedural grounds, noting that you have to put in the request at the district court first, not jumping the gun and going straight to the appeals court. Soon after that, the lawyer representing many of Team Prenda, Heather Rosing,filedfor a stay in the district court, claiming that Prenda was "deprived of due process."
Judge Wright made quick work of this, noting the filing irregularity, and the pattern of seeking "eleventh-hour pleas for relief," and then rejected the request, and added a $1,000 per day penalty for every day that they fail to put up a bond in the amount owed. Oh yeah, also he asks them to explain to the court why they didn't pay up as ordered. Might as well include the full text here:Prenda Law, Inc., through its attorneys at Klinedinst PC, filed a notice of appealto the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 157.) Oddly, to this notice of appeal, Prenda attachedan ex parte applicationseeking a stay of enforcement of the Court’s May 6, 2013Order Issuing Sanctions. (ECF No. 157-1.) Not only was this application improperlyfiled; but once again, Prenda resorted to an eleventh-hour plea for relief.
Even assuming this application was properly filed, the Court finds no basis togrant Prenda’s request. Under the Court’s order, Prenda, along with John Steele, PaulHansmeier, Paul Duffy, Brett Gibbs, AF Holdings LLC, and Ingenuity 13 LLC, wererequired to pay by May 20, 2013, an attorney’s-fee award of $81,319.72. By filingthis application, it appears no such payment was made.
Instead, an emergency motion was filed with the Ninth Circuit to stayenforcement of the order. That motion was promptly denied. (ECF No. 150.) Prendanow seeks to remedy a problem of their own making. By refusing to pay, or at leastrefusing to post a supersedeas bond, Prenda (and the other parties) cannot establishthat it“is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that thecrisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.” Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’lCasualty Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Prenda’s application isthereforeDENIED.
Further, Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, Gibbs, AF Holdings, Ingenuity 13, andPrenda are herebyORDERED TO SHOW CAUSEwhy they have contravened theCourt’s order to pay the attorney’s-fee award. The Court hereby imposes a penalty of$1,000 per day, per person or entity,1 until this attorney’s-fee award is paid or a bondfor the same amount is posted. This penalty shall be paid to the Clerk of Court on thesame day the attorney’s-fee award is paid or the bond is posted. This penalty must bepaid unless it is evident that the award was paid or the bond was posted on or beforeMay 20, 2013. Failure to comply will result in additional sanctions.
Upon motion and posting of a supersedeas bond, the Court will stay executionof the attorney’s-fee award. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d).
Finally, as a housekeeping matter, the Court requests Brett Gibbs to filerequests for withdrawal of attorney in this and the related cases. Brett Gibbs appearsto have withdrawn from these cases. (OSC Hr’g Tr. 87:1–8, Mar. 11, 2013 (“I am nolonger employed by Prenda or any other corporation or LLC that is involved in thesecases.”).) Given the circumstances and the relationship between Gibbs and his clients,the Court will approve his requests for withdrawal.
IT IS SO ORDERED. And so it is. Perhaps, rather than spending so much time talking to the press, John Steele should have been counting his pennies to pay up.
Permalink|Comments|Email This Story
 
Tue, 21 May 2013 15:01:48 PDT
Looks like Prenda continues to have problems in court. In the lawsuit in Minnesota that Alan Cooper brought against Prenda and John Steele for fraudulent use of his name, it appears thatJudge Ann Altonmade fairly quick work of getting the whole thing off of her docket. Someone going by the twitter handle"J.P. Baggins"was in attendance, and says that the judgeordered Prenda to stop using Alan Cooper's nameand brought the case to a close. There won't be any damages awarded, but it seems clear that the judge was not at all happy with Prenda. She referred to Paul Hansmeier, appearing for Prenda Law, as acting in a way that is "not appropriate for an attorney" while also claiming that what they had done was"fraud, pure and simple."She also told him that she believed him"to be in violation of a whole lot of rules"and she'll bereporting him to the lawyer's board(just one more to pile on, I guess).
Another person in the courtroom,Matthew Sparbynoted that the judge was a bit confused at the beginning, apparently misreading Judge Otis Wright'sinfamous orderto alsoimplicate Cooper as well, and while that was eventually cleared up by Cooper's lawyer, Paul Godfread, Sparby thinks that may be whyno damages were awarded.
She apparently also closed by telling Hansmeierto "never EVER send" fraudulent letters "EVER again"and noted that she was "offended this case is here" before abruptly ending the whole thing. Seems like another bad dayfor Prenda.
Permalink|Comments|Email This Story
 
Tue, 21 May 2013 14:15:31 PDT
We recently wrote about akey legal fightover DMCA abuse and whether or not you can expect punishment for bogus DMCA takedowns under 512(f). The fact that even the MPAA has weighed in to make sure that there are basicallyno remediesfor its faulty DMCA notices suggests how important this fight is -- even though at its core it appears to be asilly petty squabbleamong two bloggers who clearly hate each other. You can read back over the previous posts to get the details, but a few details have come out since the last filing, which may be quite relevant.
Gina Crosley-Corcoran's (the blogger who filed the DMCA notices) filing against Amy Tuteur (the blogger who sued claiming a DMCA 512(f) violation) made a few claims that, if true, would likely weaken Tuteur's case dramatically. The key claims were that neither of the hosts that Tuteur said had removed her blog/account had actually done so. Without the actual removal or loss of account, Tuteur's overall claim is much weaker, since some cases have argued that you can only win a 512(f) case if the content was actually removed in reaction to the DMCA notices. Crosley-Corcoran's filing claimed that the first hosting company, BlueHost, never took down the content orthe account, but that Tuteur chose to switch accounts, saying that BlueHost only warned that itcouldtake down the content or shut down her account, but that it did not. However, Tuteur has posted to her own blog ascreenshot from Crosley-Corocran's own blogthat includes not just a screenshot of Tuteur's blog being shutdown on BlueHost, but also where Crosley-Corcoran brags about BlueHost taking down the entire blog. So... for Crosley-Corcoran to claim in her filing that BlueHost didn't take down the site, when Crosley-Corcoran's own statements show that it did... I can't imagine that will go over well in court. Next up was the second host, Daring Host. Crosley-Corcoran's filing includes the claim that Daring Host told Tuteur it had to cancel her account due to being unable to handle the traffic, not because of the DMCA issue. It even provided a deposition from the owner of Daring Host claiming that he was clear to Tuteur that it was the traffic issue, not the DMCA notice, that resulted in the closing of the account. Except... Tuteur has nowposted an original email from Daring Host to herabout the closing of the account, where it's quite clear that a key reason was the possible liability from the DMCA notice.Amy,
I spoke with the lawyer I’ve used with my businesses earlier today about the situation with your website and it being targeted. He informed me that hosting your website is a liability on a few different levels which is a risk to my business. While I support your cause and understand the situation you are in, I will no longer be able to host your website due to the risk and liability it poses to my business.
I do not want to leave you and your website out in the cold because I can understand that fighting against the people who are targeting you is not an easy task. I have done some research for you and found a couple of different businesses that should be able to host your website better in terms of dealing with it being targeted.
The first host I’ve found is called Alibabahost.com. On their website they state“AlibabaHost provides freedom of content and speech. Regarding the DMCA complains, we forward them to you and you decide how to proceed next.” Considering the only legal liability that had come up had been the DMCA notice, combined with the fact that he directly highlights how the first host he suggests handles DMCA complaints, it seems pretty clear that the DMCA takedowns and further threats of more takedowns was a (if not "the") driving force behind telling her to look elsewhere. Given that the deposition from the same owner, Nick Esposito, appears to conflict with what he directly told Tuteur, he may face some interesting questions as well from the court.
For what it's worth, Crosley-Corcoran appears to have shown up in our comments on the last postclaiming:I did not "brag" about my DMCA taking down her site. In fact, the court has the evidence (submitted by her side, ironically) showing me saying that I, quote, "wish I could take credit, but this was more than me." I knew then that the host did not take action to remove her site because of my DMCA, and she knew it too. Given the screenshot above, this appears to be wholly untrue. She does appear to have very clearly bragged about theDMCA notice taking down her site. Also, there was a Facebook post from Crosley-Corcoran that talked excitedly about how she was spending the "legal fund" that she had solicited from her readers to help take down the site from Daring Host, and: "if she keeps on doing what she's doing, this will keep happening."
Also, while it's cut off at the end of that screenshot above, that original post from Crosley-Corcoran appears to clearly admit that she's using the DMCA notice not to stop copyright infringement, but to silence protected speech:She could owe me statutory damages, but because I'm a fair and reasonable human being, my attorney and I felt it was best to discuss a non-monetary settlement with Amy and her lawyer. I'm not looking to be greedy— I simply wanted a resolution.In exchange for me not pursuing the damages, we wanted Amy to agree to stop personally attacking me. It was that simple. Combine all of that, and it seems like a pretty strong argument that Crosley-Corcoran used the DMCA to silence criticism, rather than for stopping copyright infringement, and that she knew and celebrated that fact publicly, contrary to what she stated in her filing and in our comments.
Permalink|Comments|Email This Story
 
|
|
|
