Hasta La Gadget!

 Automatic, a startup whose sensor-and-software combo has been described as “Fitbit for your car,” is today rolling out a software development kit and new hardware that turn your car into a platform for apps. Read More

If there is one thing that Chinese companies are notorious for it is that they love to copy products that are popular and sell it as a cheaper version. We’ve seen this happen with all sorts of products, such as clothing, and even technology where Chinese companies have not been shy about copying the design of the iPhone and rebranding it as something else.

It also seems that copying video games is pretty popular too but as far as Blizzard is concerned, they are having none of it. The company has recently joined up with Valve in suing a China-based developer called Lilith Games over alleged copyright infringement. The game in question is called Allstar Heroes which is known locally as Soul Clash.

As you can see in the image above, it is pretty obvious as to why Blizzard isn’t too happy about the game. The game, while it might not necessarily feature similar gameplay to Blizzard’s other games, uses characters which Blizzard believes is a copyright infringement on their Warcraft franchise.

No word on how much compensation in damages Blizzard and Valve are seeking, but given Blizzard’s history of shutting down cheaters and copyright infringers, we won’t be surprised if the company walks away with yet another legal victory. In the meantime what do you guys think? Are you in agreement that Lilith Games is ripe for a lawsuit?

Blizzard & Valve Sue Lilith Games Over Copyright Infringement , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

WASHINGTON — For four months, the Republican Party and its many presidential hopefuls have laid into likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over donations to a family foundation. That these attacks contradict the GOP’s broader stand on campaign finance — and call into question their own weighty burden of donor conflicts — hasn’t troubled them at all.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) called contributions to the nonprofit Clinton Foundation “thinly veiled bribes.” The nation can’t afford the “drama” represented by those donations, according to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina asked Clinton to explain why contributions to the foundation “don’t represent a conflict of interest.” And the Republican National Committee has made the donations a central part of its campaign against Clinton.

In embracing this critique of the Clinton Foundation, Republicans are investing in a view of money in politics that they have otherwise rejected in recent years: that spending money to gain influence over or access to elected or appointed officials represents a conflict of interest or an appearance of corruption or could even lead to outright corruption.

Since 2010, the conservative Supreme Court majority has rejected this argument as a reason to regulate campaign finance in their Citizens United, McCutcheon and Williams-Yulee decisions. Most leading Republican federal officeholders now take the view that spending of any sort on campaigns should not be impeded by legal restrictions as fears of corruption are overblown.

So the critical piling on Clinton Foundation donations creates a problem for Republicans, especially those running for president. If contributions to the foundation, a 501(c)(3) entity not involved in political campaigns, create a valid source of corruption concern, then what are we to make of the hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed donations to 501(c)(4) nonprofits that have worked to elect Republicans over the past three elections?

Since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the door for unlimited corporate, union and, ultimately, individual spending on elections, Republicans have maneuvered to use so-called dark money nonprofits to fund large portions of their electoral efforts. Dark money spending on federal races exceeded $400 million in the 2012 presidential election and $200 million in the 2014 midterms with the vast majority of those dollars going to aid Republican candidates, according to previous analysis by The Huffington Post.

Where the Clinton Foundation is concerned, the public knows who the donors are and, thus, the press can report on the mutually beneficial relationship between Bill Clinton and billionaire donor Frank Giustra or point out that a majority of those also lobbied the Hillary Clinton-led State Department or note that both Clintons have been very supportive of the Moroccan government, a foundation donor, as it occupies the disputed territory of Western Sahara.

The public is not privy, however, to the sources of funds fueling a large part of the Republican electoral apparatus and a smaller part of Democratic efforts. Party leaders and wealthy donors have increasingly worked through nonprofits that are not required to disclose their funding sources.

Republicans, including those now running for president, defend dark money groups as a means to protect what they argue is the First Amendment right of donors to engage in political activity without “retaliation.” Perhaps, that retaliation would come in the form of stories informing the public about how those donors are seeking to influence public policy.

Just to be clear, the Supreme Court, even amidst its deregulatory frenzy, has said that public disclosure of contributions to campaigns and independent groups is both constitutional and vital to fair elections.

The very limited record on dark money shows that those funding these groups — just like those funding super PACs, which must identify their donors — include many high-powered corporate and individual interests with well-connected lobbyists in search of favors. HuffPost reports have found that dark money groups tightly connected to congressional and party leadership, both Democratic and Republican, have received large sums from pharmaceutical, insurance, banking and online payday lenders seeking specific policy changes while retaining lobbyists previously employed by those very leaders.

This year, GOP presidential candidates are copying this model on an individual level, by launching their very own dark money groups to rake in secret contributions.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has his Right to Rise Policy Solutions, which is playing an increasingly important role in his not-yet-declared, super-PAC-centered presidential campaign. Rubio’s advisers run the Conservative Policy Solutions group in collaboration with an affiliated super PAC. And potential candidates like former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal are all running around the country fueled by funding from undisclosed nonprofit groups.

Then there is the case of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, currently running another not-yet-announced presidential campaign.

In 2012, Walker faced a recall election after labor unions in his state rebelled over legislation gutting public employee union rights. His recall campaign coordinated with a band of nonprofit political groups, led by the Wisconsin Club for Growth, to promote Walker and his policies in a positive light. Walker aides worked closely with the outside groups, and the governor directly raised undisclosed contributions for the effort.

A bipartisan investigation by district attorneys into Walker’s coordination with those outside groups revealed some of their funding sources, including a $700,000 contribution to the Wisconsin Club for Growth from Gogebic Taconite at the exact time the company was seeking a rewrite of state mining and environmental laws.

John Menard Jr., considered the wealthiest man in Wisconsin, was another big donor to the save-Walker effort. The billionaire owner of the chain store Menards gave $1.5 million to the Wisconsin Club for Growth, according to a report by Yahoo News. During Walker’s term in office, Menard’s company received $1.8 million in tax credits from an economic development corporation led by the governor. He also received help in his battle with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources as Walker defanged the watchdog agency.

Others who gave to the coordinated Walker effort include billionaires Charles and David Koch, Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, Bruce Kovner, Donald Trump, Ken Langone and Steven Cohen.

As Hillary Clinton has done with contributions to her family’s foundation, Walker denies any conflict of interest involving donors to his coordinated recall effort. But the full list of contributors is unknown.

The same failure to see their own conflicts applies to candidates elected since the Citizens United decision precipitated the dramatic rise in dark money. Both Paul and Rubio were elected to the Senate in 2010 with $2.3 million and $2.7 million, respectively, in allied spending by groups that do not disclose their donors, including the Karl Rove-founded Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Thanks to its bankruptcy filings, it is known that for-profit Corinthian Colleges made contributions to Crossroads GPS. While the dates and amounts of those donations are still hidden, Rubio’s strong support for Corinthian is well-established. In 2014, he pleaded with the Department of Education for leniency for the company as it faced a fraud investigation.

No one doubts that huge sums of dark money will again be spent supporting presidential candidates in the 2016 election. While the public will be able to consider whether the corporations, billionaires and foreign governments that contributed to the Clinton Foundation would hold undue sway over a Clinton White House, they will not even know the identities of those pouring in the secret donations.

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

SEATTLE — “That doesn’t even look like a boat. How does it float?”

Elizabeth Spence, 8, peered through a chain-link fence at a massive yellow drilling rig, newly docked a short stretch away. Her dad had brought her here on Thursday evening to check out the latest addition to the Seattle waterfront and to add some local context to a current topic of study in Elizabeth’s third-grade class: climate change.

She was quick with her take on that day’s arrival of the first of Royal Dutch Shell’s Arctic fleet. More than two dozen Shell vessels, including another oil-drilling rig, are expected to make Seattle a home base between oil-exploration trips in the Arctic’s Chukchi Sea.

“I don’t think oil should be used anymore,” said Elizabeth. “I think we should use wind, tidal and solar — all of those are more sustainable.”

It’s a sentiment pervasive in this left-leaning city, long recognized as a national leader on environmental issues. Earlier that day, as Shell’s Polar Pioneer passed downtown Seattle en route to its new residence on the west side of the city, paddling protestors chanted from kayaks and canoes: “What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!” Some held a banner that read, “Arctic Drilling = Climate Change.”

Public resistance grew through the weekend and into Monday, with hundreds of activists converging by land and sea around the towering Arctic-bound rig — local Native Americans and Seattle’s former mayor, Mike McGinn, among them. They raised concerns about the risk of oil spills and the impact of fossil-fuel consumption on climate change.

The first of Shell Oil’s Arctic-drilling fleet arrived in Seattle on Thursday. (Lynne Peeples)

The opposition to Shell’s drilling for oil in the Arctic, which the Obama administration conditionally green-lighted last week, is one way Seattle is showing it may be a poster child for the broader fossil fuel fight. The city’s opposition also reflects some overlooked challenges posed by climate change.

The city certainly shows how conflicts can arise when business and political pressures are at odds with local culture and values. Many Seattle-area schools emphasize the environment in their curriculum, so it’s little surprise that Elizabeth is preparing a sustainability project for an upcoming science fair. The region’s native people, meanwhile, continue to carry on their ancestors’ teaching that every decision must consider how consequences may affect children “seven generations” into the future.

On Thursday, as Shell’s rig pulled into the Port of Seattle, which boasts the tagline, “Where a Sustainable World is Headed,” nine tribal leaders convened to stand together against a proposed coal export facility slated for shoreline in the northwest corner of the state. The Gateway Pacific coal export terminal would send as much as 48 million tons of coal each year to Asia — railed in from the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming. The Lummi Nation and others are calling on the Army Corps of Engineers to deny the permit for what could be the nation’s largest coal export facility, arguing that the project would disrupt treaty-protected fishing rights, harm sacred sites and threaten the future of their grandchildren — not to mention the seventh generation.

A few miles away, that same day, the University of Washington became the largest public university in the U.S. to cut coal companies from its investment portfolio and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed an oil train safety bill. A major oil terminal is proposed for the the Pacific Northwest, and oil trains are increasingly supplying four regional refineries.

Inslee was again in the climate spotlight on Friday as he declared a statewide drought emergency, largely the result of record-low mountain snowpacks. The announcement comes as experts warn of an early and likely intense forest fire season, and as local leaders push for innovative efforts to confront other climate-related challenges facing the region, such as ocean acidification, sea level rise, even the anticipated influx of climate refugees from California and other areas, where the effects are likely to be worse. (Even without factoring in these newcomers, Seattle’s population is expected to increase by 15 percent over the next 20 years.)

“A compelling case can be made that the Pacific Northwest will be one of the best places to live as the earth warms,” Cliff Mass, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington, wrote on his blog in July.

Recently uncovered internal Shell Oil documents reveal the multinational’s own presumption that global temperatures will rise 4 degrees Celsius (about 7 degrees Fahrenheit), twice the level considered safe for the planet. Meanwhile, scientists reported this month that Arctic sea ice is melting faster and earlier than previously predicted.

“Climate denial has reached its fullest expression when the melting of the Arctic ice cap is greeted as a signal to drill for more oil where the ice used to be,” K.C. Golden, senior policy adviser for Seattle-based Climate Solutions, a nonprofit advocate for clean energy, wrote in an opinion piece in The Seattle Times in early May.

Kimberly Cisson, 47, of West Seattle, lamented as she looked out at the Shell rig — 400 feet long and 355 feet tall — from a foot ferry crossing Seattle’s Elliot Bay on Thursday. Nearby, a small boat hoisted a banner that read, “Chief Seattle is Watching.”

“I understand the interest in money and jobs,” Cisson said, over the hum of the ferry and hovering news helicopters. “We can’t escape oil in the world right now, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work away from it. It saddens me that they want to drill up there.”

“It’s hard to get people to wake up,” added Cisson, who is originally from Texas, the leading U.S. state for oil production. “Did we learn nothing from the Gulf oil spill?”

Environmental advocates said they hope other parts of the country, and the world, might take lessons from Seattle, where Native Americans continue to work alongside faith, political and environmental leaders towards shared sustainability goals.

Driving back from Thursday’s meeting of tribal leaders, Cesia Kearns, a representative of the Sierra Club’s National Beyond Coal Campaign, said she watched a coal train pass along the waterfront — with the Polar Pioneer moving across the bay in the background. Still, she expressed her optimism: “We’ve already beat back four of seven proposed coal terminals.”

“If we can replicate this around the country and with our international partners,” added Kearns, “we should be able to usher in a clean energy future together that will benefit us all.”

Tim Ballew II, tribal chairman of the Lummi Nation, whose reservation sits near the proposed coal export facility site, recalled seeing the “monstrous” rig being barged in as he returned to his car after the meeting. “Our job is to make sure resources are there in the future for our children,” said Ballew. “The decision of the Lummi to oppose the Gateway Pacific Terminal permit is directly linked to that.”

The Spence family of West Seattle is doing what they can, too. In addition to encouraging Elizabeth to pursue her passion for environmental conservation, they recently swapped their incandescent bulbs with energy-efficient LEDs.

“I hope with little changes like this,” said Ted Spence, Elizabeth’s dad, “we can reduce our need for drilling.”

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

SPECIAL FROM Next Avenue

By Nancy Collamer

On May 20, David Letterman will end his legendary 33-year run as a late night talk-show host. Since making his retirement plans public last year, Letterman, 68 (how is that possible?!), has shared his thoughts about calling it quits with his guests as well as the media. In true Letterman fashion, the gap-toothed one’s comments have ranged from poignant to playful to irreverent.

After reading through Letterman’s interviews and watching his recent shows, I’ve realized that despite his great personal wealth, Dave’s retirement hopes and fears aren’t much different from the average person’s.

And so, to commemorate his final show, I compiled my own Top 10 list: Lessons From Letterman’s Retirement. I think you’ll do well to follow his lead before you sign off from your full-time job and head into retirement.

No. 10: Give your employer sufficient notice

Letterman announced his retirement more than a year in advance, which resulted in a smooth and orderly transition. It’ll be finalized when Stephen Colbert takes over as host in September.

Admittedly, a year’s notice is probably a bit much for most people. As I wrote in this Next Avenue post, The 5 Steps to Make a Retirement Announcement, “There are no hard and fast rules as to how much notice is expected, but in general, you want to give management enough time to ensure a smooth transition — without leaving so much time that you’re perceived as a lame duck. While a six-week notice might be sufficient for lower-level workers, three to six months (or longer) is more appropriate for senior-level or hard-to-replace employees.”

Sometimes, as Letterman noted, you just know when it’s time to announce an exit. He just told NPR’s TV critic Eric Deggans in a Morning Edition interview: “When Jay (Leno) left, I realized, ‘Oh yeah, you gotta be younger really to do this job.’ And so I thought, ‘I don’t want to be the old man left out here fighting for scraps and crumbs.’ So that’s when it became an inevitability.”

No. 9: Acknowledge that your role at work will shift after you announce your retirement

The moment you make your retirement plans public, as Letterman learned, the way you’re viewed at work will change. So like it or not, be prepared to not be consulted when big decisions — like choosing your replacement — are made.

When asked by The New York Times whether he resented not being consulted about the decision to hire Colbert as his successor, Letterman candidly responded, “Just as a courtesy, maybe somebody would say: ‘You know, we’re kicking around some names. Do you have any thoughts here?’ But it doesn’t bother me now. At the time, I had made the decision [to leave] and I thought, ‘OK, this is what comes when you make this decision.’”

No. 8: Respect your successor’s lead

As tempting as it may be to mentor your successor, don’t offer advice unless asked. In some cases, your replacement may ask for guidance, while in others, he or she may prefer to go it alone. When asked by the New York Times if he gave Colbert tips about taking over, Letterman replied: “No. We chatted when the announcement was made. And that was about it. I don’t think he needs it — he’s not a kid. He’s not a beginner. He’s had pretty good success.”

No. 7: Be generous with thanks

When announcing his retirement, Letterman went out of his way to acknowledge the many groups of people who’ve supported him along the way. “I just want to reiterate my thanks for the support from the network, all of the people who have worked here, all of the people in the theater, all the people on the staff, everybody at home, thank you very much,” he said on the show.

As the shows are winding down, he continues to be effusive with thanks and gratitude, both in interviews and on TV. This has allowed us to see a warm and fuzzy side of “cranky” Dave that hasn’t always been evident, but feels genuine at this juncture. It’s a professional act that’s worth emulating.

No. 6: Get ready to answer those annoying “What’s next?” questions

Beyond plans to attend the Indy 500, Letterman has said he has no firm retirement plans and is fine with that. But he’s annoyed by the constant queries about his next act.

As he confided to pal Regis Philbin on a recent show: “I’ll tell you something, I can’t wait for it to happen because I am sick and tired of people saying, ‘Well, what are you going to do? What are you going to do?’” Letterman then added: “I have no idea what I’m going to do.”

No. 5: It’s okay to take a well-deserved — and long — career intermission

As part of his farewell season, Letterman recently hosted President Obama on his show and the two playfully discussed their retirement plans. The President suggested they should play dominoes together or hang out at Starbucks, adding that he planned to take a month off after leaving office. An incredulous Letterman replied: “Are you kidding me? After eight years of this, you’re only taking a month off?”

With all due respect to the President, Letterman has a point. There’s tremendous value in indulging in a period of nothingness before moving on to your next act, whatever that turns out to be.

It’s interesting to note that according to the 2014 Merrill Lynch/Age Wave survey, Work in Retirement: Myths and Motivations, 52 percent of working retirees took an average of 2 ½ years to enjoy a career intermission before returning to part-time work.

While a few years might not be realistic for everyone — especially if you need to earn some income — even a break of a few months can help you recharge and get refreshed.

No. 4: Don’t let retirement become a default for doing things you don’t want to do

Once people no longer have a full-time job, they run the risk of not having an excuse to say “no” to requests they’d prefer declining (you know, such as joining the local men’s club or having weekly lunches with your mother-in-law).

Recent guest Tina Fey urged Letterman to avoid this trap. “The one thing I’ll warn you about is all the things that you got out of doing because you were working all the time are going to come haunt you now,” she said, using New York’s star-studded Met Gala as an example of a dreaded social obligation she tries to avoid.

After Letterman assured her he wouldn’t be going to the gala, Fey jokingly responded: “You’re going next year, and you’re going to wear a red leather dress.”

No. 3: Temper your expectations of significant others

One of Letterman’s only retirement goals, he has noted, is to spend more time with his 11-year-old son, Harry. But when he told Harry that they’d soon have more time together, Letterman said Harry’s response was: “I’d like to spend more time in school.”

Harry’s reaction serves as a good reminder that just because you’re thrilled by the prospect of having newfound free time to hang out with your spouse, kids or grandkids, doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll share your enthusiasm. Remember: they had their own lives before your retirement and they’ll continue to do so.

No. 2: Take care of your health

As you might recall, Letterman shocked viewers back in 2000 with the announcement that he needed quintuple bypass surgery. So the fact that he is still here and getting ready to retire is a bit of a medical miracle.

An avid runner before his surgery, Letterman continues to run religiously and makes his health a priority. It’s an important reminder for us all, that without our health, nothing else matters.

And the No. 1 Lesson From Letterman’s Retirement… Trust in your future

People often experience a roller coaster of emotions as they approach retirement. It’s normal. But as Letterman shared in his New York Times interview, most changes are full of trepidation.

“When I left Indiana and moved to California. When Regina and I decided to have a baby — enormous anxiety and trepidation,” he said. “Those are the two biggest things in my life, and they worked out beyond my wildest dreams.”

And then he added: “I’m pretending the same thing will happen now. I’ll miss it (the show), desperately. One of two things: There will be reasonable, adult acceptance of transition. Or I will turn to a life of crime.”

Well said, Dave. Godspeed and keep on running, wherever the road may lead.

Read more from Next Avenue:
6 beliefs that sabotage your health
Watch what happens when this couple ages 70 years
Does your neighborhood hurt your health?

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