Update: Service is now fully restored according to Facebook.
Facebook has been down for at least an hour for some users, according to reports on social media and downrightnow. The outage has affected some but not all users of the platform, with an informal survey of TechCrunch staffers revealing that those outside the U.S. and attempting to connect via the desktop site are most likely to encounter errors, though reports from U.S. users are indicating errors, too.
Facebook is showing an error message on its login page that says the site is down for “required maintenance,” and that it should be back “within a few minutes.” They provide a link to an article that reassures users that despite the inability to access their account, their actual profile and stored information won’t be affected and service will resume shortly.
We’ve reached out to Facebook for an ETA on full service restoration and will update when we hear back. Update: FB provided the following statement:
Some people are currently having trouble signing into Facebook. We’re working to restore access as quickly as possible for those affected, and we’re sorry for the inconvenience.
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/pvzkqixW6yM/
Editor’s Note: Chris Tyrrell is the chief executive of OfferBoard Group, and Chair of the industry trade association CFIRA.
Earlier this week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a new set of rules implementing Title IV of the JOBS Act.
These changes affect Regulation A small public offerings, and are colloquially referred to as “Reg A+”.
The release of these final rules further advances one of the core principles and goals of the 2012 law: to create an environment where emerging enterprises can raise public capital efficiently.
The rules approved by SEC commissioners on Wednesday lift the ceiling on the amount of capital a business can raise in a Regulation A offering from $5 million to $50 million, split into two “Tiers” — up to $20 million in 12 months (Tier 1) and up to $50 million in 12 months (Tier 2). Companies raising less than $20 million will have a choice between Tier 1 and Tier 2.
These are public offerings, much like a traditional IPO, but the regulatory burden on the company making the offering is lower, both when the shares are being sold and afterwards.
Certain Regulation A+ companies, which meet shareholder limits or revenue and public float caps, will avoid the SEC’s standard reporting regime – Forms 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and proxy statements, and such companies are also exempt from many onerous “public company” rules, including Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) and more esoteric burdens such as rules relating to disclosure of the use of “conflict minerals”.
Every investor, whether accredited or unaccredited, will be able to participate in these offerings.
This is welcome news to small and medium sized enterprises striving to raise capital, but which lack access to high net worth investors or institutions. Reg A will open many more offerings in growing companies to everyone, which will increase capital formation and grow jobs and the economy.
One of the most controversial and important provisions of the new Reg A rules is federal preemption of state review of these offerings, under state rules known as “Blue Sky” laws.
Previously, each company had to individually register their Reg A offerings in every state where their securities were offered. This administrative burden was in addition to required registration with the SEC, and resulted in very few Reg A offerings ever being made. Now, under Tier 2 of Reg A, only SEC review is required, significantly reducing this administrative burden for businesses.
During the drafting process, the SEC has been concerned with how the new rules will protect investors – particularly unaccredited investors –- while remaining simple and streamlined enough to encourage capital formation.
Some have attributed the delay in JOBS Act rule-making to the difficult task of resolving these potentially countervailing interests. The final rules struck a balance here, requiring companies to file their Reg A offerings with the SEC several weeks before the first sale. This gives state regulators time to utilize the filings to identify potential problems.
Reg A offerings are not new — this small offering exemption has been available since the Securities Act of 1933 first became law. But the number of offerings qualified by the SEC dwindled in recent years, from 57 in 1998 to only 1 in 2011.
This week’s changes are intended to blow off the dust that had gathered on this sparsely used capital formation tool, and get it out of the regulatory muck. On May 25, the rules will become effective and emerging growth companies around the country will have a new “A+” tool in their capital arsenal.
Below is a table comparing some of the provisions of Tier I and Tier II under Reg A:
Comparison Of Tier I And Tier II Regulations
* The content of any solicitation must fit within the “test-the-water” requirements or be in the form of a Preliminary Offering Circular.
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/SOER8cayOpw/
In early 2011, Skype bought a mobile video startup called Qik, which had developed an app that let mobile users record and stream videos in real-time which others could be alerted to and then view. If that description sounds similar to the newly hot live-streaming apps Meerkat and Periscope, it’s because the overall concept introduced then is not all that far off from what’s happening today on these new platforms. But what’s different this time around are these apps’ potential to reach the mainstream.
Welcome to the era of the live stream.
When Qik was acquired, the company had grown its user base to 5 million – not a bad showing in the early days of mobile, where still apps catered to a largely more technical crowd and hadn’t yet found their ways in the hands of grandmas and teenagers and everyone in between. As with today’s live-streaming apps, Qik offered a way for users to instantly share their world with others, but like many things that bubble up in this industry, it was a concept that arrived too soon.
Qik faced a number of challenges during its day, not only in growing its user base, but it also had to overcome technical hurdles, as well. For example, Apple even once blocked all apps that were doing live video recording, if you can believe that, because they initially had to take advantage of a restricted screen capture API in order to function. Meanwhile, the mobile networks themselves were unprepared for the massive use of data that the iPhone was delivering, which sometimes led to the degradation of the shared streams.
Technology advances have solved most of the challenges with regard to the roadblocks involved with recording and sharing live video with a touch of a button. We’ve seen the results already, as people raised their phones during events like the Occupy Protests or Arab Spring.
But these new live-streaming services push things forward yet again.
And they won’t only succeed because the tech now works better.
We’re Comfortable Living In Public
More importantly, our cultural mindset has changed to the point where we’re ready to embrace this sort of public performance. Meanwhile, as viewers, the smartphone’s ubiquity means we all have an easy way to tap into these ongoing streams from anywhere.
— Barbarian Capital (@BarbarianCap) March 26, 2015
To the former point, social media has trained us over the years to not be able to see something of interest without feeling motivated to share it.
Whether that’s a beautiful sunset or a raging fire, like the one that ravaged a building in New York on Periscope’s launch day, many people’s first instinct is to whip out their smartphone. It’s not just the Facebook and Instagram “likes,” or the tweets and retweets that have led to this psychological reconditioning, though they’ve certainly contributed to this behavior. It’s that these apps have made us feel less alone in the world – by sharing our lives we feel better connected to others. And some would argue that seeking connection is a cornerstone of the human condition.
One could also argue that the motivation can turn chilling at times – we pull out our phones and record when we should be offering help. We broadcast what we see as bystanders, cameras pointed outward, while entirely self-focused in the process. Live streaming’s move to become a mainstream activity could make that problem worse than it is today, of course, and we as a society should remain vigilant to combat our narcissistic tendencies.
But the potential for these new apps, Periscope and Meerkat and others like them, goes beyond our immediate desire to record and share. We have other means for that, after all, including apps like YouTube, Vine, or Instagram, for example, as well as Twitter itself and Facebook.
The Live Broadcast, Reimagined
With live streaming, there’s also a sense of being able to pick up a phone to instantly fight back against the existing establishments, whether that’s the brutality and militarization of the police, or even just the traditional news outlets who these days turn tragic events into sensationalized stories. Their need to provide 24/7 coverage has turned once trusted news sources into platforms for punditry, talking heads and misinformation.
The younger generation, especially, is poised to embrace alternative means of accessing the news in ways that stretch far beyond simply tuning into the “evening broadcast.” Live streaming is but one example. They’re reading stories in their social feeds – digesting content told in bite-sized format via services like NowThisNews or Snapchat Discover. And the newly announced HBO-VICE deal, which will bring a daily news cast to HBO’s channel (which is also now breaking free of its ties to cable TV), is all about the destruction of the anchor desk.
We’re ready for the new news, and that’s the promise that Periscope, Meerkat and whatever else comes next delivers. News told as first-hand streams: this is what I’m seeing, you can see it too. And with the traditional news journalist removed from the action. It’s the next logical step beyond the tweet, or the tweeted photo. It’s the hundreds of potential cameras live on the scene before the media truck arrives. It’s the citizens’ right to record materialized.
Software Needs Improvement Ahead Of Mainstream Adoption
That said, today’s platforms are far from perfect as it stands now. There’s no good way to find the important streams among those which feature someone recording their lunch – Twitter’s often-cited reputation for banality and self-involvement again rearing its ugly head. The streams on Meerkat offer no replay button. You can’t tweet links to streams. Periscope’s web view only points people to an app download. You can’t search streams by keyword. Streams don’t have their own “trends” section to help you find what’s catching flame. Push notifications are overwhelming and impossible.
In other words, while the live-streaming apps of the earlier era had to fight to make their services work while facing often-hardware based technological challenges, today’s apps have to make their systems work at the software level. They need better user interfaces, expanded but simplified feature sets, and their content needs to be accessible from any platform, both as the live stream it began as, and the recorded video that came after.
These technical and design challenges, however, are all that stand in the way of live streaming being used only by the early adopter, highly mobile crowd, and being a mainstream activity, as commonplace as a status update and just as simple to produce. And these days, change happens quickly.
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/V4yG_moih1s/
It’s hard to believe, after how far the gay rights movement has come, that we’re still doing this. But here we are.
Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Pence has signed into law a bill that allows private businesses to discriminate against gay and lesbian consumers, according to CNN. The “Restoration of Religious Freedom Act” is meant to allow businesses and corporations to cite “religious beliefs” as a defense, should they be sued by a private party for discrimination.
This of course means that Gov. Pence and the state of Indiana are prioritizing the religious beliefs of a company or corporation (after all, corporations are people!) over the basic human rights of a gay person.
Right on queue, tech industry titans have swooped in to decry the move, led by Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff.
Benioff tweeted yesterday that Salesforce would be canceling all programs that require customers or employees to travel to Indiana. Currently, Salesforce employs around 3,000 people in Indiana and holds conferences in the state that see upwards of 8,000 attendees, the removal of which will undoubtedly have an impact on Indiana’s economy.
Today we are canceling all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination. http://t.co/SvTwyCHxvE
— Marc Benioff (@Benioff) March 26, 2015
In an interview with Re/code, Benioff said this:
We’ve made significant investments in Indiana. We run major marketing events and conferences there. We’re a major source of income and revenue to the state of Indiana, but we simply cannot support this kind of legislation.
But Benioff was just the beginning.
Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman voiced his opinion in an open letter posted to the Yelp! blog. In it, he says that “it is unconscionable to imagine that Yelp would create, maintain, or expand a significant business presence in any state that encouraged discrimination by businesses against our employees, or consumers at large.”
Serial entrepreneur, PayPal founder and Yelp investor Max Levchin also blasted the bill on social media.
What is happening in Indiana is pretty unbelievable. However it’s dressed up, it’s a signal that discrimination is welcome in this state.
— Max Levchin (@mlevchin) March 26, 2015
This isn’t the first time that this type of legislation has gone through state governments, nor will it be the last. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a similar bill last year, but the same fate has not played out in Indiana, where Governor Mike Pence is said to be considering a presidential bid for the 2016 election. Meanwhile, other states (like Arkansas) are lining up to enact similar laws.
The tech world has long been a proponent of the gay rights movement, from its infancy in San Francisco, where both gay rights and Silicon Valley grew up together. But it’s not only the tech world that is reacting.
Star Trek actor and LGBT activist George Takei tweeted out the #BoycottIndiana hashtag yesterday upon hearing the news.
— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) March 26, 2015
What’s interesting is that it’s not just the CEOs of technology companies that fight for gay rights, but the technology itself that allows these debates to be had in real-time, across the globe, with millions of participants’ voices being heard.
Update: Tim Cook has weighed in on the matter with this tweet:
Apple is open for everyone. We are deeply disappointed in Indiana’s new law and calling on Arkansas Gov. to veto the similar #HB1228.
— Tim Cook (@tim_cook) March 27, 2015
Featured Image: NYC Pride
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/5-53ooCWHCc/
With Twitter’s much more polished live-streaming app Periscope now on the market, Meerkat needs to strengthen its own social graph to keep users from straying to its new competitor. So today Meerkat for iOS was updated with recommendations of people to follow, a way to follow people from inside streams, and ways to discover streams your friends like. It’s also trying to neutralize some Periscope talking points like Meerkat being too publicly chatty by letting users opt out of syndicating their comments to Twitter.
Meerkat founder Ben Rubin tells me the features are designed “to overcome the fact that we don’t have access to users’ Twitter social graph. This is just the first step. ”
Periscope and Meerkat have some distinct differences, like Periscope’s optional replays and private streams versus Meerkat’s always-public forced ephemerality. Still, they’re definitely fighting for a similar audience.
Periscope is largely thought to be a better product, with design flourishes and extra features. But as we saw with Facebook’s attempt to clone Snapchat with the more full-featured Poke, it’s a lot easier to build functionality than community.
Periscope could have run away with the live-streaming race if it had only launched a month ago. Instead, Meerkat burst on the scene and built an early user base of techies, plus some web stars and legitimate celebrities. It quickly became synonymous with real-time, mobile live streaming.
Yet Periscope was building community, too, just more stealthily. It was in beta testing for months with top Silicon Valley founders and investors before launching yesterday. Thanks to its acquisition by Twitter, it got access to a prestigious network of early adopters.
Periscope also got help from Twitter’s VIP relations team. I’ve heard that the same squad tasked with getting top celebrities to tweet incessantly was also helping get Periscope into the right hands. And the rumor according to one source is that Twitter was actively telling celebrities not to use Meerkat and wait for Periscope to come out over the last few weeks.
Yahoo reports that stars like Sophia Bush, Mark Cuban, Al Roker and iJustine were all on the beta. Already, a ton of social media stars like John Shahidi, Rudy Mancuso, King Bach, and Lele Pons are appearing in Periscopes. Whichever app recruits these new media celebrities with massive followings could in turn sign up their legions of fans.
Here’s a video demo of how Periscope works
Now, Meerkat is scrambling to rebuild itself as an app separate from Twitter. Originally, Meerkat relied entirely on Twitter for its identity, link distribution and communication systems. Then, two weeks ago, Twitter cut off Meerkat’s ability to let users auto-follow everyone they follow on Twitter.
Before, Meerkat could just piggyback on Twitter’s discovery features, but now it needs its own way for people to find who to follow, hence today’s update.
The question is whether Meerkat has built a stable and loyal enough social graph that it can survive competition from a more refined live-streaming app backed by Twitter. Periscope has made remarkable gains in terms of community over the last 36 hours. At this rate, Periscope could run wild while caging Meerkat as just an app for Twitter-haters.
Each day, the momentum behind mobile live streaming as a new creation canvas builds. While plenty called Meerkat a fad when it first launched, the ability to instantly peer through someone else’s eyes seems to have enduring value. The fate of this re-emerging medium could be decided in the coming weeks.
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/V1S0hpdr_aE/
Updated: After several days of deliberations, a San Francisco Superior Court jury has come to a conclusion in Ellen Pao Vs. Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers, the gender discrimination trial that began with a lawsuit filed in May 2012 and culminated this past month in a closely watched five-week-long courtroom trial.
The jury has ruled “no” on all four claims Pao leveled against Kleiner Perkins. This is a unequivocal finding in favor of Kleiner Perkins.
Just as a refresher, since there have been a lot of details bandied about these past few weeks, Pao’s complaint boiled down to four claims. Here they are in question form, along with the jury’s answers on them:
- Was Ellen Pao’s gender a substantial motivating reason for Kleiner Perkins’ not promoting her to the levels of senior partner as well as general partner? [This is the gender discrimination element to the case.] Jury answer: NO
- Were Pao’s conversations in December 2011 and/or her January 4th 2012 memo to John Doerr, in which she complained about the alleged gender discrimination she encountered at the firm, a substantial motivating reason for her not being promoted to senior partner and general partner? [This is the retaliation part of the case.] Jury answer: No
- Did Kleiner Perkins fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent gender discrimination against Ellen Pao? Jury answer: An automatic NO, since it could only be answered if jurors answered yes to question 1 — after all, if there were no gender discrimination, the question would be moot.
- Were Pao’s conversations in December 2011 and/or her January 4th 2012 memo and/or her filing of this lawsuit a substantial motivating reason for Kleiner Perkins’ decision to terminate Pao’s employment in October 2012? [This is also under retaliation.] Jury Answer: NO
You can see the official verdict form as it was filled out by the jury here.
Pao’s legal team was asking for approximately $16 million in lost income, and stood to receive an additional $144 million in punitive damages. Now that Pao has lost, she must pay part of Kleiner’s trial bills, including its expert witness fees.
A false alarm
This final verdict came at approximately 4:30pm Pacific Time, after one major false alarm. The press was initially called to the courthouse for a 2:00pm Pacific Time verdict reading, which was at first also “No” on all four claims. But when the judge individually asked for each of the juror’s rulings verbally, he found that the fourth claim, on whether Pao’s termination from Kleiner Perkins was an act of retaliation for filing the lawsuit, had reached only an 8-4 ruling. Each claim had to reach a consensus from at least 9 jurors.
It seemed at first that this was a simple math mistake. But it turns out that one of the jurors had changed his decision between the deliberations and the verdict reading, without telling the others (there is buzz that several jurors turned their heads in surprise upon hearing a “yes” from one of the male jurors on the fourth claim, though we didn’t see that from our vantage point.) The jury was then escorted out of the courtroom to continue deliberations, and the audience was ordered back into the hallway.
After nearly two hours of additional deliberations, the jury returned to the courtroom with a final verdict of “No” on the fourth claim. The first two claims had a jury consensus of 10 to 2, and the fourth claim was at 9 to 3 (the third claim was not eligible for a vote, since the consensus on claim one was no.)
Statements from Kleiner and Pao
Kleiner Perkins has released the following statement on the verdict:
“Today’s verdict reaffirms that Ellen Pao’s claims have no legal merit. We are grateful to the jury for its careful examination of the facts. There is no question gender diversity in the workplace is an important issue. KPCB remains committed to supporting women in venture capital and technology both inside our firm and within our industry.”
Ellen Pao also held a short press conference in which she read a statement. You can read about that, and see video of her remarks, here.
You can read all of TechCrunch’s posts about the Pao Vs. Kleiner trial here, or by clicking the banner below.
And that’s all — we’ve left the courthouse, which has been shut for the day. Thanks for watching, and we’ll have more updates and analysis in the days ahead.
Only two jurors have agreed to speak to the press — one who voted no on all claims, and one who voted yes on all four claims. We’re in a room at the Courthouse as these two jurors tell the press why they voted the ways that they did.
We’re ushered to another room in the court to hear Kleiner’s statement.
KPCB’s lawyer Lynn Hermle calls it “a long difficult trial.” The lawyers, and peanut gallery are told to leave the room. One juror elects to take the back door.
Juror #2: “I think we had a lot of issues that we were very close on. It was very difficult to split on those situations. We did the best we could as twelve total strangers with different perspectives.”
Juror #6 calls the trial decision “One of the post difficult decisions he’s ever made” and said he made the decision based on the “evidence presented.”
The jurors are free to leave. Ellen Pao is giving a statement outside. A juror thanks Judge Kahn for making this as “pleasant as you can for $3.50 a day.”
Judge Kahn is talking to the jury about speaking to press. If they don’t want to speak to press, they don’t have to. They are now free to speak to anyone about the case.
The case against KPCB is dismissed on all claims. Again.
Juror 12, on the fourth claim: No.
Juror 11, on the fourth claim: Yes.
Juror 10, on the fourth claim: No.
Juror 9, on the fourth claim: No.
Juror 8, on the fourth claim: No.
Juror 7, on the fourth claim: No.
Juror 6, on the fourth claim: No.
Juror 5, on the fourth claim: Yes.
Juror 4, on the fourth claim: No.
Juror 3, on the fourth claim: No.
Juror 2, on the fourth claim: Yes.
Juror 1, on the fourth claim: No.
Jury files in. Hopefully, the last time they have to see each other.
Judge is back in and wearing his robe again. He had taken it off while answering the jury question. We are back in business. Jury hasn’t filed in yet.
“Someone has lost a cellphone. Black with burgundy trim.” It’s announced in court. The woman who lost it rushes outside.
We have a verdict (again)! being summoned back into room now.
You could not have written a more dramatic climax here, with the entire courtroom in limbo as the jury tries to sway one person. There are 20 minutes left on time.
And now we have to leave again.
No verdict yet, this is a jury question. They’re asking for clarification on the fourth count, the retaliation question.
And we’re back in.
https://twitter.com/SFSuperiorCourt/status/581589962761445376 Apparently the jury has a question, according to the SF Superior Court’s Twitter account.
Still waiting. The guy who has been sleeping throughout the entire trial is still sleeping as we wait. Here is a drawing of him by courtroom artist Vicki Behringer (Courtroomartist.com).
Fun fact, the third claim is directly tied to claim #1, so it wasn’t ruled on at all.
We could be here for a while. On the rest of the claims, the jury had a 10:2 ratio. On the fourth claim, it was 8:4. That means they need to bring one person over to the “no” side, or five people over to the “yes” side.
Looking for more court-related reading while you wait? Here is a post by a lawyer about why the jury members aren’t Googling this (or any) case http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/27/thou-shalt-not-google/
We are all still waiting here in the hallway! FYI, the court has typically adjourned at 4:30 throughout the trial, and often earlier on Fridays.
We’ve just heard from a source that KPCB expects the verdicts on the first two claims to stand, no matter what happens with the fourth claim. Jury is still out on the fourth claim, literally. But the other three should hold. “Partial verdict” is what the hallway chatter is calling it.
Here was Kleiner’s spin on the firing at the time: http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/03/not-so-fast-kleiner-perkins-says-it-did-not-fire-ellen-pao-looking-to-facilitate-her-transition-out/
Scenes from outside the courtroom. This is pretty much how everyone, but especially the jury is feeling right now.
While we’re waiting we can take a stroll down memory lane! Here is the TechCrunch post about Pao’s termination: http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/03/eileen-pao-is-out-at-kleiner-perkins-tells-quora-that-she-was-fired-as-discrimination-case-continues/
The claim in question is whether or not Kleiner Perkins retaliated against Pao when they fired her in October 2012, about five months after she filed her lawsuit. Anecdotally, many courtroom watchers have said in recent days that that may have been the strongest of all four claims.
Just to confirm here everybody: There is no verdict yet. A dispute on one of the four claims puts a hold all the entire ruling.
2:44pm … False alarm as we’re almost led back into the courtroom. There are over 50 people waiting outside to get back in, including press, lawyers, the courtroom artist and sundry lookyloos.
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/eaenNSglGtg/
When you discover you've some ugly, scar like marks to the thighs, your breasts, or sometimes from the stomach, you will need realize lots of people to burn How To Get Rid Of Stretch Marks Fast these marks saving physique from creating ever again of parents. As well as one of the numerous stretchmark lotions which are usually within the market and Stretch Marks Cream you'll utilizing eradicate and quit Stretch Mark Cream new marks Stretch Marks Cream from forming.
1. Vitamin E
Vitamin E lotion will ?Stretch Marks Cream allow help your skin softer and healthier, nevertheless it planning to dispose of or avoid the ugly marks you How To Get Rid Of Stretch Marks Fast could completely. Idleness and definitely will keeping your skin good and healthy, though it is not the cure you want. Actually a thing that continues discusses great deal and some believe that it is any cure, however it won't Stretch Mark Removal be.
2. Cocoa Stretch Mark Removal Cream Butter
Another How To Get Rid Of Stretch Marks the most named stretch mark lotions since you can try is cocoa How To Get Rid Of Stretch Marks butter. Some women affirm cocoa butter Stretch Mark Removal Cream and it's used to Best Stretch Mark Cream perform per many, however, it just isn't going to do what will you expect to see it to perform. Is'nt solution for these particular ugly marks, although is great for your skin and another you may need use.
3. Real stretchmark how do you get rid of stretch marks lotions
A real lotion which would work most likely be 100% natural and will certainly outcomes may be after. Will probably be alleged to enable you to the utter discomfort Stretch Marks Removal Stretch Mark Cream you are usually after and you can now How To Get Rid Of Stretch Marks not anymore should having How To Get Rid Of Stretch Marks Fast any ugly how do you get rid of stretch marks marks while having breasts, your thighs, or perhaps your stomach. A Best Stretch Mark Cream lotion designed Stretch Mark Cream specifically for this will not only limit the current marks, and often will prevent any future marks as well as.