Shared posts
Presbyterian assembly: Gay marriage is Christian
Starbucks degree program not as simple as it seems
2nd officer suspended in slitting of dog's throat
Horse rescued after falling in Va. pool
News: Scratch Fury Dicebag - Preorder
You Can’t Just Patent An Idea — You Actually Have To Make A Thing, Supreme Court Rules
The Supreme Court today issued rulings on a handful of cases. One was about two companies nobody’s ever really heard of, arguing over patents for software to manage banking transactions. The details of the patents themselves, and the transactions they deal with, are kind of complicated and insidery — but they’re also not necessarily that important. The broader implications of the ruling, and the legal precedent the Court set with it, though, will have an impact for years to come.
What was the actual case before the Court?
The case is Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. It all started over ten years ago: Alice owned patents on certain computer programs for managing risk in financial trades. CLS started to use a similar technology to solve the same risk problem. Alice said: you can’t do that, we have a patent and we will sue your pants off. CLS said: you can’t patent an idea, we’ll sue you. Lower courts sided with CLS about the validity of Alice’s patents. After many years of suits and appeals, the case came to the Supreme Court and they heard arguments on it in March.
Specifically, the legal question the Court was looking at was “[w]hether claims to computer-implemented inventions—including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture—are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Back in English, that question more or less is: can software and computer processes be patented under this section of patent law as currently written and understood?
What was the Court’s ruling?
The Court ruled 9-0 (PDF) to affirm the lower court’s finding that Alice’s patents on the financial software were not valid. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion, with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor concurring. They found that the particular kind of risk mitigation that Alice held the patents for was an abstract idea, and as such, not eligible for patent.
The justices differentiated ideas from execution, writing:
The Court has long held that §101 [of patent law] … contains an implicit exception for ‘laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. … In applying the exception, this Court must distinguish patents that claim the ‘building blocks’ of human ingenuity, which are ineligible for patent protection, from those that integrate the building blocks into something more.
So did this undo patents on software?
No. At least, not entirely. Some software patents, on review, may not hold up to the new legal standard. However, patents that still show actual human legwork are still fine. Basically, it’s a narrowing of the category of “invention.” Just saying, “Let’s do something we’ve always done, but use a computer for it” doesn’t clear that bar. Showing how your idea, plan, code, or product is creative and inventive — something you actually made or thought up — keeps it eligible for patent.
Who does this ruling affect?
Most of the largest companies in the country, for starters. Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and a ton of others filed briefs in the case, as did the EFF and the ACLU. For once, though, the advocacy groups and the corporations were more or less on the same side. Though they had different legal arguments and different personal priorities, they all basically agreed that software patents should be limited.
For companies, narrowing the field of patentable software allows them to keep making stuff, and prevents them from having to spend time dealing with lawsuits from patent trolls. For advocates, narrowing the field of patentable software allows more developers and potential innovators to, well, keep making stuff, and to prevent getting sued by larger corporations. And patent trolls find themselves without a way to keep being a nuisance to the world at large. Kind of a win/win all around.
But the devil’s in the details, right?
As always. This case exists not in isolation but in a pattern of other cases. The Court has been gradually narrowing the scope of what can be patented since about 2005, as Vox points out, and the Alice finding is right in line there. But it also doesn’t draw a definitive, clear line in the sand.
As Gigaom explains, instead of creating a bright line, the Court proposes a new way of looking at patents: a relatively simple two-part test. First: does the patent cover an abstract idea that isn’t patentable? And second: if it does, are there new, inventive steps involved making the idea unique enough to patent?
The trick, for the Court, was to look at a way to limit patent trolls while also protecting legitimate inventors. But it’s a huge uphill battle; over 40,000 software patents are issued every year.
Tech and legal experts agree that patentability and software patents will almost certainly wind up before the Supreme Court again in the future at some point, because of the sheer number of them and because the Court has issued fairly narrow rulings each time the matter comes up, leaving the window open for stricter readings in the future.
Got it! But I don’t work in computers or IT. Why does this matter to me?
Because in 2014, pretty much everything you use is somehow driven by software. Sure, there are actual computer programs and mobile apps, but it’s more than that. Traffic lights and the cars that drive through them are software-driven. Consumer products from TVs to iPhone power adapters to wristwatches and coffeemakers have code controlling them. So, too, does physical infrastructure like the electric grid and virtual infrastructure like the entire financial system.
The ability of individuals and companies to create new software innovations is crucial to almost every field. Patent trolls have been claiming ownership of abstract, general ideas to game the system and turn a buck. That wastes time and resources and increases costs for everyone up and down the line — including, in the end, consumers.
Microsoft, Google To Introduces “Kill-Switch” Function As Report Shows The Deterrent Cuts Thefts
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced today that both Microsoft and Google have made commitments to install kill switch technology, while at the same time touting a decrease in phone thefts following the implementation of Apple’s theft deterrent technology last year.
In a blog post Thursday, officials with Microsoft say the new feature will build on the capabilities of the “Find My Phone” program currently available on Windows phones and will be offered as an update for all phones running Windows 8.0 and newer.
With implementation of the anti-theft feature, consumers will be able to remotely erase personal data from their smartphone, render the phone inoperable by unauthorized users, prevent reactivation or setup of the phone and reverse the inoperability if they recover their phone.
Officials with Google tell the Associated Press that the next version of Android will include “a factory reset protection solution to help deter smartphone theft.”
Both Google and Microsoft signed a voluntary agreement promising to include such anti-theft tools in their products back in April. Under the agreement, manufacturers had until July 2015 to create preloaded or readily available by download theft deterrents.
Thursday also marked the release of a report [PDF] by state attorneys general, prosecutors, police and other officials from around the country that highlighted the stark difference a kill switch makes when it comes to phone thefts.
In 2013, an estimated 3.1 phones were stolen nationally, costing consumers nearly $2.6 billion. Those number are likely to drop now that the “Secure Our Smartphones” initiative found that Apple’s introduction of the “Activation Lock” feature dramatically decreased number of phone thefts reported.
In just the first five months of 2014, robberies and grand larcenies in New York involving Apple products dropped 19% and 29%, respectively. Statistics from San Francisco show a similar outcome, with iPhone robberies declining 38%.
However, the report found that at the same time that thefts of products without kill switches increased. In New York robberies and grand larcenies involving Samsung smartphones increased over 40%. In San Francisco thefts of those devices increased by 12%.
While the findings were an improvement to previous theft statistics, officials say there is more to do.
“We can make the violent epidemic of smartphone theft a thing of the past, and these numbers prove that,” San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón says in a news release. “It was evident from day one that a technological solution was not only possible, but that it would serve as an effective deterrent to this growing threat.”
Crime data show iPhone ‘kill switch’ cuts thefts [The Associated Press]
A.G. Schneiderman And D.A. Gascón Announce That Google And Microsoft Will Include A Smartphone Kill Switch In Next Operating Systems [Attorney General Eric Schnedierman]
Please, Please, Please: Do Not Leave Your Children In Hot, Locked Cars
This year’s reminder comes on the heels of a recent tragedy in Atlanta, where a 22-month-old toddler died this week after reportedly being forgotten in a hot car for more than eight hours, reports WFSB.com.
Police said the man was supposed to drop his child off at daycare, but forgot, and instead drove to work at 9 a.m. yesterday morning and left the child in the backseat. When he started driving home later that day, he noticed his kid still strapped into the car seat and unresponsive.
A witness said he saw the man drive into a parking lot, jump out and begin CPR on the toddler.
“He was constantly saying, ‘What have I done, what have I done,’” the witness told the news station.
By then it was too late, however. Police have now charged the man with murder and cruelty to children in the first degree, reports The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
While temperatures in Atlanta topped 90 degrees on Wednesday, the temperature inside the car could go as high as 130 to 140 degrees in just a few hours. Even with a window or two cracked, it still isn’t safe.
Once again, some tips from Consumer Reports to ensure against any chance of forgetting your child in the car:
• Never leave a child unattended in a vehicle, not even for a minute. In addition to being dangerous, it is the law in many states.
• Check the car to make sure that all occupants leave the vehicle or are carried out when unloading. If you lock the door with a key, rather than with a remote, it would force that one last look in the car before leaving it.
• Always lock your car and keep keys and remotes away from children.
• Keep a stuffed animal in the front passenger seat as a reminder of a child in the backseat.
• Place something in the backseat that you would need, such as a purse, briefcase or cell phone.
• Have a plan that your childcare provider will call you if your child does not show up.
• If you see a child alone in a car, especially if they seem hot, call 911 immediately to help get them out.
Toddler dies after being left in hot car for 8 hours [WFSB.com]
Father charged with murder in toddler’s death [The Atlanta Journal Constitution]
McDonald’s Must Pay $10,000 To Employee Fired For Reporting Gas Leak
(MPD01605)
Now the McDonald’s franchisee has been ordered to pay the former employee $10,000 after it was determined the worker was illegally fired for calling 911 to report a gas leak at the restaurant, Democrat & Chronicle reports.
An investigation by the New York Attorney General’s office found that on April 8, 2013, a part-time worker made multiple attempts to report a gas leak. However, when his supervisors did not address the issue, he called the local fire department.
Upon arrival, authorities determined there was a gas leak and temporarily closed the restaurant. While firefighters were repairing the leak the employee was fired.
Under New York Labor laws, employers are forbidden from retaliating against an employee for reporting to a supervisor or to the authorities when an employer violates a law that posed substantial and specific danger to public healthy and safety. The gas leak was also a violation of provisions of the New York State Fire Code, among other things, the Attorney General’s office reports.
The $10,000 payment represents 18 months of part-time, minimum wages for the employee. In addition to the restitution, the franchisee must create and implement procedures for complaints, and investigation of complaints, regarding health and safety in its restaurants.
“It’s outrageous that an employee would be terminated for contacting the local authorities about a serious safety risk. He should be thanked, not fired,” Attorney General Schneiderman says in a news release.
McDonald’s franchisee fined $10K for firing worker [Democrat & Chronicle]
Best Western Turns Away Family With Service Dog, Waits A Week To Fix Problem
We’re guessing that no one at Best Western is checking the hotel chain’s Facebook page today, as it’s full up with people angry that the company not only denied a room to a family with a service animal, but then waited a week to try to make good on its mistake.
WAFB-TV in Baton Rouge reports that a family from North Carolina had recently made a reservation to for a single night at a Best Western in the Louisiana city.
But when the mom took the unnecessary step of giving the hotel the heads-up about the service animal that accompanies their 13-year-old epileptic son, they received an e-mail back saying they could not be accommodated.
“He’s a seizure response dog for my son,” the mom tells WAFB, explaining that the teen has a rare type of epilepsy called Landau-Kleffner Syndrome and that the dog will alert others when a seizure occurs.
Hoping that the hotel had misread her message and thought she was bringing a pet, the mom — who happens to be an attorney — spoke to someone at the front desk to point out that turning them away would be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
She claims that the hotel worker said she knew about the ADA but that she couldn’t go against the orders of the hotel’s owner.
Her complaint to Best Western’s corporate office resulted in a response and a promise to honor the reservation, but the family had already done what any sensible person would do — take their business elsewhere.
“I don’t want to go to a hotel where I have to force them to follow the law,” says the mom.
Can A Harley Be A Harley Without All The Noise? Company Introduces Its First Electric Motorcycle
(Harley-Davidson)
In a YouTube video introducing the bike, dubbed Project LiveWire by Harley, the motorcycle sounds like some kind of tiny jet plane, a kind of zippy, futuristic whirr, instead of that deep-in-your-gut rumble.
That’s just one aspect our colleagues at Consumer Reports feel is worth mentioning, along with the fact that without an extensive network of chargers to juice up the machines after about 130 miles (with a 30-60 minute charging process), the electric bikes will likely be a tough sell for now.
The motorcycles will be shown off with demo models next week at an event in New York, reports the Associated Press, after which Harley will take a bunch of riders on a 30-city tour to test drive the bikes and see how they’re received.
It’ll still likely be several more years before the hogs hit the market, however, in what will prove to be a big test for the company. Full-size electric motorcycles aren’t exactly a hot market right now, but Harley says it’s trying to think in the long-term instead of just focus on immediate demand.
“We think that the trends in both EV technology and customer openness to EV products, both automotive and motorcycles, is only going to increase, and when you think about sustainability and environmental trends, we just see that being an increasing part of the lifestyle and the requirements of riders,” Harley-Davidson President Matt Lavatich said. “So, nobody can predict right now how big that industry will be or how significant it will be.”
The bikes are shift-free, and can go from 0 to 60 mph in about four seconds. Again, without the accompanying rumble, so either get used to the idea or not.
“Some people may get on it thinking, ‘golf cart,’” lead engineer Jeff Richlen said. “And they get off thinking, ‘rocket ship.’”
Take Our PollHarley-Davidson unveils an electric motorcycle, and worlds collide [Consumer Reports]
Harley-Davidson introduces electric motorcycle [Associated Press]
4 Popular Cars That Aren’t Worth Your Money
While you’d like to think you can’t go wrong with a middle-of-the-road vehicle from a well-known car company, sometimes you’re still not getting the most for your car-buying dollar.
Our colleagues at Consumer Reports recently put together a list of six popular new cars that they have tested out and found that you’d probably be better off avoiding.
Here are some highlights:
• Volkswagen Beetle
For around $21K, the Beetle is a cute car on the (relative) cheap, but CR found that its reliability is below average so repairs could end up eroding those initial savings. It also has a cramped rear seat, a lack of knee room in the front seats, and the view to the rear is restricted.
•Nissan Versa sedan
With a $15K price tag, the Versa is about as little as you’d probably pay for a new car, but even for a car at that price point, CR had issues, saying the Versa “feels slow, and the interior is noisy and looks cheap.”
•Mercedes-Benz CLA
The “affordable” Mercedes will run you around $36,500, but are you just buying a brand? “It’s a cramped compact with a stiff ride and poor visibility,” writes CR. “It’s tough to get into and out of the car, and it lacks the handling finesse and refinement you might expect.”
•Mitsubishi Outlander
While the Outlander can carry more passengers than most small SUVs, that third row of seats is tiny. Add in clumsy handling, slow acceleration and engine noise that “assaults your ears” and you have a hard time justifying spending $27K on this car.
Check out the full list, along with suggestions for better buys, on ConsumerReports.org.
Report: States Have The Power To Rein In For-Profit Colleges, They Just Don’t Use It
Over the past several months there has been much talk about the federal government reining in for-profit colleges through the proposed gainful employment rule. While a decision on that measure is still forthcoming, a new report from the National Consumer Law Center points to state governments as the one entity that could truly make a difference when it comes to protecting consumers by strengthening their own oversight over the sometimes predatory for-profit industry.
While the federal government’s efforts to enact a gainful employment rule – which would require for-profit schools to do a better job of preparing students for gainful employment, or risk losing access to taxpayer-funded federal student aid – could provide a strong defense against unsavory colleges, that action simply won’t be enough to prevent ongoing abuses perpetrated by the for-profit school industry, officials with NCLC point out in its latest report [PDF].
Since 2007, federal and state regulators have brought forth 61 lawsuits and investigations involving for-profit schools. The NCLC predicts that number will continue to grow unless each individual state takes action to create through, uncompromising oversight of the industry.
“Increasing numbers of state and federal investigations have revealed the widespread use of deceptive and illegal practices throughout the sector, including by large accredited schools owned by Wall Street investors,” the report states. “After being subjected to these deceptive practices, hundred of thousand of students enrolled in inferior education programs and ended up with nothing but debt.”
WHAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES?
Shady practices being proliferated by for-profit colleges are no secret; investigations and lawsuits against for-profit institutions have covered a range of issues, from lying to students about their employability upon graduation to pressuring students into taking out costly, and often devastating, loans.
Perhaps the brightest light to be shone on the inner-workings of for-profit colleges came in 2012 when the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) issued a wide-ranging report that focused on predatory recruiting, low completion rates, billions of dollars spent on marketing and executive salaries instead of actual education and gaming the regulatory system to make a profit.
The HELP report found that only 17% of what these colleges spend actually goes to instruction, while 42% of the money goes to marketing, recruiting and profits for the companies. Not-for-profit schools pay less than 1% on average for marketing.
Additionally the report found that, on average, 54% of students who began at a for-profit institution during the 2008-2009 school year withdrew by summer 2010. Nine schools in the study had withdrawal rates of at least 60%, with the highest being 84%.
Those numbers have changed very little in the past several years. The NCLC report released today, found that students who attend a for-profit college have tend to leave with more debt and a significantly change of defaulting on loans than students who attended public and private four-year colleges. In fact, the percentage of student who graduate form a for-profit college within six years is just 33%, while both private and public four-year institutions have graduation rate well above 50%.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
So how do regulators, along with federal and state governments protect consumers from shady for-profit colleges?
There are a number of rules and regulations that have been proposed in Congress that could have a detrimental effect to the business model of these kinds of institutions, however, very few of these bills ever see the light of day.
One such rule that should help prospective students is Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA), but the NCLC report says that while the Act provides for more oversight, little has been done to use it to regulators advantage.
Title IV provides for the regulation of postsecondary institutions through three different entities – the federal government, accrediting agencies, and states.
Each of these entities are to serve complementary purposes. While the U.S. Department of Education is responsible for “protecting the administrative and fiscal integrity of the federal student aid programs,” accrediting agencies are responsible for assuring academic quality.
That leaves states with the primary responsibility for approving and overseeing schools and protecting students from abusive for-profit school practices. However, because of a lack of specificity, many states have come to view consumer protection as a federal and accrediting agency responsibility, and, as a result, many have provided little protection when it comes to for-profit schools, the NCLC reports.
Due to this lack of willingness on the part of many states, the Department enacted “state authorization” regulations to ensure some kind of oversight is provided by states. The authorization reaffirmed that states are key to regulatory measures and that they should “retain the primary role and responsibility for student consumer protection against fraudulent and abusive practices by some postsecondary institutions.”
STATES HAVE THE POWER
And according to the NCLC, states are in the best position to monitor everyday practices of for-profit schools and to take action when these institutions harm students. However, all state agencies and regulatory oversight laws need improvement.
So what should states do to better protect students with the power they’ve been given though Title IV? According to the NCLC report, they can do a lot.
1. Eliminate reliance on accreditation as a substitute for oversight and require all accredited and unaccredited schools to comply with minimum standards and consumer protections.
The NCLC found that as of July 2013, at least 33 states employ lenient standards or granted exemptions or automatic approval to accredited for-profit schools. Why does this matter? Because, accredited schools are the only institutions eligible for federal financial aid. Deceptive practices found at some for-profit colleges often cause the greatest financial harm to the largest number of students.
“States should therefore subject all unaccredited and accredited schools, including schools that are nationally or regionally accredited, to rigorous minimum standards and consumer protection requirements.”
2. Increase oversight of schools exclusively offering online/distance education programs.
Online and distance education can provide a convent alternative to tradition classrooms for many working adults seeking an education. However, many of the top online colleges have been at the center of federal lawsuits and investigations. The University of Phoenix, the No. 1 ranked for-profit college by headcount, has an online enrollment of 270,000 and has been party to six lawsuits and investigations since 2004.
Because of lax oversight for online programs, the NCLC believes students are more vulnerable to fraud.
“States should protect students by expanding oversight laws to include for-profit schools that exclusively offer online programs. In addition, before signing onto multi-state reciprocity agreements, states should demand that those agreements, at a minimum, allow states to apply their own consumer protections to distance education schools.”
3. Establish and enforce meaningful minimum performance standards as requirements for state approval.
The ability of a school to produce good results is a clear indication that it is not likely to be engaging in deceptive practices. To protect students from low-quality and deceptive for-profit schools, states should require schools to maintain minimum completion and job placement rates as a condition of state approval.
However, state laws must put in place strict and clearly defined mandates for this kind of oversight in order to ensure schools are not manipulating or inflating their rates.
“For-profit schools often inflate completion and job placement rates while misrepresenting the salaries graduates can expect to earn. These deceptive practices are among the most abusive and harmful to students because they go to the heart of students’ hopes and dreams, and leave students mired in debt.”
4. Focus increased supervisory and enforcement resources on for-profit schools at risk of deceiving students.
Because many state oversight agencies lack the sufficient funds needed to closely monitor all for-profit schools, they should focus their energy on those institutions that are most likely to harm students.
“State law should require oversight agencies to develop specific criteria and procedures for identifying and investigating schools that may be engaging in systemic legal violations.”
5. Require a fair and thorough process for investigating and resolving student complaints.
There are few opportunities for student who have been wronged by for-profit schools to obtain the relief they need. Because of this, schools often don’t face consequences for their deceptive practices and continue to employ such measures.
“It is therefore critical that state law require the oversight agency to accept, investigate and resolve student complaints. To ensure it has sufficient investigative resources, state law should also require the agency to expend at least 60% of its budget on investigation and enforcement.”
6. Establish an independent oversight board to increase public accountability.
An independent oversight board should be considered as a way to increase public accountability, and therefore the effectiveness, of the state agency responsible for regulating for-profit schools.
“Because a public board is in a position to constantly pressure an agency’s staff to perform its statutory obligations, the creation of a board may lead to a more effective oversight agency as long as it is not dominated by institutional (school) representatives.”
7. Prohibit domination of the oversight board by the for-profit school industry.
While the creation of an oversight board could be beneficial to increasing public accountability, these boards can become dominated by institutions that seek to undermine the work of the oversight agency.
“States should therefore eliminate laws that require or allow the for-profit school industry or educational institutions to comprise the majority of oversight boards. State laws should also require a fair mix of school, employer, student, consumer advocate, public, and law enforcement representatives on oversight boards and prohibit licensed institutions from comprising a majority, including when vacancies exist.”
8. Assign responsibility for all for-profit school oversight to one agency with expertise in consumer protection and for-profit business regulation.
While one agency may lack the resources to oversee all for-profit institutions in a state, the NCLC says that spreading oversight to different agencies only weakens the state’s ability to protect students.
“States should therefore vest all for-profit school oversight in a single agency with expertise in investigative procedures and consumer protection, as well as higher education. Not only must the regulatory agency have the expertise necessary to evaluate higher education institutions, it must also have the specialized expertise necessary to handle investigations of for-profit businesses and enforce consumer protections.”
9. Provide a clear mandate that the state agency’s primary duty is consumer protection.
“State law must provide a clear mandate that the only or primary purpose of the oversight statute and agency is ensuring educational quality and consumer protection. Conflicting purposes or the failure to state any purpose can cause confusion among staff about an agency’s mission, provide the industry with an inappropriate level of influence over the agency, and cause the agency to neglect its consumer protection and oversight role.”
10. Eliminate sunset provisions in for-profit school oversight statutes.
The for-profit college industry is not going away anytime soon, and neither should state and federal oversight statues and agencies.
Some states currently have sunset provisions, which provide for the automatic termination of a statute and oversight agency on a set date unless extended by the state legislature. The NCLC recommends these provisions should be eliminated.
“[These provisions] also give the for-profit industry an opportunity to either water down standards or prevent the extension of a state law and agency. Rather than provide for the automatic termination of an oversight statute, state law should provide for periodic legislative reviews. Legislatures should affirmatively decide that an agency is unnecessary before that agency and its authorizing statute are terminated.”
WILL IT REALLY HELP?
While federal rules and regulations, such as the gainful employment rule, are currently being debated, the NCLC says the time for states to act is now.
“Without strong laws and agencies, students and their families will continue to suffer the long-term economic consequences of deceptive recruitment techniques and inferior educations.”
Only time will tell if state oversight agencies can truly protect consumers from for-profit colleges, but the NCLC recommendations set consumer advocates up with the tools that could make a difference.
“The state oversight role is critically important to ensuring that all students who invest in and work hard at a postsecondary education will end up with the skills and knowledge they need to improve their lives and the futures of their families.”
Ensuring Educational Integrity: 10-Steps To Improve State Oversight Of For-Profit Schools [National Consumer Law Center]
UPS Follows FedEx, Will Start Charging Based On Package Size
Because this change would completely screw up a lot of companies’ holiday shipping budgets, UPS is delaying the change until Dec. 29.
According to UPS, the boom in e-commerce has resulted in a lot of things being shipped via UPS that were previously bought off store shelves. So rather than carrying densely packed boxes, UPS is now trucking around larger, lighter boxes, which is not as efficient in terms of space or fuel.
“The company believes that as a result of the dimensional weight pricing method, more shippers will seek to optimize their packaging practices,” UPS explains in a statement. “These efforts will reduce excess packaging materials and overall package sizes, leading to related reductions in fuel use, vehicle emissions and transportation costs.”
We’re Filing Creepy Clown Motel Under “Things That That Should Stay In Nightmares”
(Great Beyond)
If the richest person in the world walked up to me right now (Scrooge McDuck, he’s still in the lead, right?) and offered me my very own pool of money to swim in on the one condition that I stay at the Clown Motel overnight, well, my moneyswimming suit would stay firmly in its wrappings. Because if there’s one thing capable of turning even the most grown-up grown-up into a puddle of quivering, horrified mush, it’s clowns and the dark*.
As if an establishment filled to the brim with leering, smiling painted faces in every room isn’t enough to dissuade even the strongest of hearts, there are a few added scary bits at this Nevada motel, points out Roadtrippers.com. Which again, is chockfull of clowns, clowns, everywhere.
First of all — it’s basically in the middle of nowhere, a place for travelers to stop and try to find gas and maybe a place to sleep… not knowing the clown fate that awaits, unless they want to drive another 70 miles to the nearest town.
It’s also next to a cemetery filled with gold miners who died from a plague. So you just know their ghosts aren’t going to be happy — unless they too, are terrified of their clown neighbors and have decided to stay snug underground.
Of course, while some guests might have reported horrifying experiences involving clowns doing weird things to dinner hams (you’ll have to read the source link for that particular tale), if you’re actually a fan of clowns — and I salute you for having more guts than I do — this place could be a dreamland. OF NIGHTMARES.
*This post in no way constitutes a slur against the profession of clowning or those who make a living as clowns. I’m just a big wuss and It changed my life.
America’s scariest motel is haunted… by hundreds of clowns [RoadTrippers.com]
FCC Chair Tom Wheeler Says He Is Not A Dingo
A couple weeks back, HBO’s John Oliver questioned whether it was wise to fill the FCC Chairman vacancy with former cable/wireless lobbyist Tom Wheeler, likening the decision to a parent hiring a dingo as a babysitter. Wheeler takes issue with the comparison and is now publicly denying that he is a child-devouring canine.
In the original 13-minute segment from Last Week Tonight, Oliver referred to Wheeler’s previous jobs as president of wireless lobbying group CTIA and of the National Cable and Telecom Association.
“The guy who used to run the cable industry’s lobbying arm is now running the agency tasked with regulating it,” quipped Oliver at the time. “That is the equivalent of needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo.”
At last week’s open meeting of the full commission, Brendan Sasso of the National Journal asked Wheeler if he’d seen the Last Week Tonight piece on net neutrality.
“I think that it represents the… um… high level of interest [makes bizarre snuffle-laugh-chuckle] that exists in the topic in the country,” replied a very slow-speaking Chairman, “And that’s good.”
Then comes an amazing few seconds during which Wheeler stands silently, the only sound coming from his fingers tapping on the podium, before he deadpans, “Uhhhhmmm… You know, I would like to state for the record that I’m not a dingo… I had to go look it up; it’s a feral, wild animal in Australia.
In response, Oliver points out that he never actually called Wheeler a dingo; he made a dingo-related analogy. But now the host wonders if the Chairman doth protest too much.
“You’re denying it so strenuously, I’m honestly starting to wonder whether you are actually a dingo after all,” said Oliver, who then challenged Wheeler to answer questions like, “Have you, at any time, ever consumed a swamp wallaby for its nutrients?”
Finally, he demanded undeniable proof of the Chairman’s lack of dingo-ness.
“Unless you can produce an official document verified by a licensed zoologist, certifying that you are not a 100% talking dingo, I don’t think you can complain if Americans refuse to leave you alone in rooms with their babies.”
JetBlue Tells Little Girl She Can’t Use Toilet, Almost Throws Her Off Plane After She Wets Herself
The 3-year-old’s mom tells CBS Boston that she and her two daughters were on a JetBlue plane traveling from NYC to Boston last week. After sitting on the tarmac for about half an hour, one daughter needed to use the toilet, so mom asked a flight attendant for permission.
“She snapped at me, ‘No sit down,’” the mom recalls.
Unable to hold it in, the youngster had an accident in her plane seat. That’s where things go from bad to weird.
Mom says she tried to clean up after her daughter, but this just led to a scolding from the flight attendant.
“And I said, ‘please give me a break. My daughter had an accident because you wouldn’t let me take her to the bathroom. After I clean it up I will sit down,’” she tells CBS. “She turned around and reported it to the pilot.”
As anyone who reads Consumerist knows, a complaint from a flight attendant is all it takes for a pilot to decide that a passenger needs to be removed. And shortly after the mom’s confrontation with the attendant, the pilot announced that the plane would be heading back to the gate, telling everyone on board there was a noncompliant passenger who needed to be handed over to airport security.
Jennifer Devereaux says she had a nightmarish experience earlier this week while traveling with her two daughters on board JetBlue flight 518 from New York to Boston.
In a rare instance of good luck, an off-duty pilot seated near the mom was able to intervene on her behalf and convince the crew to let the family remain on board
“I am so thankful for him and other passengers sticking up for my family’s defense,” says the mom, who sent off a complaint to JetBlue in the hopes of getting an apology.
“It wasn’t about bad customer service,” she said, “it was about bad human decency. My daughter was sitting in a pool of urine and I couldn’t do anything about it.”
After the story aired on TV, JetBlue finally got around to apologizing to the mom, providing her a $50 voucher on future travel and offering to donate $5,000 to a charity of her choosing.
“She said ‘I am a mom too. I understand what you’re going through and I am so sorry this happened to you,’” the mom says of her talk with a JetBlue rep.
How Long Should I Hold On To My Old Bills & Other Documents?
No matter how much of your financial life you have online, you still need to save some paper documents. (Okay, maybe you don’t need the actual paper if you scan it all in and back up what you need to save.)
Here’s how to not suck at tossing paperwork.
To hold for a year or less (with some buts):
Monthly utility/cable/phone bills: Once you know the bill is correct, toss it. But if you deduct some of these costs on your tax return, you’ll want to save them with your return (more on that in a moment).
Credit card statements: If you know all the charges are correct, you probably don’t need to keep this. But if you make a big purchase and your lender offers some product protections, consider holding onto that month’s bill. Also, if there’s a deductible purchase on the statement, hold that for your tax return.
Medical bills: Once you know your claim has been paid by your health insurance company, you probably don’t need to save these. But if you’re potentially deducting medical expenses on your tax return, hang on to the bills.
Monthly/quarterly account statements: Hold on to statements from your investment and retirement accounts until you receive the year-end one, which summarizes the previous 12 months. Once you know it’s right, there’s no need to hold on to the monthlies anymore.
Bank statements: Once you know your monthly statement is correct, you can toss the statement at the end of the year. But if you’ve used a check to pay for a large or deductible purchase, hold on to it.
Pay stubs: If you still actually get these, you can toss them after you reconcile them with your W-2 at the end of the year. But if you’re planning to apply for a mortgage, your lender may want to see a few month’s worth.
To hold for longer
Tax Returns: You don’t want to be missing tax-related documents if Uncle Sam has questions about your tax returns. Hold the returns and supporting documents for at least seven years. The IRS can randomly audit you three years after you file — or six years afterward if it thinks you skipped out on reporting your income by at least 25%.
Year-end account statements: These will show the cost basis for your investments, so you want to hold on to them for as long as you have the investment. (And then a bit longer to support your tax return.)
Retirement plan statements: Hold on to your annual statements as long as you have assets in the accounts. This will help ensure your eventual withdrawals are taxed the right way. This is especially important to show if you’ve saved pre-tax or after-tax dollars to your 401(k), and to show your savings to both traditional and Roth options. For your IRAs, be sure to save Form 8606 — the document that shows if your contributions were deductible or nondeductible.
Home-related documents: Keep your purchase documents, and also all home improvement records, which can be used to calculate your cost basis when you sell your home, potentially saving you a bundle in taxes. If you’ve done work that needed a permit or town inspection, hold on to these, too, for as long as you own your home.
Insurance Policies: Hold onto to your policies for home/renters insurance, car insurance and umbrella insurance for the year. When you get a renewal, toss the old one. Keep your life, disability or long-term care policies as long as they’re in force.
To hold indefinitely
Loan paperwork: As long as you’re still paying a loan (car, mortgage, student loan — the works), keep all your docs and contracts. When you pay off the loan, the lender will give you a payoff statement. Keep this forever, just in case some zombie debt comes back to haunt you.
The important stuff: While you can replace the following documents, it will be a major headache. Invest in a firebox or a safety-deposit box for:
- Birth certificates
- Adoption records
- Death certificates
- Marriage and divorce papers
- Military records
- Wills, powers of attorney and health care proxies
- Social Security cards
- Passports
- Appraisals for jewelry, art or other valuable property (unless you sell the item)
- A videotape of your home’s contents to help with insurance claims in the event of a home fire. Update this once a year.
A few thoughts on e-documents
If you prefer digital to paper, you can download account statements and keep the electronic versions, but make sure they have a place to live that’s beyond your hard drive.
Why?
If your computer ever gives you the dreaded blue screen of death, you need to be sure you still have access to your documents.
But, you say, you can access back statements through your online accounts. That may be true, but do you really want to have to track that all down? And not all online accounts will offer back statements in perpetuity, so it’s better to be safe than sorry.
Instead, to make sure you have what you need, invest in an external hard drive that you back up regularly.
Have a topic you’d like to see covered in How To Not Suck? Or maybe you’re an expert who would like to share your insight with Consumerist readers? Send us a note at notsuck@consumerist.com.
You can read Karin Price Mueller’s stories for The Star-Ledger at NJ.com, follow her on Facebook, and on Twitter @kpmueller.
PREVIOUSLY ON HOW TO NOT SUCK:
10 Tips For Getting Rid Of The Junk In Your Life
How To Not Suck At Picking A Father’s Day Gift
How To Not Suck At Booking A Vacation Rental
How To Not Suck At Making The Transition From School To The Real World
How To Not Suck At Spring Cleaning
16 Ways To Not Suck At Making Mother’s Day Special
10 Ways To Not Suck At Spending Your Tax Refund
15 Things Everyone Needs To Know About Disability Insurance
15 Things People Of All Ages Need To Know About Long-Term Care Insurance
15 Things You Need To Know About Life Insurance
15 Things Everyone (Including Renters) Should Know About Homeowner’s Insurance
15 Things You Need To Know About Buying Auto Insurance
How To Not Suck… At Going To Small Claims Court
How To Not Suck… At Buying In Bulk
How To Not Suck At Planning Your Wedding, Part 5: Spending Your Wedding Cash
How To Not Suck At Planning Your Wedding, Part 4: The Honeymoon
How To Not Suck At Planning Your Wedding, Part 3: The Costly Little Extras
How To Not Suck At Planning Your Wedding, Part 2: The Stuff People Pay Too Much For
How To Not Suck At Planning Your Wedding, Part 1: The Most Expensive Steps
How To Not Suck… At Teaching Your Kids About Money
How To Not Suck… At Valentine’s Day Gifts
How To Not Suck… At Merging Your Money When You Marry
How To Not Suck… At Borrowing For College
How To Not Suck… At Saving For College
How To Not Suck… At Pre-Paying For Your Funeral
How To Not Suck… At Making Financial New Year’s Resolutions
How To Not Suck… At Last-Minute Christmas Gifting
How To Not Suck… At Saving For The Holidays
How To Not Suck… At Charitable Giving
How To Not Suck… At Disputing Credit Report Errors
How To Not Suck… At Lowering Your Utility Bills
How To Not Suck… At Home Inspections
How To Not Suck… At Understanding Credit Card Rewards
How To Not Suck… At Getting Ready For Tax Season
How To Not Suck… At Picking A Retirement Plan
How To Not Suck… At Deciding When To DIY
How To Not Suck… At Getting Out Of Debt
How To Not Suck… At First Year College Budgets
DISCLAIMER: Any websites, services, retailers, or brands mentioned in the story above are only intended as some of many options available to consumers, and do not constitute an endorsement by Consumerist, Consumerist Media LLC (CML) or its staff. Per Consumerist’s No Commercial Use Policy, such information may not be used by others in advertising or to promote a company’s product or service. In addition, this policy precludes any commercial use of any of CML’s published information in any form, or of the names of Consumers Union®, Consumer Media, Consumer Reports®, The Consumerist, consumerist.com or any other of CU or CML’s publications or services without CU or CML’s express written permission.
Homeowners Forced To Burn Down Home Teetering On The Edge Of A Cliff
(WFAA.com)
Fire crews set fire to the house today, reports NBC Dallas Fort Worth (link has video that autoplays), after the first option of hauling the home away from the edge of the cliff with a giant net was dismissed, and a third idea of allowing the home to slide naturally into the lake (debris to be collected later) was abandoned as too expensive.
The homeowners of the house — appraised at more than $700,000 — tell WFAA News that it was built in 2008 and it had passed inspection before they bought it in 2012.
But when a giant crack appeared in April, they were told it was time to move out, as the home was unsafe. Part of the cliff fell away earlier this week, with some of the house dropping into the water a short time after.
“It’s like, ’Is that really my home? Or is that something else that you’re watching on TV?’ And then you’re like, “Good grief, that is my home,’” the homeowner, who is currently in Florida, told the station of knowing his home had been reduced to ashes. “Yeah, it’s a trying time, certainly.”
To add to the likely pain of losing your home, the man and his wife will also be responsible now for paying for the cleanup and disposal of the remains.
Lake Whitney Cliff House Set on Fire, Burned to the Ground [NBC DallasFort Worth]
Dangling Lake Whitney home goes up in flames [WFAA News]
EEOC: Company Forced Employees To Practice Onion-Based Religion
This could just be a regular story about a company allegedly using its power over employees to force them to practice a specific religion until the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intervened, and that would be interesting enough. However, an EEOC lawsuit alleges that the owners of a Long Island health insurance company forced employees to practice a belief system started by a relative.
That practice is called Harnessing Happiness, or Onionhead. Legally, it’s organized as a nonprofit organization, but doesn’t call itself a church.
Unlike major world religions, Onionhead admits that its central figure is a fictional character invented by the founder: an anthropomorphic onion meant to help teach the religion’s lessons about feelings to children. And YouTube surfers.
The founder explains:
We used an onion as a medium to express peeling our feelings, as a way of healing our feelings. As well, an onion has no gender, which is beneficial for children’s usage.
Okay, cool. People can practice whatever religion they like, or follow any philosophy that interests them, but what they can’t do is pressure or force their employees to do the same. That’s what the owners of this company are accused of doing.
“Employees were told [to] wear Onionhead buttons, pull Onionhead cards to place near their work stations and keep only dim lighting in the workplace,” notes the EEOC. “None of these practices was work-related.” The lawsuit alleges that workers also had to take part in group prayers, burning candles, and “discussions of spiritual texts.” Employees who weren’t interested or who protested the practice of this belief system at work were fired.
In a statement to media, the company said they are a caring, small, family-oriented business and that the allegations are false. “Given how we treat our employees, we are saddened that our government would subject our company to the expense of this meritless lawsuit,” the company said.
EEOC Sues United Health Programs of America and Parent Company for Religious Discrimination [Press Release]
Lawsuit: Syosset company fired workers who refused to pray [Newsday]
How Should I Shop For A Medical Alert System?
When a scam works well, scamsters keep at it, and the “someone bought you a free medical alert device” robocall scam aimed at senior citizens is very effective. Even when authorities shut it down, another version pops right up. What if you want to buy a real emergency alert system for yourself or for a loved one, though? There are obviously legitimate companies in that sector, but how do they compare?
Of course, we all know exactly what alert systems do because of the strangely iconic ads that one service ran in past decades. You know the one.
The devices consist of a base station that connects to your phone line and then buttons placed in different spots in the house and/or on a pendant attached to a wrist or worn around the user’s neck. The pendant can work as a tiny speakerphone.
Our safe and secure colleagues down the hall at Consumer Reports determined what consumers should look for in an alert system, and evaluated the features of the best choices in the business. A few important things to look for:
<li?An in-house call center, rather than the company outsourcing it to another firm.
This Is What Happens When A Really Tall Guy Goes Grocery Shopping Dressed As An Orc
One does not simply walk into the supermarket. Wait, actually… yeah. That’s how it works.
You show me someone who’s not afraid of orcs as imagined by J.R.R. Tolkien, those slavering, soulless hordes drooling for manflesh, and I will show you a liar. So it’s not surprising that the appearance of a seven-foot tall man dressed like those fiercest of orc warriors, the mean ol’ Uruk-hai, would draw some interesting reactions when he headed out to go grocery shopping.
Mr. Uruk-hai heads off to the supermarket to pick up whatever it is orcs need — extra toilet paper for those long hauls across the Plateau of Gorgoroth and maybe some chips and salsa for nights spent in the Mountains of Shadow — and of course, startled titters and general fun ensues.
While he definitely needs some more gnarly action going on in the dental region, and maybe a bit of slime and general orc muck slathered all over that imposing frame, I can tell you without a doubt that my insides would still want to be on the outside if I ran into that guy.
(h/T to HappyPlace.com)
Facebook Is Now Selling Your Web-Browsing Data To Advertisers
As Facebook begins selling info to advertisers about your browsing habits, it will roll out a feature that lets you see why you’re seeing specific ads. Hint: It’s because Facebook knows way too much about you.
“When we ask people about our ads, one of the top things they tell us is that they want to see ads that are more relevant to their interests,” reads an actual sentence presumably written by a human being at Facebook and not some automated copy-bot intended to mimic human speech.
Unless we’ve completely misjudged the entire human race, we doubt the first thing that pops into most folks’ heads when asked about Facebook advertising is “Please make the ads eerily specific to things that I was just browsing online!”
More likely the real top response to questions about Facebook ads is “For the love of god, please give me a way to block them and not have them track my every movement.”
“Starting soon in the US, we will also include information from some of the websites and apps you use,” continues the Facebook statement, which we hear in the voice of the HAL 9000, or maybe the woman who narrates House Hunters on HGTV. “This is a type of interest-based advertising, and many companies already do this.”
Facebook has long been following you around the Web, quietly snickering at you for the music you buy and silently cocking an eyebrow for thinking you can still fit into the same size jeans you wore in college. But until now, it had tracked users under the pretense of security. This morning’s announcement shows the site’s true intentions.
The company is making a big deal of users’ ability to opt out.
“If you don’t want us to use the websites and apps you use to show you more relevant ads, we won’t,” explains Facebook. “You can opt out of this type of ad targeting in your web browser using the industry-standard Digital Advertising Alliance opt out, and on your mobile devices using the controls that iOS and Android provide.”
However, the Alliance opt out doesn’t always work and is only specific to the browser you’re using when you make the opt-out requests. So if you go to Facebook using different computers, you’d need to go through the opt-out procedure on each computer you use. And clearing that browser’s cookies could reset your preferences, allowing you to be tracked all over again.
Additionally, while you may be able to opt out of having Facebook track you, some of the networks that place targeted ads on Facebook require separate steps to opt out.
For example, a quick check of my own Facebook page turned up creepy, targeted ads based on recent browsing I’d done. These ads were all served up by a company called AdRoll, which is listed on the Alliance opt-out interface, but for which the opt-out failed. The only way to turn these ads off was to go to a completely separate opt-out form linked on the AdRoll site, and even then I continued to receive targeted ads from AdRoll.
I just want Facebook and others who take part in targeted advertising to admit that it has nothing to do with providing users with something they want. No one comes to Facebook for the ads, no matter how well-tailored they are to a user’s interest.
Targeted ads are about being able to charge a premium to advertisers who want to know exactly who they’re reaching. Unfortunately, in order to do so, Facebook has to compromise the privacy of its hundreds of millions of users.
FCC Chairman: FCC Should Preempt State Laws That Ban Or Restrict Municipal Broadband
In a blog post singing the praises of the municipal network in Chattanooga, TN, Wheeler makes the case that solid internet access is a driver of economic growth and job creation, no matter who provides it.
“The network,” Wheeler points out, “was partly built out of necessity.” Private companies weren’t responding to the city’s needs — a familiar story. As Wheeler put it, “Local phone and cable companies chose to delay improvements in broadband service to the Chattanooga area market. Without faster networks,” he added, “Chattanooga residents were at risk of finding themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide, bypassed by the opportunities high-speed connectivity enables.”
So Chattanooga invested in its own high-speed gigabit network, attracting businesses that rely on reliable high-speed internet connections in order to do their work. Business wins, residents win, the economy wins; everyone wins. Except cable companies, who really hate publicly-owned broadband networks because they don’t make money from them.
Tennessee is one of twenty states that, thanks to intervention from cable companies, has turned around and made expanding or introducing municipal broadband illegal right after someone successfully did it. Utah, Kansas, North Carolina, and more than a dozen other states have pulled the same stunt.
Wheeler, apparently, has had enough of that. He says outright:
I believe that it is in the best interests of consumers and competition that the FCC exercises its power to preempt state laws that ban or restrict competition from community broadband. Given the opportunity, we will do so.
Wheeler adds what we see proven true time and time again: competition is good for consumers, and when a marketplace is actually competitive, and not a monopoly, consumers see better services at lower prices.
But although Wheeler’s post strongly indicates that he believes the FCC has the authority to override these state laws preventing competition, certain legislators disagree — and are likely to be as obstructionist as possible should the FCC, a regulatory agency, actually attempt to regulate anything.
GigaOm points to a letter (PDF) signed by 11 Senate Republicans. Among them, the 11 senators represent Nebraska, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Kansas — over half of which have enacted or tried to enact laws restricting municipal broadband expansion.
The letter, a purely political gesture, takes a concern-troll approach, implying that if the FCC overrules laws prohibiting municipal broadband, that somehow states will become compelled to implement municipal broadband, which would be a violation of states’ rights.
“The insinuation that the Federal Communications Commission will force taxpayer funded competition against private broadband providers — against the wishes of the states — is deeply troubling,” the senators write. And it might be… so the senators should be relieved that it doesn’t seem to be at all what Wheeler is proposing.
The senators also appeal to the bottom line, concluding that “the last thing the Commission should do in these trying financial times” is interfere with states’ public broadband laws.
But the real question about the bottom line is: who benefits when private companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable have monopolies on providing broadband service? Because it’s not consumers and, as Wheeler points out, it’s not local business, either. Only the existing companies — and those to whom they provide campaign donations — benefit from the status quo.
Removing Barriers to Competitive Community Broadband [FCC]
FCC takes aim at local laws that limit broadband, but faces states’ rights pushback from Republicans [GigaOm]
Here’s A Video For Anyone Who’s Dared To Wonder What’s Inside A Slim Jim
I still remember eating my first Slim Jim, at the age of 5, purchased from the concession stand at my neighbor Mitch Mitchell’s softball game. In the three decades since, I’ve probably consumed enough of the salty meat-like sticks to feed a small island nation for a few weeks, but I’ve never once wanted to know what goes into making one of them.
Thanks then to the folks at Wired, who put together the below animated video detailing the various ingredients — mechanically separated meats, salt, grain and soy products, salt, chemicals, and salt — that go into the slender, edible cylinder and keep it from turning into a rotten gray mess.
It’s actually much more informative than it is shocking or surprising, and worth a watch for anyone curious about packaged foods.
Teens Hack ATM, Then Show Bank How Easily They Did It
The 9th-graders tell the Winnipeg Sun that they’d found the old manual online and found information on accessing the ATM’s operator mode.
And so it was off to their local Safeway, where BMO has an ATM.
“We thought it would be fun to try it, but we were not expecting it to work,” said one of the youngsters.
At some point in the process, the ATM required a password from the operator, so the teens used a “common default password” with six digits (we’re guessing “123456″ or the always classic “123123″) and got into the system on their first try.
Rather than use their newfound access to crash the Canadian banking system or launch a global thermonuclear war, the whippersnappers went over to a nearby BMO branch to alert them to just how easily the machine had been violated.
But, being teens, the bank staffer assumed they had done something teen-like and lost their PIN.
“”No, no, no. We hacked your ATM. We got into the operator mode,” one of the mini MacGyvers told the employee. “He said that wasn’t really possible and we don’t have any proof that we did it.”
The boys then asked if it was okay for them to demonstrate what they’d done, to which the bank staffer allegedly replied, “Yeah, sure, but you’ll never be able to get anything out of it.”
So it was back to the ATM, where the teens were able to access info about how much money was in the machine, how many withdrawals happened that day, and how much it had earned in surcharges.
“Then I found a way to change the surcharge amount, so I changed the surcharge amount to one cent,” says one teen, who claims they also changed the ATM greeting from “Welcome to the BMO ATM” to “Go away. This ATM has been hacked.”
With this evidence in hand, they returned to the bank where they were no longer dismissed as pranksters or morons. The branch manager took the issue to bank security.
In a statement to the Sun, a BMO rep tries to downplay the severity of the problem.
“Customer information and accounts and the contents of the ATM were never at risk and are secure,” says the bank, which also says that it’s instituted a fix to the exploit.
We’re going to assume that means the password has been changed to “654321.”
Our favorite part is that these kids did this all during their school lunch hour. They even got the bank to write them a note when they realized they would be tardy in returning to the school on time.
Comcast Finally Agrees To Reimburse Woman For 13 Years Of Service She Paid For But Never Received
An 88-year-old woman in Florida is on a fixed income, but enjoys watching telenovelas, so she dutifully paid her $29 Comcast cable bill every month. There was one small problem with that, though: Comcast wasn’t providing her with any cable service. The condominium building where she lives provides cable to all residents, through a different company that is not Comcast.
The building switched providers from Comcast to Charter back in 2000. Yes, that’s right: she’s been paying for cable service that she didn’t get for more than 13 years, leaving the family who paid for their never-activated Comcast alarm service for 7 years in the dust.
Similar to that family’s predicament, when the ex-customer asked for a refund of her inadvertent donations to Comcast, the company said that they could give her a six-month refund. That’s $174, when they really owe her more than $4,500.
When asked what she wants from Comcast, the woman replied, “Give me my money back! Because I paid for them for so many years, and they’re rich. They are rich, and I’m poor.”
Her grandson contacted a local news station, which prompted another investigation of the overpayment. Surprise! This time, Comcast concluded that it had billed her in error for all of those years, and would be providing a full refund. Yay!
Woman pays for 13 years of cable she never got [WPLG]
4 Home Depot Exclusives For Shoppers To Avoid
We don’t recommend buying children at Home Depot, or really anywhere, as human trafficking is illegal and immoral. (photo: Patrick)
Our colleagues at Consumer Reports have put together a Get It or Forget It review of several products — running the gamut from paper towels to lawn mowers to flooring to kitchen counters — that you can buy at Home Depot, and some of the items that made the “losers” list might surprise you.
1. Brinkmann grills
Home Depot’s economy line of grills may be designed to look like the pricier competition, but Consumer Reports says the cheaper store-brand Brinkmann grills from Home Depot have “so-so high and low heat performance.” The $400 Brinkmann Medallion 810-4580-SB scored the lowest in CR’s recent grill ratings.
2. Home Legend flooring
“We haven’t tested all the flooring materials sold at Home Depot, but we would advise you to think twice about several products from the exclusive Home Legend line,” writes CR.
The low-scoring Home Legend Lisbon Natural HL9311LN engineered wood floors were noted for their poor resistance to fading, denting, and scratching, and other products under the Home Legend label were far from the top of CR’s ratings.
3. HDX paper towels
Consumer Reports says the store-brand HDX paper towels struggled with both absorbency and strength, the two factors that make a paper towel worth buying. So you might save some money at the register, but you’ll probably just end up using a lot more of them.
4. Glidden paint
The Glidden exclusives at Home Depot — particularly the High Endurance and Duo lines — were dubbed “middle-of-the-pack at best” by CR testers, who found significant flaws in all their satin, flat, and semigloss formulas.
“Some Gliddens did a bit better, but if you’re paint shopping at the Home Depot, your best bet is to stick with Behr,” writes CR.
For the full list of Home Depot winners and losers, check out the story on the Consumer Reports website.
