TICs y Formación http://ticsyformacion.com/2014/01/02/top-10-restaurantes-fast-casual-en-usa-en-redes-sociales-infografia-infographic-socialmedia/ Via Alfredo Vela y www.bscformacion.com
Top 10 restaurantes fast casual en USA en Redes Sociales #infografia #infographic #socialmedia
TICs y Formación http://ticsyformacion.com/2014/01/02/top-10-restaurantes-fast-casual-en-usa-en-redes-sociales-infografia-infographic-socialmedia/ Via Alfredo Vela y www.bscformacion.com
Las tecnológicas que más subieron en Bolsa en 2013 #infografia #infographic #tech
TICs y Formación http://ticsyformacion.com/2014/01/02/las-tecnologicas-que-mas-subieron-en-bolsa-en-2013-infografia-infographic-tech/ Via Alfredo Vela y www.bscformacion.com
Report: 4.6 Million Snapchat Phone Numbers And Usernames Leaked Online
While many Snapchat users are used to nudity, many of them only thought they were exposed for the 10 or so seconds that late-night selfie was on their recipient’s screen. But a new report says the phone numbers and usernames associated with more than 4.6 million Snapchatters in North America were leaked and posted online.
A site run by a mysterious, anonymous group or person called SnapchatDB posted the information on its site with the details of the app’s users next to their locations. Though the last two digits of each phone number have been obscured “to minimize spam and abuse,” but SnapchatDB says it’ll reveal the info to anyone who contacts it asking for the full number, reports The Verge.
Using that information could allow snoopers to try to “find phone number information associated with Facebook and Twitter accounts, or simply to figure out the phone numbers of people you wish to get in touch with.”
So that’s creepy, but at least the site has been taken down by now.
Last week Snapchat discussed concerns Gibson Security had with the app, after it claimed it had found a major security hole in app’s “find friends with phone numbers” function. Snapchat responded to that claim on Dec. 27 saying in theory, if someone uploaded a bunch of phone numbers — “like every number in an area code, or every possible number in the US” — they could ostensibly match those with usernames.
But it added that it had also “implemented various safeguards to make it more difficult” to pull that off in the last year.
Despite those measures taken by Snapchat, SnapchatDB claimed that the leak was possibly “through the recently patched Snapchat exploit.”
If you’re worried that your phone number has been leaked, you can use a tool from Gibson Security to look it up. Then you might want to delete your Snapchat account and tighten up your security settings on any other social media accounts to prevent creepers from contacting you. Unfortunately as Gibson points out, this won’t erase your number from the leaked database.
4.6 million Snapchat phone numbers and usernames leaked [The Verge]
by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist
Does $100 Moto G Shake Notion That Unsubsidized Smartphones Must Be Expensive?
The general line of thought in the wireless market is that prepaid customers are offered older and cheaper smartphones because most prepaid customers don’t also want to splash out the $500-800 for an unlocked, top-of-the-line device. Meanwhile, contract phone customers are pitched those pricier phones but at discounted rates (or monthly installment plans) that make the phones more affordable (and lock the customer into months or years of service). But does a good smartphone need to cost so much? Do phones for the prepaid market need to be so bad? Maybe not.
The Motorola Moto G — the less-frilly version of its Moto X — came out around Thanksgiving at a retail price of $179, unlocked, meaning AT&T and T-Mobile customers could take it on either network and didn’t need to sign a contract.
While it looks like our cohorts at Consumer Reports have yet to test the device, it does have some rather positive reviews, ranging from a 7.0 to a perfect 10 on Engadget’s round-up of ratings. It’s by no means a top-line device — it doesn’t have LTE capability, its screen is smaller than some more expensive competitors (though it has better resolution than some), and its camera has fewer megapixels — but many of the reviews say that the Moto G is about as good as you could hope for a $179 phone.
Then came reports earlier this week that the Verizon-compatible version of the device was selling for only $99.99 at Best Buy. For an unlocked, new phone, that’s virtually unheard-of. Best Buy has confirmed it’s been selling the Verizon version at that price since shortly before New Year’s and Verizon confirmed today that it will be adding the Moto G to its currently slim prepaid device pickings on Jan. 9 for the $99.99 price.
Sprint’s Boost Mobile says it will also be offering the phone, but at $129.99.
With its brightly colored options and the low price point, the Moto G is obviously looking at the iPhone 5C as competition. However, the iPhone’s $99 price tag is the subsidized version that requires a two-year commitment to a wireless provider. The unlocked 5C will actually cost you $549.
Granted, the 5C has more features than the Moto G (LTE service and a better camera chief among them), but do those improved specs really merit a $449 price difference?
Even the full-price AT&T/T-Mobile version of the Moto G is $370 less than the unlocked iPhone 5C. It’s also significantly cheaper than most of the options that T-Mobile sells directly to customers through installment plans. For example an iPhone 4 from T-Mobile will eventually cost the buyer $408 (24 installments of $17), and that phone came out in 2010.
As I mentioned last week, if phone companies are going to shed their practice of selling subsidized phones — a practice that, in my opinion, is an antiquated holdover from the transitional period between landlines and wireless — something will need to be done about the sticker prices of phones. While things like installment plans help delay the huge retail price of high-end smartphones, they are really just a substitute for the contracts we all hate.
If we want true mobility in the wireless market, manufacturers need to make affordable, unlocked phones that will give consumers the freedom to choose their wireless providers without having to pay an exorbitant price for that freedom.
by Chris Morran via Consumerist
What Purchases Should You Make And Avoid In January?
Are you in the market for a new television, some furniture, a gaming console, or new winter clothes? It might seem like the post-holiday sales frenzy is the perfect time to shop for all of these items, but that isn’t necessarily the case.
Over at DealNews, they outline some items that, according to their research, you may or may not find the best deals on during the month of January. What should you avoid shopping for?
- Shiny new game consoles. The Xbox One and Playstation 4 are still hot items right now. We probably won’t see discounts on them until spring at the earliest.
- Televisions. Unless you need a new one right now, wait until February: prices will fall a little more. Start shopping in January: if you find the right deal for you, nab it, but prices might continue to fall.
There are a lot of things that Dealnews says that you should consider buying in January, because the best deals around are going on now or about to start soon. What are those things?
- Christmas stuff. That one’s obvious, and it may even be too late. For those retailers that have some holiday items on the shelves and haven’t cleared them all out in favor of Easter candy yet, you can get some nice deals. Some items that aren’t explicitly Christmassy like winter-themed mugs or major-brand candies in red and green wrappers might still be on shelves, too.
- Furniture. New collections come out in February: get great deals on the old ones now.
- Winter clothing. Need a new coat or boots? Better get them now, while they’re on clearance.
The Best and Worst Things to Buy in January [Dealnews]
by Laura Northrup via Consumerist
Cutting A Hole In The Wall Of A Best Buy To Steal A Bunch Of Electronics Seems Excessive, No?
Pulling off a heist sounds like a criminal rush and all, but cutting a hole in a cinder block wall to steal anywhere from $65,000 to $75,000 in electronics still sounds like a whole lot of effort. That’s how thieves boosted a bunch of merchandise from a Brooklyn Best Buy, say police investigating the incident.
Although reports vary on how much stuff was taken — with NBC New York reporting $65,000 in electronics and the New York Post saying $75,000 — one thing seems to be pretty consistent: It’s kinda nuts to go to such lengths with high-powered demolition tools for a theft.
“That’s crazy, why would someone go to that extreme?” said one shopper.
The robbery was discovered when a manager showed up at 6 a.m. on Tuesday to work and saw a “gaping” hole in the rear wall, cops say. Shelves were left fairly bereft of tablets, cameras, phones and other gadgetry.
It’s unclear how the thieves or thief got away, but one theory that’s been floated in reports is that whoever pulled off the heist could’ve used a boat tied up in the inlet behind the store to make off with the goods.
That might not hold up as the NYP reports a snipped chain-link fence in the alley nearby and drag marks on the cement, but still, a four-foot hole was smashed into the store, so there’s that bit of excessive robbery shenanigans.
“That’s some Ocean’s 11 stuff that they’re doing,” another shopper observed.
George Clooney and Brad Pitt couldn’t be reached for comment on that topic. Mostly because they refuse to ever answer any Oceans 11 emails I send.
Thieves Cut Hole in Cinderblock Wall at Best Buy, Steal $65K in Electronics [NBC New York]
Cops probe $75K heist from Best Buy [New York Post]
by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist
Celebrate Public Domain Day… By Realizing That Not A Single Published Work Will Become Public Domain Until 2019
Aldus Huxley’s Brave New World entered the public domain in Canada yesterday, but not in the U.S., where it will remain protected for another 20 years.
As happens every January, various pieces of literature, scholarship, film, music, plays, and other copyrighted works of art enter into the public domain, meaning the public has the right to publish, perform, use, and display these works without seeking permission. That is, except in the U.S., where not a single published work will be joining the public domain until 2019.
Starting in 1978, a new law lengthened the terms of copyright protection from the previous maximum of 56 years from date of copyright, to the author’s lifetime plus 50 years.
The law also retroactively provided that new, longer protection period to still-copyrighted material published between 1923 and 1977. Since many authors of works published during this period failed to initially extend their copyright, or hadn’t properly indicated that their works were copyrighted, a number of things still came into the public domain after the 1978 law. However, since most successful books, films, songs, etc., had actively been extending their copyright under the old law, the new life-plus-50 rule kicked in.
Then there was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which not only further extended protection by 20 years (life of the author plus 70 years), but automatically provided 95-year terms for all still-copyrighted pre-1978 works.
And so even though plenty of authors died between 1923 and 1943, meaning their works should now be in the public domain. But because of the 95-year terms granted by the Extension Act, the earliest these works will enter the public domain is 2019.
There are those who point the white-gloved finger directly at Disney for this public domain vacuum, as the company lobbied heavily for the Extension Act out of fear that some of its earliest properties — most importantly Mickey Mouse — would enter into the public domain.
Critics of the extension worried that continuing to stretch out protections wasn’t a matter of helping the artistic community, but instead was a demonstration of how media interests could manipulate lawmakers.
“To suggest that the monopoly use of copyrights for the creator’s life plus 50 years after his death is not an adequate incentive to create is absurd,” wrote Sen. Hank Brown of Colorado in a 1996 report for the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The real incentive here is for corporate owners that bought copyrights to lobby Congress for another 20 years of revenue—not for creators who will be long dead once this term extension takes hold.”
The Duke Law School’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain has this round-up of the well-known books and films that would have joined the public domain yesterday without enactment of the 1978 law, including Dr. Seuss’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas and The Cat in the Hat; Ian Fleming, From Russia, with Love; Federico Fellini’s Nights of Cabiria; and The Seventh Seal, directed by Ingmar Bergman.
Even under the like-plus-50 guideline established by the 1978 law, works from authors like Aldus Huxley, C.S. Lewis, Robert Frost, Sylvia Plath, and W.E.B. DuBois, would now be in the public domain. In fact, these authors’ works are now in the public domain up in Canada, where they follow the life-plus-50 rule.
One copyrighted character that got a huge stay in public domain execution was Superman. Even though Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, the two creators of the character, died in 1996 and 1992, respectively, the actual copyright on the first publication belongs to DC Comics (though this has been a matter of much dispute). The pre-Extension Act copyright law provided protection terms of 75 years for corporate copyright holders. Since Superman first appeared in 1938, he would have been set for public domain in 2014.
But the 1998 Extension Act extends copyright protection for corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever comes first, thus granting DC Comics several more years to squeeze money from the Man of Steel… and some time to save up to lobby for another copyright extension law.
Public Domain Day: January 1, 2014 — The Road NOT Taken [Duke Law]
15 years ago, Congress kept Mickey Mouse out of the public domain. Will they do it again? [Washington Post]
No books for you: U.S. starves public domain for another year [GigaOm]
by Chris Morran via Consumerist
Woman Survives On Nothing But Starbucks Food For A Year
At least one woman is likely very relieved that it’s now 2014, after she stuck to her pledge to only eat food purchased from Starbucks for her three meals a day, every day in 2013. That’s a lot of nut boxes and pressed breakfast sandwiches.
The Seattle mother of two challenged herself to complete the endeavor last year and restricted all her meals to only what she could buy at Starbucks or “Starbucks-inspired” (translation: Starbucks-owned) stores like Roy Street Coffee, Tazo Tea and Evolution Fresh. Yes, even on her birthday and holidays. She did prepare regular food for her children, however.
“WHY? am I doing this challenge? Or WHY? will I do any challenge in the future? Because I LOVE being human and I LOVE the privilege of being able to ask the question WHY? in the first place!” she wrote on her blog at the start last year, via the New York Daily News.
It’s not cheap to eat only at coffee shops, either — she spent around $500 to $600 every month on food, which she photographed along the way.
And then there’s the tongue-numbing boredom of being stuck with a limited menu.
“In the last month, in the last couple weeks, it’s been really difficult. People had pizza at the office last week and I was dying,” she told the NYDN. “I’m happy to be able to eat whatever I want (again).”
To celebrate her culinary freedom, she gnoshed on fish and chips and had a bit of a tough time at first.
“My taste buds have been freaking out for the last 24 hours,” she explained. “Starbucks doesn’t really have anything that’s fried, and you can only eat so much after you haven’t had stuff like that for a year.”
I would’ve bought food at Starbucks and then fried it up as a food disguise, although that might be considered cheating. Or just not restrict myself to one company’s food in the first place, but that’s another matter.
Seattle woman eats nothing but Starbucks food for a year [New York Daily News]
by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist
Comfort Food Crime Wave Is Back: $362,000 Worth Of Candy Disappears
In spring of last year, comforting, tasty foods began to disappear by the truckload. Soup, hamburgers, Nutella: all stolen. Consumerist developed a theory. What if these crimes were the work of a syndicate of well-traveled, resourceful, and extremely hungry thieves? After laying dormant for most of 2013, the Comfort Food Criminals are back.
This time, 72 pallets of various Mars brand candies worth more than $362,000 disappeared from a logistics company warehouse in Illinois. The theft occurred in mid-December, but the company first investigated to make sure the candy wasn’t just misplaced. The news broke after Christmas, and we only heard about it today.
Like our theories that Target exists in its own reality, that Comcast seeks to colonize customers’ own cable modems, and that Sears and Lenovo are massive anti-capitalist pranks, the Comfort Food Crime Wave is a joke. It’s extremely unlikely that the same people are responsible for any of these crimes.
Midwesterners, if anyone tries to sell you a candy bar that “fell off a truck,” be wary.
by Laura Northrup via Consumerist
Beer Thieves Drive Off With Walmart Manager In Back Of Truck
When a Florida Walmart manager followed a couple of suspected beer thieves out into the parking lot, he probably wasn’t expecting he’d end up going on a 12-mile ride in the back of their truck, tossing beer cans toward passing cars in the hopes of getting someone’s attention.
The manager of the Titusville, FL, store tells WFTV in Orlando that he’d spotted a male and female leaving the Walmart with some 25 cases of beer that we was pretty sure they hadn’t paid for.
“I had asked them for a receipt and they kept throwing beers into their car,” he recalls. “I ran up to get their license plate, but when I realized how close I was, I jumped in the back so they didn’t run me over.”
And so the truck took off down I-95 with the pilfered Bud Light and a freaked-out Walmart manager in the back.
In an attempt to get someone to call the police, the manager began tossing beer cans into the road.
The manager says they stopped the truck twice. The first time, the shoplifters attempted to beat him up. They later pulled off onto a wooded road and tried to force him out of the truck.
“I was like, ‘I’m not getting out for you to run me over,’” he recalls.
This got the attention of one driver, who pulled up behind the stopped truck on a country road and announced that he’d called the sheriff.
“Well, I just saw all the beers alongside the road,” says the driver. “The gentleman in the back got out, and as soon as he did, the other guy jumps into the pickup truck and just leaves.”
by Chris Morran via Consumerist