Blog dedicado a la formación en todos sus ámbitos: presencial, online, a distancia
Hola:
Una infografía sobre Malware en Android. Vía
Un saludo
Malware en Android
Hola:
Una infografía sobre Mark Zuckenberg vs hombre medio de 30 años. Vía
Un saludo
Mark Zuckenberg vs hombre medio de 30 años
Hola:
Una infografía con 30 claves para estudiar y trabajar en Corea del Sur. Vía
Un saludo
30 claves para estudiar y trabajar en Corea del Sur
Hola:
Una infografía sobre cómo consumimos el tráfico en Internet móvil.
Un saludo
You will find more statistics at Statista
Blue Buffalo on Wednesday filed suit accusing Nestle Purina of alleged defamation, unfair competition, false advertising, and violations of trade practice statutes.
The complaint claims that Nestle Purina blanketed the media with blatantly false ads about Blue Buffalo’s ingredients and created malicious attacks on Blue Buffalo’s integrity.
“In response to Nestle Purina’s malicious attacks against us, we have initiated a lawsuit against them demanding that Nestle Purina and the individuals working in concert with them be held accountable for their false accusations about Blue Buffalo, and that their carefully orchestrated smear campaign against the BLUE brand cease,” Bill Bishop, founder of Blue Buffalo, says in a news release.
The company is seeking injunctive relief, corrective advertising and damages for Purina’s alleged false and deceptive advertising campaign.
In a letter to consumers, Bishop goes on to claim Purina uses tricks to sell their products.
“Their Beneful brand is a great example of this type of sleight of hand, as the front of the bag features real beef, chicken or fish, while the ingredient listing features corn and chicken by-product meal as the leading ingredients…but, to be fair, salmon finally shows up as the 6th ingredient listed on their Beneful Healthy Radiance dog food…right after animal fat!”
Officials with Nestle Purina say they expected Blue Buffalo to create a distraction from Purina’s attempt of “being honest with the public about the ingredients in Blue Buffalo’s pet food.”
“We stand by our complaint,” Purina says in a news release [PDF]. “As detailed in our lawsuit, independent test results show that Blue Buffalo is not being honest with pet owners about the ingredients in their pet food.”
Last week, Purina filed suit [PDF] against Connecticut-based Blue Buffalo accusing the company of false advertising, disparagement and unjust enrichment.
The lawsuit claims that Blue Buffalo’s ads stating its products contain “only the finest natural ingredients” and “no chicken or poultry byproduct meals” are false and violate the Federal Lanham Act.
Purina alleges that testing conducted by an independent lab revealed several of Blue Buffalo’s top-selling Life Protection products contain significant percentages of poultry by-product meal. Additionally, the complaint claims the testing also found Blue Buffalo LifeSourceBits contain poultry by-products meal and corn.
Blue Buffalo Sues Nestle Purina for False Advertising and Unfair Trade Practices [Blue Buffalo]
Here’s what they saw:
What a lovely ad…if you were someone who actually had ordered birth announcements from Shutterfly, or who had even given birth recently.
“The only problem? I’ve never been pregnant. And if I was, I certainly wouldn’t have told random people at Shutterfly about my life changing news,” wrote reader Krissy when sending us a tip about this misdirected mailing. “I can’t imagine how many Moms who lost their babies may have received this mistaken email, and how heartbreaking that would be.”
For some women who received the e-mail, it was an amusing oddity. Just more junk mail in their inboxes. (As far as we know, only women received this e-mail – let us know if you’re an exception. UPDATE: Nope, men received it too. Must be Shutterfly’s mailing list is just heavily female.)
Some were mildly annoyed or insulted, but speculated how the message might read to others in different life circumstances.
For others, it dredged up grief over the recent or not-so-recent loss of a pregnancy or of a child, or served as a cruel reminder of their struggles with infertility.
It wasn’t an intentional reminder of these things, of course. Almost 12 hours after the message went out, Shutterfly began apologizing to individual users who complained on social media.
Common elements of apology comments: sending the e-mail was accidental, and the company is very sorry. To their credit, they didn’t use blame-shifting language like “we’re sorry that you were offended.” Here’s one comment posted on a Facebook post:
Caryn, we want to extend our deepest apology for the email that reached many in error this morning. We know that this has impacted you in a personal manner and for that we are truly sorry.
In an official statement, Shutterfly told Consumerist, “Earlier this morning, we unintentionally sent out an e-mail in error to some of our customers. We deeply apologize for this intrusion and any offense this may have caused.” We asked for an estimate of how many people received the message, but they didn’t provide one. Maybe they don’t know.
A new Pew Research report “Young Adults, Student Debt and Economic Well-Being” examines just how college debt affects the overall wealth of consumers and why having a degree, despite the debt associated, is still better in the long run.
Nearly four-in-ten U.S. households headed by an adult younger than 40 currently have student debt and a median net worth of just $8,700.
That’s a stark contrast to the median net worth of $64,700 that young college graduates without student debt have accumulated. Additionally, consumers without a degree and without student debt have a net worth of $10,900, once again greater than that of degree holders with debt.
While student loan debt does play a large role in the low median wealth of college graduates with student loan obligations, Pew found these consumers were more likely to take on other debts that contributed to the wealth gap.
Student debtors have an average of $13,000 in loan obligations, but their debts don’t end there. Those consumers are more likely to owe for mortgages, car loans and credit cards. In fact, the indebtedness for young college-educated consumers is $137,010, twice that of similar households with no student debt.
The median young household with debts spends about 18% of monthly household income to service those debts. A common benchmark to determine financial distress occurs when households must devote more than 40% of monthly income to repay debts.
With a low net wealth and high amounts of debt it might not be surprising that households heads who borrowed for college are less satisfied in their personal financial situation. Nearly 30% of student loan debtors were dissatisfied financially, while only 14% of graduates without student loan debt were dissatisfied.
That number only reiterates Pew’s findings earlier this year that the earnings gap between millennials with a college degree and those with only a high school diploma is the highest it’s ever been.
Student debt doesn’t just affect a graduates economic well-being, it’s also been found to affect the nation’s economic well-being. In February, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that rising student debt could prove to be one of the most painful aftershocks of the Great Recession. Housing experts related the debt to a decline in first-time home buyers entering the housing market.
Young Adults, Student Debt and Economic Well-Being [Pew Research Center]
That’s what Indiana’s top court is trying to figure out, reports USA Today: The state’s current public intoxication law allows for a criminal charge if a person is intoxicated and in public who “harasses, annoys or alarms another person.”
The definition of what could be annoying all started in August 2012, when an off-duty police officer working security for a bus service spotted a man passed out on a bench in a downtown bus shelter. The suspect’s brother was yelling at him for to wake up. No one else was around when the officer approached.
He woke the man, who became agitated and angry, and said there was an odor of alcohol on his breath. So he arrested him for public intoxication, writing that not only was he drunk, that was “coupled with the fact that … his behavior was annoying.”
An appeals court overturned that conviction in February, finding the “annoying” standard unconstitutionally vague. It wrote in the decision that there has to be “some ‘scientifically objective measurement for compliance’” in the statute “so that the public is aware of the conduct that will subject them to arrest.”
Basically, if you do Thing A when you’re drunk, you can be charged with a crime. If you do Thing B, then you won’t be.
The “annoying” bit was added to the statute in 2012 as an update that was supposed to limit officer discretion and refine the law to cases where a person was causing harm or affecting others. But that might not have been enough, says one legal expert.
“The bar should be higher,” he explains. “It needs to be clear what is meant by annoying.”
That’s how the appellate court saw it: “The (public intoxication) statute neither requires that a defendant have specifically intended to annoy another, nor does it employ an objective standard to assess whether a defendant’s conduct would be annoying to a reasonable person.”
It went on to add that the wording would allow officers to use their own arbitrary methods of enforcement, considering that anything they’d witness would be subjective based on their feelings at the time, instead of a legally enforceable, defined criteria.
The state attorney’s general’s office wants the Supreme court to overturn the Court of Appeals ruling, arguing among other things, that the statute wasn’t vague as applied in the bus shelter situation, because “a person of ordinary intelligence would know that lying drunk in a public bus shelter that the general public uses throughout the day for transportation constitutes conduct that would annoy others — especially when the intoxicated person angrily and continually refuses to move when asked to do so by another person.”
Now I’d just like to know whether you can call the police on the flocks of screaming, yelling, puking and otherwise obnoxious crowds on the subway on St. Patrick’s Day because boy, would I like to know.
Are annoying drunks criminals? Ind. high court to rule [USA Today]
But that didn’t keep one inquisitive consumer from not only asking a 9-1-1 operator in Washington State where he could get some pot “this morning” — at 9 p.m., no less — but reiterating the request.
“Excuse me?” the operator replied after his initial request, according to KATU.com.
“Where can I buy some marijuana this morning?” our bad consumer asked.
“Do you realize you called the police department?” asks the no doubt incredulous dispatcher.
“No I didn’t. That’s very interesting. Well, let me ask you the same question…. It’s a legitimate question.”
And on it goes, with the man repeated the question for a third time, until the dispatcher said she had no idea where he could get his hands on some reefer. At which point, he thanked her and ended the call.
Police were sent to check on the man, but it’s unclear if he’s in trouble for misusing the emergency system for his own drug-seeking needs. Allegedly! Maybe he was just curious in general. In any case, don’t call 9-1-1 for drugs. It’s not an emergency, and you won’t get any help in your quest anyway.
Man calls 911: ‘Where can I buy some marijuana this morning?’ [KATU.com]
