If You’re Going To Follow Shopper Around A Store, Don’t Walk Into Video Of You Following Them

The key to being a stealthy follower is remaining undetected. So if the person you’re following around the convenience store is repeatedly able to catch you on camera behind him, pretending to do busy work, then you need to brush-up on your sneakiness skills.


In the below, hilarious Vine video, user “rashid polo” records multiples instances where the same store employee just happens to be behind him wherever he goes. And when he does get a moment to himself to record some audio, well… look who pops into frame:



[via @DavidDTSS]




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

“Pastafarian” Man Touts The Right To Wear A Colander On His Head In Official Photos

Close, cat. Close. (i eated a cookie)

Close, cat. Close. (i eated a cookie)



You want to wear a colander on your head in your driver’s license photo and call it a form of religious expression as a Pastafarian of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Go for it, say Austrian authorities. But first, you might have to prove you’re sane enough to be driving in the first place.

An Austrian atheist claiming his right to wear a pasta strainer as “religious headgear” in his official photos will be able to do so, after reading three years ago that you could only wear headgear in official pictures for confessional reasons and filing an application with the colander pics, reports the BBC.


When he applied back then, he said it was a requirement of his pastafarianism religion. It’s taken three years for his license to come through, but now that it has, a police spokesman explained that it wasn’t issued on religious grounds, but simply because he fulfilled the requirement of having his whole face visible.


“The photo was not approved on religious grounds. The only criterion for photos in driving licence applications is that the whole face must be visible,” said a Vienna police spokesman. He adds that it’s been ready since October 2009, but “it was not collected, that’s all there is to it”.


Authorities did require the man to get a doctor to sign off on his application, saying he’s “psychologically fit” to drive. Because the first thing someone might wonder when you insist on wearing a colander on your head is, well… never mind, who am I to judge?


“I didn’t know I was guilty of not collecting it,” the man explained of the delay. “That doesn’t alter the fact that it still took nearly a year [to be issued]“.


Austrian driver allowed ‘pastafarian’ headgear photo [BBC]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

Here are ten of the best photos that readers added to the Consumerist Flickr Pool in the last week, picked for usability in a Consumerist post or for just plain neatness.












Our Flickr Pool is the place where Consumerist readers upload photos for possible use in future Consumerist posts. Want to see your pictures on our site? Just be a registered Flickr user, go here, and click “Join Group?” up on the top right. Choose your best photos, then click “send to group” on the individual images you want to add to the pool.




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Shocker: Those Fake-Looking Fried Chicken Oreos Are Indeed Fake


Given the sheer number of Oreo varieties that have been dumped on store shelves in the past year — from sherbet to peanut butter cup to fruit punch to lemon and limeade — it’s almost not beyond belief that Nabisco would give fried chicken Oreos a go. Almost, but not quite.

A rep for the cookie company broke the bad news to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.


“The flavor you are referring to is in fact not real,” said the rep, breaking the hearts of a few dozen people who actually believed this was a bona fide Oreo variety.


[via Cleveland.com]




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Two States Sue Makers Of 5-Hour Energy With Claims Of Deceptive Advertising


Both Oregon and Washington State filed lawsuits against the makers of 5-Hour Energy, alleging that the company has engaged in deceptive advertising tied to the ingredients in its drink. Other states are expected to follow suit, pun intended and totally appropriate in this case.

Oregon’s attorney general filed a lawsuit in Portland against Living Essentials LLC and Innovation Ventures LLC, claiming that 5-Hour Energy’s claims that consumers get extra energy and focus from a unique blend of ingredients is false, that the jolt just comes from a concentrated dose of caffeine, reports the Associated Press.


It also takes issue with 5-Hour Energy bragging that customers don’t experience a crash after the effects of the drink have worn off, and that it’s safe for adolescents.


Washington’s suit filed in Seattle is similar, and it likely won’t be the last state to do so, says a spokeswoman for the Oregon Department of Justice. The state has been leading a 33-state investigation into the product’s claims.


Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum says the drink violates the state’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and is seeking monetary penalties as well as refunds to anyone who bought the decaffeinated version of the product in Oregon.


The lawsuit says that drink has no extra energy or alertness, after Rosenblum’s office has fought to get unredacted information showing exactly how the drink’s formula achieves its purported effects.


“Plainly and simply, in Oregon you cannot promote a product as being effective if you don’t have sufficient evidence to back up your advertising claims,” Rosenblum said.


A spokeswoman for 5-Hour Energy says the drink won’t go down without a fight, calling the lawsuits civil intimidation.


“When companies are being bullied by someone in a position of power, these companies roll over, pay the ransom, and move on,” a spokeswoman said in a statement. “We’re not doing that.”


States sue 5-Hour Energy over ad claims [Associated Press]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Amazon Unveils Subscription E-Book Service For $10/Month

kindleunlimit After accidentally posting info about the service to its site earlier this week, Amazon has officially unveiled “Kindle Unlimited,” a $9.99/month subscription service that offers users access to a library of e-books.


The company claims that Unlimited is launching with more than 600,000 titles to select from. Additionally, a subscription includes three free months of Audible audiobook access to about 150,000 titles.


Like other e-book subscription services, including Oyster — and not unlike video services like Netflix or Amazon Prime — Kindle Unlimited is not currently the place to go to see newly released big titles.


Many of the Unlimited titles featured on Amazon are either from small publishers or are books that many voracious readers have either already consumed or passed on reading:

kindleunlimited


There are a couple of marquee series involved in the service, like the Hunger Games books and the Harry Potter titles, both of which Amazon has previously used to promote its Kindle Lending Library offering.


The ideal customer for a service like Kindle Unlimited may be the reader who is just constantly looking for anything to read. In fact, the predominance of smaller publishers and lesser-known authors in the library may help introduce curious readers to titles they might not otherwise have read.


Amazon is offering a free 30-day trial of Kindle Unlimited, but note that the site will begin charging you the $9.99/month if you do not cancel at the end of that trial.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Wells Fargo To Stop Reordering Check Transactions To Maximize Overdraft Charges


A little talked-about way in which banks maximize overdraft fees is by processing transactions not in the order in which they are received, but in a way that results in the largest number of overdrafts. Now the folks at Wells Fargo are putting an end to this practice for its checking account customers.

Say you’ve got $400 in your checking account and your bank has a policy of charging $35 each time you overdraft your account. Then, losing track of your bank balance, you write four checks totaling $450 — the first for $75, the second for $50, a third for $25, and the final one for $300.


If the bank processes those checks in the order they were written, then you only face a single $35 overdraft fee, as you don’t overdraft your account until that $300 check is processed. But if the bank reorders them from largest to smallest, then it can collect $70 in fees.


A lot of banks do this reordering, also known as “stacking.” They often contend that it’s a matter of making sure the largest, and likely most important, payments are given priority; it just has the happy result of maximizing overdraft fees.


Wells Fargo, which is currently appealing a $203 class action suit over stacking, had already stopped reordering debit card transactions and ATM withdrawals, but continued stacking checks.


But according to the Washington Post, WF will soon begin processing its customers’ checks in the order in which they are received.


“This change will simplify the communication of our posting order to customers since we will have a single process that is used in all of our banking states,” a rep for the bank explained.


Stacking was pushed into the spotlight in 2011 after Bank of America agreed to pay $410 million to settle claims related to the practice. The bank also gave up on reordering transactions altogether.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Si no crees en las Redes Sociales es que no las conoces #citas #quotes #socialmedia

Si no crees en las Redes Sociales es que no las conoces

Si no crees en las Redes Sociales es que no las conoces





Archivado en: Frases y citas, Redes Sociales, Sociedad de la información Tagged: Citas, internet, redes sociales, tic, Web 2.0.



from TICs y Formación http://ift.tt/1kC9hGs

via Alfredo Vela Posteado por www.bscformacion.com

Prueba-publicación

prueba






from Educa con TIC http://ift.tt/1jE8Mkg

via Educa con TIC Posteado por www.bscformacion.com

FedEx Indicted For Shipping Drugs For Illegal Pharmacies; Denies Allegations


More than a year after UPS agreed to pay $40 million to settle federal charges that it knowingly made shipments for illegal online pharmacies, a federal grand jury has indicted FedEx for similar allegations.

According to the indictment [PDF] the San Francisco-based grand jury charged the shipping giant with Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances, Distribution of Controlled Substances, Conspiracy to Distribute Misbranded Drugs and Misbranding Drugs.


The DOJ alleges that, starting in 2004 (if not earlier), the Drug Enforcement Administration, FDA and others alerted FedEx to the fact that these illegal Internet pharmacies were using its shipping services to distribute controlled substances and prescription drugs in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and state laws.


And the pressure to be wary of online pharmacies wasn’t coming from just the feds. The indictment states that FedEx couriers in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia alerted management of their concerns that they may be making deliveries to drug dealers and addicts.


Among the examples given by drivers: FedEx trucks being stopped on the roads near delivery addresses for pharmacy customers; delivery addresses that were actually parking lots, schools, or vacant homes where car loads of people were waiting for the FedEx driver to arrive; customers jumping on FedEx trucks and demanding online pharmacy packages; drivers being threatened if they insisted on delivering packages to the addresses listed on the labels.


Rather than cease doing business with these pharmacies, the DOJ says that FedEx “adopted a procedure whereby Internet pharmacy packages from problematic shippers were held for pick up at specific stations, rather than delivered to the recipient’s address.”


The DOJ also alleges that FedEx knowingly made deliveries for at least two organizations — one which “operated a network of illegal Internet and fulfillment pharmacies” and one that was a “fulfillment pharmacy that filled drug orders” for other illegal operations.


Even after FedEx learned of the arrest of a principal of one of these organizations, it allegedly continued to distribute controlled substances and prescription drugs for the group.


The indictment accuses FedEx of not only knowing that the second organization, Superior Drugs, illegally distributed prescription drugs, but that it was fulfilling orders for other illegal pharmacies. When the DEA shut down a fulfillment operation in Maryland, members of the FedEx sales team discussed how Superior had picked up the fulfillment work for that business’s former clients.


About the time that federal agencies began warning FedEx against becoming involved with illegal pharmacies, the company adopted a policy requiring that its credit department vet all new online pharmacy accounts; not to make sure they were legitimate, claims the DOJ, but to make sure they had adequate finances to pay their bills.


“[I]t is becoming more apparent to us that many of these companies are fraudulent and doing business outside Federal regulations,” reads a 2004 e-mail, cited in the indictment, sent by FedEx’s Managing Director of Revenue Operations. The company’s Chief Financial Officer and its Senior VP of Sales later agreed to the credit check policy, which only applied to online pharmacy businesses.


And the policy did not cut down on the number of pharmacies with which FedEx did business. The DOJ says that between 2004 and 2010, FedEx’s in-house list of known pharmacies (not all illegal, mind you) had grown from 200 accounts to more than 600.


Additionally, when FedEx commission-based sales staff began complaining that they were losing commissions because online pharmacies were constantly picking up and relocating, possibly in order to avoid detection by the authorities, the company began assigning the sales category designation of “catchall” to online pharmacies, meaning they were not assigned to any specific account execs, and that they did not affect the yearly sales goals of account execs or their managers.


In arguing for slapping the “catchall” label on online pharmacies in 2006, a Managing Director at FedEx wrote to the VP of Field Sales for the Eastern Region to say, “I can assure you that these types of accounts will always result in a loss at some point. They have a very short lifespan and will eventually be shut down by the DEA.”


“The advent of Internet pharmacies allowed the cheap and easy distribution of massive amounts of illegal prescription drugs to every corner of the United States, while allowing perpetrators to conceal their identities through the anonymity the Internet provides,” said U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag. “This indictment highlights the importance of holding corporations that knowingly enable illegal activity responsible for their role in aiding criminal behavior.”


FedEx has been summoned to appear in federal court in San Francisco on July 29.


Meanwhile, the company denies any wrongdoing.


“We will defend against this attack on the integrity and good name of FedEx and its employees,” said a company VP in a statement, adding that FedEx repeatedly asked the government for lists of allegedly illegal online pharmacies. “Whenever DEA provides us a list of pharmacies engaging in illegal activity, we will turn off shipping for those companies immediately… We are a transportation company — we are not law enforcement.”




by Chris Morran via Consumerist