Volkswagen Recalls More Than 441,000 Beetles, Jettas To Inspect Rear Suspension Issue


Did you ever play the road trip game where you got to punch your sibling if you saw a Volkswagen Beetle? No? Okay, well then, neither did I. For those thinking of playing “slug bug” (or punch buggy, punch bug, punch dub, piggy punch, beetle bug) on the next long drive, there may be fewer cars to spot now that VW is recalling some 441,000 Beetle and Jetta vehicles for possible suspension issues.

The Wall Street Journal reports that VW issued a recall for 400,602 Jetta sedans manufactured between 2011 and 2013, and 41,663 Beetle and Beetle convertible vehicles manufactured from 2012 to 2013.


The recall, which includes more than a million cars globally, was initiated so dealers could inspect the rear suspension of the vehicles.


An investigation was launched two months ago in China after consumers complained about broken suspension arms on the rear axle of some VW sedans.


Officials with VW inspected dozens of cars and found that the suspension arm was broken in connection with a rear-end collision for all of the vehicles, the WSJ reports.


According to VW the issue is not a defect. Instead, they insist the broken suspension arm was a result of the owners continuing to drive the car although the axle had been damaged in an accident.


Officials with the company say there have been no injuries reported relating to the axle issue.


Volkswagen Recalling Nearly 500,000 Beetles, Jettas in U.S. [The Wall Street Journal]




by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Kevin Hart Begs National Car Rental To Not Fire Driver Who Took Photo With Him


Even during my darkest days of working in the celebrity news trenches (a time in my life I’d like to forget), I still found myself occasionally starstruck, posing for poorly snapped cellphone photos with celebrities like Salma Hayek and Love Boat’s Jill Whelan. Thank heavens I wasn’t a bus driver for National Car Rental, or I’d have been suspended from my job.

This is apparently what happened to one National shuttle bus driver at Los Angeles International Airport, who spotted comedian/actor Kevin Hart and got him to pose for a photo with her.


Earlier this week, TMZ reported that the driver had been suspended without pay for her actions, but last night Hart actually used to gossip site to make a public plea to National to let the driver keep her job.


“I’m asking National to please give this woman a pass,” Hart says in the brief video plea above. “I love National, and if I had seen me I would have taken a selfie with me too! C’mon, have some compassion.”




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Michigan May Be Latest To Ban Direct Sales Of Teslas


Because car dealerships don’t want to move beyond an era of gladhanding salesman upselling customers on unnecessary add-ons — and because they apparently want to give electric car company Tesla as much free advertising as possible — they are pushing for Michigan to enact legislation preventing carmakers from selling directly to consumers in the state.

Tesla doesn’t operate the typical network of franchised auto dealers. Instead, people looking to buy one of the pricey electric cars does so directly through Tesla. The company does, however, operate a small number of display operations where people can look at Tesla models and ask questions about the cars.


This hasn’t sat well with various auto dealer industry groups who have backed legislative attempts in multiple states seeking to ban direct sales.


The Michigan effort is particularly underhanded as the ban on direct sales was quietly attached to an unrelated bill regarding fees charged by auto dealers on Oct. 2, shortly before the legislation went to a final vote.


The amended bill passed through the Michigan state House and Senate and now sits on the desk of Gov. Rick Snyder, who has until Tuesday to decide whether to veto or sign the legislation.


The Michigan Auto Dealers Association claims that Tesla is already violating existing state law by not selling cars through franchised dealers. Tesla maintains that it’s not breaking the old laws because it simply doesn’t operate any sales businesses in Michigan.


The amendment, backed by the MADA, attempts to close this purported loophole by clarifying that the law applies to all manufacturers who “sell, service, display or advertise vehicles in the state.”


“One of the things that was added to the bill was a section that states this law applies to all manufacturers. There’s no creation of new rules,” said Terry Burns, executive vice president of the MADA to the Detroit Free Press. “If a manufacturer wants to come in and sell cars in the state of Michigan, they should probably follow Michigan law.”


But Tesla’s general counsel counters that the amendment is not a simple clarification of the law; it’s an attempt to change the law and ban the sale of Teslas.


“People don’t introduce bills unless they intend to change the law,” he explained. “Secondly, people don’t sneak language in at the last minute unless they know it will be consequential.”


Tesla doesn’t even operate a display in Michigan, but the state wants to join Texas, Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia on the list of states that are terrified of living in a world where car dealerships aren’t always necessary.


The fact is that auto dealers face a future where they may no longer be such an integral part of the retail landscape.


“The market will eventually push that in that direction,” Christie Nordhielm, associate professor of business at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business tells the Free Press. “Rule one of distribution is there’s only one customer, and that is the consumer. Everyone else is a middle man.”


State Representative Tom McMillin of Rochester Hills was the only “no” against the final bill, arguing that the government should not be in the business of deciding how cars are sold.


“If a company wants to try to distribute their product different than through dealerships, they certainly should be able to,” he explained to the Detroit News. “The only winners in that would be the consumers.”


In September, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts threw out a lawsuit aiming to block Tesla from selling directly to customers and using a retail storefront to display model vehicles.


Weeks earlier, the Georgia Automobile Dealers Association filed a complaint with the state’s Department of Revenue, claiming that Tesla sold too many through its one retail store in the state.


A petition asking the White House to introduce federal legislation to allow for direct sales to consumers in all states gathered more than 130,000 signatures last summer. The White House responded by saying that consumer choice is important, but that laws regarding things like auto sales are best left in the hands of the individual states.


While most states don’t have active bans on direct sales, a recently passed law in New Jersey expressly allows Tesla and others to sell directly to consumers.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

The Future Will Be Online TV, But That Might Come With Online Blackouts




It’s been a heck of a week for anyone who’s been waiting for all their TV to go online. HBO, CBS, and Univision have all announced online streaming subscription packages this week, which is big news for consumers. But the future, while different, may not be rosy. You can’t watch streaming video without internet access, after all. So what happens to your show when your TV network and your ISP get mad at each other?

The fine folks over at the WaPo’s The Switch point out that this is exactly the kind of problem we’re likely to see someday.


The Switch quotes Ross Lieberman, who works for the American Cable Association and who tweeted out the big question: “If CBS and a cable op[erator] can’t agree on a [retransmission] deal, will CBS block that op’s broadband sub[scribers] from accessing its new streaming service?”


Cable or satellite blackouts happen relatively often when two companies can’t agree on contract terms. This year, for example, The Weather Channel went dark on DirecTV for three solid months when the two could not agree on terms. The Weather Channel wanted more money than DirecTV was willing to pay, so no new contract was signed as the old one expired, and 20 million customers were unable to watch Jim Cantore stand in the rain as a result.


As carriage disputes go, though, that one was mild even though it was protracted. Some are much more contentious, like last year’s dispute between CBS and Time Warner Cable. The CBS/Showtime blackout that resulted was disastrous for TWC, which lost over 300,000 subscribers. And in an era where cord-cutters are ascendant, and ever-more content is available without a cable box, those are subscribers that pay-TV companies aren’t going to get back.


So what might happen as we put more and more TV online?


Content companies — broadcast networks like CBS, as well as premium channels like HBO — are going to stay on cable and satellite for a long time. They’re not going to walk away from those contracts, even as more Americans choose the online options instead. 90 million pay-TV subscribers is a big drop from 100 million pay-TV subscribers, but it’s still a lot of people and a lot of money.


But for viewers to watch online content, we need to pay an internet provider. And for huge swaths us our internet provider is also a pay-TV company that has a strong interest in double-dipping and making money wherever possible.


So let’s say that Comcast and CBS get into a carriage dispute in the future. If you don’t have a cable subscription, you don’t care that CBS and Showtime are going dark on cable boxes, because you only pay Comcast for broadband, and you pay $6 per month to CBS directly for online access to their content.


But you get that internet access from Comcast, and CBS is withholding their content from Comcast customers. So now, when you try to use the CBS subscription you’re paying for — on any of your devices — you get a big fat blackout error message on your app or browser preventing you from watching your content online.


Sound farfetched? It’s not. Online gatekeeping already happens on occasion. For example, earlier this year one basic cable network pulled a show off the air mid-season but put the remaining episodes online, on their website. However, for the first several days after the change, some customers who get both cable and internet from Comcast (including yours truly) were unable to access the show from the website, and instead received error messages about being required to subscribe to the channel.


It wasn’t a dispute, and Comcast and the network got it all sorted out in a few days (well before the show’s current season hit the ether). But it hints at some of the underlying problems that an unbundled, streaming future is likely to face. Content networks, pay-TV companies, and broadband companies all have a strong stake in accessing both the TV and online side of the equation. But they aren’t three distinct entities: there’s loads of overlap, and each company is likely to have even more competing interests over the coming years of change.


Only one thing remains ever true: no matter who argues, it’s consumers that get stuck in the middle.


Cable blackouts could someday be broadband blackouts, too [Washington Post]




by Kate Cox 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

Couple Accused Of Stealing $45K Worth Of Luggage From Airport

One of the suspects caught on camera allegedly stealing a bag from the Sea-Tac baggage claim.

One of the suspects caught on camera allegedly stealing a bag from the Sea-Tac baggage claim.



Did you have a bag go missing at the airport last spring? If the airport was Sea-Tac International in Washington, we have a pretty good idea what might have happened to it.

SeattlePI.com reports on a pair of miscreants (sorry, alleged miscreants) from Chicago who have been charged with stealing $45,000 worth of luggage from Sea-Tag baggage claim carousels.


Unlike other airport theft operations that we’ve written about — which often involved airline or airport employees smoothly redirecting luggage or grabbing select, expensive items from bags as they headed to and from airplanes — this couple took a more direct approach to their crime.


Port of Seattle investigators say the twosome simply grabbed bags off carousels and carried them right out to their car.


Authorities say they know of at least 18 successful baggage thefts and one failed attempt.


After police shared photos of the suspects through CrimeStoppers, someone identified the man in the images and claimed that he’d committed similar heists and Portland International in Oregon.


It’s jerks like these — along with ridiculous checked-bag fees — that have so many travelers trying to cram everything they are traveling with into those rolling suitcases that hog up overhead bins.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Cleaning Supply Sales Are Up As Americans Freak Out Over Ebola


Ebola is a terrifying disease affecting parts of Western Africa right now, and some health care workers who cared for an infected visitor to Dallas from Liberia without being provided proper infection control equipment are being treated or quarantined for the disease. Naturally, this means that it is time for a nationwide freakout wherein we stock up on disinfectants and treat everyone with suspicion.

Flu season is coming, so stocking up on disinfectants and cutting back on handshakes isn’t a bad idea. Market-research company Nielsen reports that sales of disinfectants and hand sanitizer are up 23%, and customers are apparently concerned that the Lysol can does not individually list every pathogen that it kills.


lysol_ebola


Shopping with Ebola in mind isn’t a bad idea if you think about it metaphorically, like when the Centers for Disease Control released a disaster-preparedness guide for a zombie invasion that actually serves as advice for more probable emergencies that do not involve zombies. Yet if you’re ready for a zombie attack, you’re also ready for a hurricane, earthquake, blizzard, or an extended power outage.


Stocking up on disinfectants and hand sanitizer isn’t all that helpful in the event that you do come into direct contact with the bodily fluids of a person suffering from Ebola symptoms, but it could be very helpful in protecting against diseases that people in North America are more likely to encounter: influenza, norovirus, and enterovirus. If you’re going to prep for Ebola, that’s cool, but go get a flu shot, too.


America’s Ebola Preppers Go Shopping for Clorox [Businessweek]

Consumers Buying More Disinfectants and Hand Sanitizers Amid Ebola News [AdAge]




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

FBI Director Wants To Change Law To Allow Easier Snooping On Smartphones

James-Comey-Official-Portrait-High-Res Last month, FBI Director James Comey expressed vague concerns that new privacy measures on iOS and Android smartphones might allow criminals to do bad things. Now Comey is saying it’s time to change the law to make sure that law enforcement doesn’t have to figure out your phone’s password.


Thanks to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the police have relatively easy access for warranted monitoring of telephone and Internet communication, by requiring that providers build in a way for authorities to tap into these connections.


But recent changes to Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android operating systems throw a wrench in CALEA because they give users a way to secure the data on their devices in a way that doesn’t allow either company to remotely unlock them.


So while police can get a warrant and listen to your calls, access cloud-stored data, possibly see your texts and e-mails, they would ultimately need to figure out a device’s passcode to access information that is stored only on your phone.


This worries Comey, and outgoing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, both of whom have claimed that this additional layer of privacy protection would allow criminals to do criminal things.


Now Comey is arguing that it’s time to change CALEA to compel companies not currently covered by the law to build in a “front door” for law enforcement access.


“Thousands of companies provide some form of communication service, and most are not required by statute to provide lawful intercept capabilities to law enforcement,” the Director said on Thursday during a speech at the Brookings Institution. “What this means is that an order from a judge to monitor a suspect’s communication may amount to nothing more than a piece of paper.”


Comey directly addressed the security updates recently announced by Apple and Google, saying, “Both companies are run by good people, responding to what they perceive is a market demand. But the place they are leading us is one we shouldn’t go to without careful thought and debate as a country.”


Then, in an effort to use metaphor to bolster his point, Comey inadvertently shoots his argument in the foot.


He says that encryption is “a closet that can’t be opened. A safe that can’t be cracked.”


Exactly. Locked closets and safes have been around for centuries, but the police don’t have master keys so that they may easily gain entry just because they think something bad is hidden therein.


Similarly, people have been using encryption and passcode protection on personal and business computers for decades but it’s been up to law enforcement to try to get around that protection when performing a search.


So why should the police have any sort of special access to smartphones? Just because it is both a telecommunications device and a computer that stores information?


As we’ve repeatedly stated in recent weeks: Neither consumers nor electronics manufacturers have an obligation to make it easier for law enforcement to do their jobs. And just because you don’t want authorities looking at the photos stored on your phone doesn’t mean you have anything to hide.


“When we accept the premise that full access to everyone’s communications is required, there will be no end to access government can demand to your smart home, smart car, and so on,” cautions lawyer Albert Gidari Jr., to the Washington Post, “just because a bad guy somewhere might use such a device in furtherance of a crime.”




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Artefactos Multimedia (V): comparte un cuaderno virtual



Referencias:







from Educa con TIC http://ift.tt/11BW7X9

via Educa con TIC Posteado por www.bscformacion.com

Zaption: presentaciones online





via Educación tecnológica http://ift.tt/1nrVo4B www.bscformacion.com