Texas Plumber Sells Truck, Gets Branded A Terrorist

terrorist_tweetOur global, interconnected economy is an amazing thing. Of course, it doesn’t seem so amazing right now to the person answering the phones at Mark-1 Plumbing in Texas City, Texas. The business has had to remove the batteries from its cordless phones to stop the phones from “ringing off the hook” after a truck with its name emblazoned on the door ended up in the hands of an Islamic militant group in Syria.


Normally, just selling your old truck doesn’t lead to an international furor. The plumbing company just traded its old truck in at a local dealership last fall, and didn’t expect to hear about it again. That’s how trading your truck in works. Only what they failed to do was remove the business name and phone number from the door.


The company’s owner assures the public that they are not sponsors of any militant groups in other countries, but that hasn’t stopped angry members of the public from calling them and even making threats. “We have a secretary here, she’s scared to death. We all have families. We don’t want no problems,” the company’s owner told TV station KHOU. They are no longer answering the phone.


The dealership sold the Ford F-250 at auction, and from there it disappeared into the used car market. Until it reappeared in a photo posted to Twitter by a group of Islamic militants fighting in Syria’s civil war, with an anti-aircraft weapon mounted on the back. Unfortunately, the name and phone number of the plumbing company in Texas were still on the side.


That’s one useful piece of consumer advice from this story: when you trade in or sell a vehicle, don’t simply assume that the buyer will remove decals or emblems. Apparently, you can never predict where your old truck might end up.


Texas City truck seen on Islamic military group’s Twitter feed [KHOU] (Warning: auto-play video)




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

L.A. Medical Marijuana Dispensary Removes Pot-Smoking Santa Painting From The Window After Complaints


If the legal marijuana industry learns anything from Big Tobacco’s experience in this country, it’s that mixing kids and smoking is just not going to fly, as the industry found out with the banishment of Joe Camel and his ilk. So even if medical marijuana is legal in California, it’s not legal for anyone under 18. You know, or anyone who might believe in Santa Claus.

Members of the public who are complaining about a painting of Santa Claus on the window of a Los Angeles medical marijuana dispensary that shows him as quite the Jolly St. Nick, puffing away on what appears to be a cinnamon stick blunt while holding a smoking bong, say kids are going to get the wrong idea.


NBC Los Angeles reports that people are worried that because the dispensary is in an area where a lot of children tend to be — there’s a junior high school nearby, one critic noted — those kids might see what Santa’s doing and want to copy him.


As such, the business has agreed to remove the Christmas scene, which also included a snowman holding a prescription pill bottle.


Despite the outcry on social media and elsewhere, the store manager tells the station that he didn’t realize people were ticked off about the paintings. After talking to NBC Los Angeles, he reportedly called the artist in charge of the paintings and asked him to scrape his work off the windows. No sign of smokey Santa as of yesterday afternoon.




Residents Riled Over Christmas Display of Pot-Smoking Santa [NBC Los Angeles]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

CFPB Lawsuit: Sprint Made Millions Off Consumers Acting As A “Breeding Ground” For Bill-Cramming


Just a day after rumors surfaced that Sprint could be facing a $105 million from the Federal Communications Commission for allegedly overcharging customers using a practice known as “bill-cramming,” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has filed a lawsuit against the carrier for the bogus charges placed on customer’s phone bills.


The CFPB announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against Sprint Corporation for illegally billing wireless consumers tens of millions of dollars in unauthorized third-party charges.


According to the Bureau’s complaint [PDF], which seeks refunds for affected consumers, Sprint operated a billing system that allowed third-party servicers to “cram” unauthorized charges on customers’ mobile-phone accounts and subsequently ignored consumers’ complaints about the charges.


Like previous cramming allegations against T-Mobile and AT&T, Sprint allegedly tacked unasked-for and unauthorized subscriptions for things like ringtones and text messages containing love tips, horoscopes, and “fun facts” onto bills.


From about 2004 through 2013, regulators say nearly all wireless carriers’ third-party billing involved products called “premium text messages” or “premium short messaging services” (PSMS) because they were frequently delivered by text messages.


In Sprint’s case, the company outsourced payment processing for these digital purchases to vendors called “billing aggregators” without properly monitoring them.


Because of the lack of oversight, regulators allege that Sprint’s system attracted and enabled unscrupulous merchants who, in some cases, only needed consumers’ phone numbers to cram illegitimate charges onto wireless bills.


The charges typically ranged from one-time fees of about $0.99 – $4.99 to monthly subscriptions that cost about $9.99 a month.


In all, the CFPB estimates that Sprint received a 30% to 40% cut of the gross revenue from these charges.


The CFPB reports that most affected Sprint customers were initially targeted by the third-party products online.


“Consumers clicked on ads that brought them to websites asking them to enter their cellphone numbers,” officials with the CFPB say in a news release. “Some merchants tricked consumers into providing their cellphone numbers to receive ‘free’ digital content and then charged for it. Many others simply placed fabricated charges on bills without delivering any goods or communicating with consumers.”


The CFPB claims that Sprint essentially welcomed the third-party charges with open arms.


Sprint allegedly did not allow customers to opt-in to third-party billing. Instead the wireless company automatically enrolled customers without their consent.


This policy helped to perpetrate the egregious actions by the third-party companies because many customers did not spot unauthorized charges, as they were unaware that third parties could place charges on their bill, the CFPB reports.


In addition to providing a hospitable environment for exploitative merchants, Sprint regularly disregarded red flags showing its system was a “breeding ground” for unauthorized charges, the CFPB alleges.


“Sprint continued to outsource to billing aggregators despite lawsuits about cramming against the very same aggregators that Sprint used,” the CFPB says. “In addition, Sprint should have known that cramming was a major problem as the company had already been subject to a law enforcement action related to the issue.”


That action was closed when Sprint settled charges of wireless cramming with the Florida Attorney General.


Officials with the Bureau say that Sprint further failed its customers by ignoring their complaints regarding unauthorized charges.


“Sprint failed to track customer complaints about unauthorized charges, and as a result, lacked the most basic alert mechanism that could have revealed flaws in its monitoring systems,” regulators say. “Sprint also failed to provide full and prompt remediation to consumers subjected to these charges.”


In many cases, Sprint refused to provide customers with refunds and only offered instructions on how to block future third-party charges.


While action by the FCC against Sprint – rumored to be a $105 million fine – is still pending, Commission spokesman Tom Wheeler provided a press statement on the CFPB’s lawsuit against the wireless company.


“Protecting consumers from unauthorized fees on their phone bills is a team effort,” Wheeler says. “The Commission has a great working relationship with CFPB and state law enforcement partners. Together, we are pursuing joint enforcement actions to protect consumers from unauthorized fees on their wireless bills. Our agencies have agreed to continue our close cooperation on this and other cases on behalf of wireless customers nationwide.”


If the FCC moves forward with the speculated $105 million fine, it would mark the third time this year a major wireless carrier has faced action regarding bill-cramming.


In October, AT&T entered into a deal with the Federal Trade Commission, FCC and attorneys general from 50 states and the District of Columbia to pay $105 million to settle allegations that it profited off of bill-cramming.


The FTC claimed that AT&T kept about 35% of all the fees it took in from these charges; in some cases, the company earned upwards of 40% of the revenue from the third-party charges.


The CFPB’s lawsuit against Sprint marks the second such action against a mobile carrier this year.


Back in July, the Federal Trade Commission sued T-Mobile for similar practices, accusing the company of making hundreds of millions of dollars off of premium text-messaging premium.


T-Mobile’s response to that lawsuit was to claim that it shouldn’t be sued because it stopped allowing these illegal charges.


The FTC alleged that T-Mobile received anywhere from 35-40% of the total amount charged to consumers for subscriptions (mostly $9.99/month) for things like “flirting tips, horoscope information or celebrity gossip.”


Continued allegations and action against carriers regarding bill-cramming may not come as much surprise after a Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation report released in July found that wireless providers often turned a blind eye to cramming because it resulted in billions of dollars in revenue for carriers.


Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Sues Spring For Cramming Consumers With Unauthorized Third-Party Charges [CFPB]




by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Netflix Now Available On Dish Subscribers’ Boxes


Netflix and traditional pay TV companies are ever at odds in the public eye. But behind the scenes, it seems they are getting ever more cooperative: as of today, Dish subscribers now have access to Netflix on their set-top boxes.

The deal, which both companies announced today in a press release, applies to Dish subcribers who use the second-gen Hopper set-top box. Those customers can now switch over to Netflix with the flick of a virtual button — although they will need to have a separate, active Netflix subscription apart from their Dish subscription.


It’s been well over a year since rumors first began swirling that Netflix was in talks with major pay-TV providers to put everyone’s favorite binge-streaming TV app onto cable boxes.


In the current generation of technology, everything is just a platform running a hundred different apps. Your cable (fiber, satellite) box from Comcast, Verizon, or Dish is not terribly different from your Roku, Chromecast, or Amazon Fire TV except that it natively includes your pay TV access as its primary app. Adding Netflix to the mix is a matter of will and contracts, not a matter of tech.


A handful of small cable providers put Netflix onto their TiVo-based set-top boxes earlier this year, so the Dish integration is not the first of its kind. However, those three companies added all together reach only 820,000 subscribers.


Dish, on the other hand, is the third-largest pay TV company in the country — behind Comcast and DirecTV, and ahead of Time Warner Cable — with over 14 million customers.


From the Dish perspective, the move basically gives customers a reason not to dish their satellite box just yet, and instead to hang around in the Dish playground a bit longer. As Vivek Khemka, DISH senior vice president of product management, explained it in a statement: “This app integration eliminates the need to switch television inputs to access content on varying devices. It gives our customers easy access to their favorite shows and movies, on both DISH and Netflix, without ever having to leave their Hopper.”


For Netflix, meanwhile, the gain is obvious: the more ways customers can access Netflix, the better. Bill Holmes, global head of business development at Netflix, acknowledged the obvious in his statement, saying, “Many households subscribe to both Netflix and a traditional pay-TV service. Our vast library of TV shows and movies, combined with DISH’s lineup of live television content, gives customers easy access to a wide variety of complementary programming.”


The offer is different from the bundle that Verizon offered earlier this year. The Verizon deal did include a year of free Netflix as a perk, but did not add the service to the FiOS lineup or box.




by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Gov’t Forecast: The Average Driver Will Save $550 On Gas Next Year


After so much pain at the pump in recent years, it’s got to be sweet relief for drivers to hear that 2015 might be easier on the old wallet. A report from the federal government says the average driver will save $550 on gas next year compared to 2014.

Gas prices haven’t been quite so rough lately, and it’s going to get even better, reports CNNMoney, according to a forecast from the feds at the Energy Information Institute.


On average, drivers will shell out $1,962 on gas next year, which is about a 20% dip from this year, and comes out to $45 per month that will stay in your pocket. Where it belongs forever or until something good comes along.


For the full year, 2015’s average price per gallon is predicted to be about $2.60, a decrease from 2014’s estimated average of $3.37.


And if those numbers make you feel like it’s 2004 again, that makes sense, as that’s the last year drivers spent so little at the pump.


Drivers to save $550 on gas in 2015 [CNNMoney]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Man Allegedly Takes Out $262,000 In Student Loans Under Stepdaughter’s Name, Doesn’t Use It For Tuition


Here’s the thing, when you take out student loans you sign a promissory note saying you’ll use the funds to pay for tuition related costs. If you don’t, then you’re committing something called student loan fraud. That’s apparently the case for a Pennsylvania man who must now stand trial for taking out hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of student loans in his stepdaughter’s name only to use the money himself.

The Pittsburg Tribune-Review reports that a Butler County district judge ordered the man to stand trial on charges that he took out fraudulent private student loans in his stepdaughter’s name and deposited the funds into his business account.


The 52-year-old man faces counts of theft, receiving stolen property and dealing in proceeds of unlawful activities.


Local authorities say the man’s stepdaughter is now $400,000 in debt for her education at Geneva College, thanks in part to interest rates and late payment fees.


The woman, who graduated with an education degree in 2009, says her mother and stepfather agreed to pay her student loans, which should have totaled about $79,000.


However, the Tribune-Review reports that her stepfather borrowed the $79,000 and much more – $262,504 more to be exact – by applying for and completing paperwork in his stepdaughter’s name.


According to a previous Tribune-Review story on the case, when the checks would arrive, the stepfather would have the young woman sign the back. She says she never actually looked to see how much the checks were for, but assumed it was the previously agreed upon amount.


The man then deposited checks into an account for his business and added the woman to the business account as a signator, according to local detectives.


Authorities say there is no record that any of the money actually went toward his stepdaughter’s education.


Adams man faces trial on charges of misusing stepdaughter’s student loans [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review]




by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Goodwill Puts All Of The Good Stuff In Special Hipster-Focused Boutique

hipsterdogAttention young, hip shoppers: do you want to dress yourself in thrifted clothing, yet you don’t want to spend hours combing through the racks of actual thrift stores? Great news for thrifty shoppers who are too snobby or pressed for time to shop in thrift stores: Goodwill Industries is trying out new store formats for people who only want designer-label goods, and for hipsters.


Hipsters? The designer-brand store concept makes sense, especially when you find out that store is in California’s Orange County, home of Disneyland and an awful lot of suburban wealth. The Goodwill mini-store concept has apparently mated with an Urban Outfitters or some kind of similar shop, producing a new kind of store: Rare by Goodwill.


The store is, effectively, a thrift store that contains only the hippest, bestest thrift store items. While this eliminates the treasure-hunt aspect to thrift shopping that many people enjoy, it also eliminates the hours spent combing racks filled with glittery vacation,themed shirts that haven’t yet come back around to hipness yet.


Goodwill’s latest experiment: A ‘rare’ boutique targeting the hipster crowd [Orange County Register]




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Some States Move To Ban Powdered Alcohol Before It Ever Hits Shelves

itsback Remember Palcohol, the powdered alcohol that when, mixed with water, is supposed to be the equivalent of one drink or shot of booze? Palcohol can’t even see store shelves from where the product is standing at this point, after first being an approved product and then having that approval yanked by regulators. But if and when it finds its way to the public, some states are preparing to keep it from shelves before it ever gets the chance to hit them.


Colorado is the latest state to join those considering banning Palcohol out of concerns it could increase underage drinking, reports the Associated Press.


“I think being proactive and jumping out in front of the problem is probably the right thing to do,” said Chris Johnson, executive director of the County Sheriffs of Colorado. “It really doesn’t have any place in our society, powdered alcohol. We have enough problems with the liquid kind.”


He says he’s worried the powdered rum or vodka will be tempting for kids to “sprinkle it on top of their Wheaties for breakfast.”


A state representative is sponsoring a bill to ban powdered alcohol in Colorado during the legislative session that begins next month.


One thing is for sure, you won’t see it in Alaska, Delaware, Louisiana, South Carolina and Vermont, as all those states have already banned powdered alcohol, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Minnesota, Ohio, and New York also are considering bans.


The company behind Palcohol says it won’t be available to buy until spring 2015 at the earliest, as there are still kinks to be worked out and labels to be approved by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.


So is it going to be a reality? It sounds like it at this point, unless you live in a state that bans it: The Food and Drug Administration won’t be stepping up against it, as it says it doesn’t have the legal basis to block it after checking out the non-alcoholic ingredients in the powder.


The creators of the powder say it’s just meant to be convenient for things like long hikes, airplane rides or anywhere you need alcohol but don’t want to carry liquid. Palcohol’s director of communications says states should be working on controlling the product and how it’s sold instead of banning it outright.


“We believe it should be regulated and taxed,” she said in an email.


Previously: Palcohol Creator: You Won’t Get Drunk Faster Snorting Powdered Alcohol


Colorado considers pre-emptive ban on powdered alcohol [Associated Press]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

10 años de estar juntos: viajando por el tiempo





via EDUCACIÓN Y T.I.C. http://ift.tt/13a9NZT

Herramientas para crear textos descriptivos





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