uAmazon, eBay And Etsy Join List Of Retailers That Have Removed Confederate Battle Flag Items From Their Storesr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Alan Rappa)
  

  Amazon, eBay and Etsy have joined fellow retailers Walmart and Sears in announcing that they’ve removed all merchandise featuring the Confederate battle flag from their stores.

  Today’s parade of retailers yanking rebel flag merchandise comes after the racially-motivated massacre at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston last week that left nine people dead.

  “We believe it has become a contemporary symbol of divisiveness and racism,” eBay spokeswoman Johanna Hoff said in a statement. “This decision is consistent with our long-standing policy that prohibits items that promote or glorify hatred, violence and racial intolerance.”

  Etsy’s statement is along the same lines:

  “Today, we are removing confederate flag items from our marketplace,” the company told Mashable. “Etsy’s policies prohibit items or listings that promote, support or glorify hatred and these items fall squarely into that category.”

  And finally, e-commerce giant Amazon confirmed to Time.com that it will be putting the kibosh on the flag as well.

  Again, the Confederate battle flag is not to be confused with the official flag of the Confederacy (of which there were three official iterations). Sometimes called the rebel banner, the flag was the battle emblem for Gen. Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, notes PBS. It was rejected for use as the official flag of the rebels, but it was included in two later official flags as a smaller rectangle in a larger design.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uFacebook Develops Technology To Recognize You Even When Your Face Is Coveredr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Raymond Bryson)

  If you regularly shield your face in photos for fear someone might recognize you on Facebook, then you might need to find another way to stay incognito when it comes to the social media site.

  That’s because Facebook says it has developed an algorithm that can recognize people in photographs even when their faces are obscured, The New Scientist reports.

  The technology was developed in Facebook’s artificial intelligence lab and presented in a paper [PDF] at the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition conference earlier this month.

  “In the absence of a clear, high-resolution frontal face, we rely on a variety of subtle cues from other body parts, such as hair style, clothes, glasses, pose and other context,” the paper states. “We can easily picture Charlie Chaplin’s mustache, hat and cane or Oprah Winfrey’s curly volume” hairstyle.

  However, the researchers contend that technology capable of accurately identifying individuals based on these characteristics in non-frontal photographs wasn’t previously available… until now.

  The new algorithm – called PIPER (Pose Invariant Person Recognition) – uses characteristics such as hairstyles, clothing, body shape, poses and partial facial views to identify an individual.

  Researchers tested the method on a data set of almost 40,000 photos collected from public Flickr albums.

  In all, they say the system achieved 83% accuracy over 581 identities in the test set. When frontal face photos were put through the experiment accuracy increased to 93.4%.

  The existence of more powerful – and accurate – facial recognition software has become a topic of concern for companies and consumer groups in recent months.

  Advocates are concerned because facial recognition is not the wave of the future, but of the present. Facebook currently offers tagging suggestions for photos.

  To address concerns of the fairly new and unregulated technology, the Commerce Department recently brought together privacy advocates and industry representatives to hammer out a new code of conduct.

  However, those discussions didn’t go so well, with several advocates claiming the process was broken and couldn’t be fixed, leading them to essentially abandon the talks.

  Facebook can recognise you in photos even if you’re not looking [New Scientist]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uMcDonald’s Pushing Hot Cheese On Susceptible Wisconsinites In Test Of Its New “Lovin’ Value Menu”r

4 4 4 9

• 

  (JeepersMedia)

  [Scene opens with a lone, shrouded figure alone on stage, head bowed under the spotlight, slowly clapping] We’ve got to hand it to you, McDonald’s. When you go after a particular test market, you really know how to go after it. To wit: The fast food chain is testing its Lovin’ Value Menu at 125 locations in southeastern Wisconsin. That menu features a new item — mozzarella sticks, in a direct pitch to the cheesy heart and soul of every Wisconsinite.

  Though McDonald’s tested mozzarella sticks elsewhere in 2014, this time it’s personal, and part of McDonald’s new Lovin’ Value Menu.

  Items on the test menu start at $1, reports FOX 6, and include not only the aforementioned three cheese sticks with marinara sauce but traditional items like the cheeseburger and McChicken sandwich.

  “We know our customers in Wisconsin love cheese, and we are thrilled to be able to offer them a delicious side that tastes so great and is such an amazing value,” a local franchisee and member of McDonald’s USA operator advertising board. “The portion size gives customers the opportunity to eat it as a snack or, if they are a little hungrier, use it to accompany a meal.”

  The Lovin’ Value Menu and the its push for “mini meals” are pieces of the customization puzzle McDonald’s is putting together as it attempts to come back from decreasing sales.

  “Our customers told us they are looking for the ability to customize their meals a little more,“ the franchise said, echoing the corporate line. “People are snacking more often these days and looking for more options to create a right-sized meal for them. Mini meals allow them to do just that at an amazing value.”

  I will say the absolute best, most delicious mozzarella sticks I’ve ever had come from a restaurant in my hometown of Milwaukee (you know who you are, honey), so McDonald’s has a pretty high standard to meet.

  New “Lovin’ Value Menu” being tested at 125 McDonald’s restaurants in southeastern Wisconsin [FOX 6]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uMusicians Will Get More Than $0 During Apple Music Trial, But How Much Is That?r

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Jaap Joris)

  Maybe Taylor Swift doesn’t wield as much power over the world’s largest corporations as we thought. Yesterday, it seemed that her open letter to Apple was influential in convincing the company to pay royalties to song owners and performers during customers’ trial period for their forthcoming Apple Music service. There’s a catch, though: artists won’t be getting 70% of zero, but they may not be getting the full royalties, either.

  That’s because we still don’t know what the royalty rates will be for artists when customers are in the trial period and once they’re paying subscribers. The Wall Street Journal learned that Apple won’t necessarily be paying artists the same amount during the trial period: the company says that they will pay artists a higher rate once subscription fees start rolling in. A higher rate than what?

  Here’s the problem: the proposed rate of 71.5% means that Apple would take 71.5% of the money they take in for subcription fees and redistribute them to artists. That’s great, once they have paying subscribers, but Apple is offering to pay artists royalties on $0 income.

  Say that Apple took in $1 million from subscriptions in a month, and 50% of all songs played on the service were by Taylor Swift, after the month was over, Apple would cut Taylor a check for $357,500. What do they do with no income to use for the figures?

  That would be in line with what competing streaming services do. For example, competitor Spotify pays artists discounted royalties when they’re offering discounted subscriptions to attract new paying customers, and even more discounted royalties when a free (ad-supported) subscriber listens to a song.

  Apple will probably just make up a fixed amount per song play for early Apple Music artists. Will artists go along as long as it’s more than zero, or will they refuse to take part in Apple Music if they don’t like the payment structure once it’s announced?

  Apple Music launches on June 30. We’ll find out then.

  Apple Yet to Disclose Payments for Artists [Wall Street Journal] (via 9to5Mac)

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uPolitical Campaign Stores Raking In Not Only Cash, But A Treasure Trove Of Data For Candidatesr

4 4 4 9

• 

  Ted Cruz’s online campaign store on left, Hillary Clinton on right.

  In an age when data is just as powerful as money, it may come as no surprise to learn that sales of political stickers, T-shirts, buttons, mugs and other merchandise emblazoned with a candidate’s brand not only go toward filling campaign coffers with money, but also provide presidential hopefuls with valuable personal data that sheds light on what kind of people/voters are out there shopping.

  The New York Times has a great article on the ins and outs of political shops and online stores many candidates have been opening to garner support: From Ted Cruz to Rick Perry, Bernie Sanders to Hillary Rodham Clinton, many in the presidential race so far are shilling official merchandise.

  These stores provide not only an opportunity to spread a candidate’s brand by those literally wearing their support on their sleeves, but also as donations to campaign war chests. Because candidates can’t profit personally from such sales, when you buy a pen reading I HEART SO-AND-SO, it’s not a product purchase, technically, it’s a donation, and the item you receive as a result is considered a premium.

  That technicality results in a very attractive amount of data that can be further utilized by a campaign. When customers go through checkout and provide their name, email, shipping address and phone number, they’re also met with the statement, “federal law requires us to collect the following information”: employer, occupation and whether you are retired, as with any other online donation.

  In the retail world, that also boils down to valuable data, as the products we choose to buy provide information about our personal preferences outside of who we’re supporting in a political race.

  For example, as the NYT says:

  The choice of a product can reveal whether you are a beer drinker, a sports fan or what cellphone you use. It can suggest that there are a lot of joggers headquartered in a specific region of the country, indicating that a campaign may want to direct its health communications to that state; or that you really, really, hate the other guy. It can reveal that you have a baby, or at least are close to someone who has a baby.

  This means that the more products a candidate offers in their online store, the more information they can potentially get about who’s shopping and in turn, voting, and how to target communications to them. Or if you buy a lot of stuff, perhaps you’d make for a good local volunteer for the campaign.

  For more about how candidates pull these operations off, check out the full NYT article. It’s worth the read, especially as we head into the 2016 race. Now we know we can expect an onslaught of political merch (delicious branded cheese, please. Just gonna put that out there for whoever wants to pick it up).

  Presidential Hopefuls Sell Swag, Collect Data [New York Times]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uGroups Call On Subway’s Sandwich Artists To Use Antibiotic-Free Meat In Their Masterpiecesr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Mandy Jansen)

  With major fast food chains like McDonald’s, Chick fil-A, Chipotle, and Panera all now sourcing at least some meat that wasn’t raised using medically important antibiotics, a coalition of some 50 consumer and health advocacy groups are asking Subway, the fast food chain with the most stores in the U.S., to give drug-free meat a try.

  Overuse of antibiotics in livestock and by physicians has resulted in the development of bacteria that is now resistant to the drugs created to kill them. This can render those antibiotics useless, putting human life and safety at risk. Around three quarters of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. each year are for use in farm animals, much of it for non-medical uses.

  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 2 million Americans become infected with drug-resistant pathogens each year, with 23,000 dying annually as a result. A recent report from our colleagues at Consumers Union found that an overwhelming majority of U.S. physicians had recently treated patients antibiotic-resistant illnesses.

  CU is one of the dozens of groups that signed the letter [PDF] to Subway CEO Frank De Luca, calling on him to agree to a phase-out schedule for ending the use of antibiotics in all the meat sourced by the chain.

  Many farm animals are regularly treated — usually through their feed — with low doses of antibiotics, solely for the purpose of increasing the size of the animals. Scientists say this continual, sub-therapeutic use of these drugs only aids in the development of resistant pathogens.

  “Antibiotics important for human medicine should only be used to treat sick animals and, on rare occasions, for non-routine disease control, but never for growth promotion, feed efficiency, or routine disease prevention,” reads the letter.

  After decades of inaction, the FDA has in recent years slowly come around to the notion that it must do something to curb overuse of antibiotics. There are still too many loopholes that allow their continued overuse — like simply giving farmers the option of changing the reason they use drugs (from “growth-promotion” to “disease prevention”) without necessarily feeding their livestock any fewer drugs.

  “While we will continue to push FDA to adopt stronger policies on antibiotics use in animal agriculture, companies like Subway can make a vital contribution to stemming antibiotic resistance by disallowing routine antibiotics use among your suppliers,” continues the letter. “Subway can also play a role in encouraging better animal husbandry on farms. Reduced crowding, improved diets, more hygienic conditions and longer weaning periods, among other changes, can minimize the need for prophylactic drugs.”

  The groups acknowledge Subway’s current regional testing of a chicken sandwich in California with meat described as having been raised with “no antibiotics ever,” and expresses hope that this is the beginning of a new trend for the company.

  “In the coming months, we hope you will move quickly to serve only meat and poultry produced without routine antibiotics in all Subway restaurants, and help protect the effectiveness of these essential medicines,” concludes the letter.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uAllegiant Air Pilots Once Again Raise Concerns With Airline’s Safety Practicesr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Paul Thompson)

  Pilots of Nevada-based budget carrier Allegiant Air are once again expressing their concerns that the airline’s bare minimum approach to maintenance and operations comes at the cost of passenger safety, this time in a letter to the company’s board of directors.

  CBS News reports that (warning: link has video that autoplays) the union representing Allegiant pilots sent a letter [PDF] to the company’s board asking it to intervene in what the pilots says are cost cutting measures that put customers at risk when traveling with the airline.

  “Allegiant is continuing to cut corners on industry-standard practices, including ignoring FAA recommendations on running important safety programs, using scheduling systems that create pilot fatigue and frustration and spending shareholder dollars on unnecessary legal fees and hours in court,” the letter states.

  To illustrate the issues, the union points out that the airline has encountered 38 potentially dangerous incidents including failing engines, pressurization problems, and smoke in the cockpit between January and March of this year.

  CBS News reports that passengers of the airline were part of two rather scary experiences just this month.

  In one case, a flight had to make an emergency landing at an airport near Tampa. After reports of smoke were made in the cabin, passengers had to evacuate the aircraft using emergency exit slides. A second disturbance occurred in Idaho when passengers stood on the wing of the plane after seeing smoke.

  “Allegiant Air is on a dangerous path that has shareholders, pilots and customers concerned,” the letter states. “We hope you will use your leadership to change the direction the company is heading.”

  For its part, the airline insists its safety record is among the best in the industry, telling CBS News that the union’s claims are “an effort to manipulate the public” following stalled contract negotiations.

  The Federal Aviation Administration says that when a carrier suffers from internal issues – such as labor unrest – the agency will increase oversight. However, the FAA did not address whether or not it found safety issues with regard to Allegiant.

  Pilots accuse Allegiant Air of cutting safety along with costs [CBS News]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist