четверг, 1 октября 2015 г.

uWisconsin Officials: Letter Warning Residents That Lawn Ornaments May Be Included In State Deer Tally Is Faker


4 4 4 9
  • (Nathan Callahan)
    In yet another instance proving you should not believe everything you read on Facebook, Wisconsin wildlife officials are trying to put the kibosh on a recent hoax letter making the rounds online, instructing people to make sure they remove deer lawn ornaments so they won’t be accidentally included in the state’s tally.

    The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources posted a copy of a hoax letter that surfaced recently, warning residents that any concrete deer lawn ornaments need to be removed from yards, or they’ll be counted as part of the deer population.

    Officials note that people have been contacting the department about the letter, which appears to come from DNR, complete with contact phone numbers and a graphic used by the department to make the letter appear official.

    “The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources will be conducting a state-wide deer count and some yard ornaments have been counted over the past two years by mistake,” the letter reads.

    That isn’t the case, the department says in its Facebook post, so you can keep Bambi on your lawn.

    “This letter is a fake. It was not crafted, nor distributed by DNR. DNR is not asking the public to remove concrete deer ornaments or any other lawn ornaments from their yard,” the notice reads.

    Here’s a copy of the letter:

    deerhoax



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uSprint Will Raise Cost Of Unlimited Plans By $10 This Monthr


4 4 4 9
  • (Misfit Photographer)
    If you find Sprint’s deal offering unlimited voice, text, and data usage for $60 per month tempting and Sprint coverage in your area is good, you should go ahead and switch right now. Sprint is raising the price for new customers by $10 on October 15, but it will remain the cheapest unlimited postpaid plan in the country even after the price hike.

    Yes, Boost Mobile’s unlimited plan costs $60, and Straight Talk’s costs $45, but those are both prepaid carriers and Boost is actually part of Sprint. T-Mobile’s unlimited plan costs $80. If you’re looking for a new iPhone and have a new enough model to trade in, you can rent a new iPhone 6S for as little as $1 per month. That might offset the price increase a little bit.

    You might like having “unlimited” data on principle, even if your carrier practices “tethering,” or slowing data down past a given limit when you’re using too much for their network. Unlimited everything might draw you in, but it’s hard to rack up hundreds of minutes’ worth of calls if Sprint doesn’t work in your home or office.

    Check your monthly average data usage: if it’s a few gigabytes or less, don’t bother with an unlimited plan. There’s no need to buy a ticket to an all-you-can-eat buffet when all you want is an ice cream sundae.

    Sprint’s unlimited data plan is getting more expensive [PC World]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uNew United CEO Apologizes For 5 Years Of Merger-Related Problemsr


4 4 4 9
  • (Adam Fagen)

    The five-year-old marriage between United and Continental airlines appears to be hitting the seven-year itch a few years early, as new United CEO Oscar Munoz began his tenure acknowledging the mega-merger may not have been such a good idea after all. 

    Munoz, who took over three weeks ago after the abrupt departure of Jeff Smisek amid a federal investigation, tells the Wall Street Journal that the companies could have handled the 2010 union better.

    United began its regrets tour today – the official fifth anniversary of the creation of United Continental Holdings – by taking out ads in eight newspapers around the country. The ads feature Munoz apologizing for failing to meet customer expectations and vowing to improve.

    “This integration has been rocky. Period,” he tells the WSJ. “We just have to do that public mea culpa… The experience of our customers has not been what we want it to be.”

    Indeed, the process of coming together saw some significant hiccups: when the two companies merged reservation systems in 2012, months of disruptions ensued. Passengers reported that reservations magically disappeared, and at one point the new system moved cities closer together — Denver and Los Angeles somehow were only three miles away from each other.

    In his interview with the WSJ, Munoz outlined some of the steps he plans to take to make up for the often problematic merger.

    At the top of his list of things to do as new head of the organization: rally the troops, so to speak, by increasing morale among employees.

    He tells the WSJ that since the merger, the company’s 85,000 employees across the country have been “allowed… to be disengaged, disenchanted, disenfranchised – the three nasty D’s. I’ve got to win them all back.”

    To do that, Munoz says he’ll start by hosting a summit later this month to discuss new labor deals with the airline’s flight attendants and mechanics. Currently, these employees are working via agreements that first began when United and Continental were separate companies.

    After addressing lagging employee morale, Munoz says attention will be turned to improving the carrier’s liability in passengers’ eyes.

    While he didn’t provide details on this plan, Munoz says he will study what rival airlines do and determine what United issues are “overcome-able and what’s not.”

    He’s also asked senior United management to “go back five years and assess what we told the board we were going to do” and see what worked and what went wrong.

    Since the merger, United has seen its customer satisfaction decrease. Starting in 2012, the airline was responsible for one-in-three consumer complaints. The following year the company was named the worst airline when it came to customer service scores.

    On Thursday, the company took a small step in addressing those issues by launching a new website called UnitedAirtime.com. The site will serve as a place for customers and employees to offer ideas, give feedback and read about what the newly minted CEO has been up to.

    New United Continental Boss Starts Tenure With Apology [The Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uWould You Send No-Show Wedding Guests A Bill For Their Uneaten Dinners?r


4 4 4 9
  • (via KARE-11)
    It’s always a bummer to have to back out of plans you’ve been looking forward to at the last minute, but one Minnesota couple says their regret over missing a relative’s wedding turned to confusion when the newlyweds sent them a bill for the dinner they didn’t get a chance to eat.

    The couple were getting ready for a night out a few weeks ago, when the woman’s mom called and said she wouldn’t be able to babysit their kids, reports KARE-11.

    Since the invitations said no children, that meant they’d have to stay home that night. She explained to ABC News that she didn’t call or text the bride and groom, because when she and her husband had gotten hitched, the last thing she wanted was extra phone calls on that day.

    “We had discussed if we should contact anyone and decided against it because, coincidentally enough, we’d had people RSVP and no-show to our wedding and I knew when I got married I didn’t want to be bothered with phone calls on the day of my wedding,” she explained. “I just assumed, I guess, that we’d let them know the situation later on.”

    Then this week, she says they received a bill for the dinner they didn’t get to eat — $75. 90 for two herb crusted walleye, as well as a service and tax charge.

    “This cost reflects the amount paid by the bride and groom for meals that were RSVP’d for, reimbursement and explanation for no show, card, call or text would be appreciated,” the note read.

    She says they threw out the invoice and don’t plan to pay it, but she that she and her husband will likely give a check to charity instead, and send the newlyweds the receipt.

    In this situation, etiquette experts (and a little bit of common sense) say that while you should never send someone a bill if they can’t make it to a wedding, the considerate thing to do is to notify hosts as soon as possible if you can’t attend. To that end, however, couples should plan for some guests to be no-shows… or for others to show up unexpectedly.

    “General rule is prepare for about 10% of overage or underage when you’re planning a big event like that and catering companies are well aware of this,” Sarah Baumann Rogers, editor of Minnesota Bride, told KARE-11.

    The couple in question wanted to remain anonymous, but issued a statement to the couple via ABC about the bill hooplah:

    “We apologize for not being tactful in expressing our disappointment in your absence. We waited three weeks after the wedding for any correspondence and received nothing, this along with your last minute RSVP caused us to act on emotion rather than logic,” the statement read.

    What would you do in this situation? Take the poll below to weigh in:

    Guest gets bill after not showing up to wedding [KARE-11]
    Minnesota Woman Says She Was Billed by Bride for Missing Wedding [ABC News]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uParamount Pictures Copyright Bot Falsely Accuses Forum Commenters Of Piracyr


4 4 4 9
  • Paramount Pictures asked Google to de-list this utorrent.com forum thread because it idiotically thought it was infringing on the copyright for the movie Clueless.
    Even though the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal for a copyright holder to knowingly file a bogus copyright claim against someone else, that hasn’t stopped some of the biggest stakeholders in the entertainment industry from carelessly registering takedown complaints with Google for content that in no way infringes on anyone’s copyright.

    The latest bunch of idiocy comes from Paramount Pictures, whose copyright bots appear to be scouring the Internet for any combination of words like “torrent” and the studio’s movie titles.

    TorrentFreak noticed several instances of the movie studio demanding that Google remove links to online forum discussions simply because they may contain common words or phrases that were also titles of Paramount films.

    Like this DMCA takedown request for alleged infringers of the little-seen 2009 Eddie Murphy movie Imagine That.

    Paramount sought to have links to this forum discussion at utorrent.com removed, claiming it was infringing on the copyright of this particular film.

    But there is no mention of this movie, nor any links to any sort of torrent file. Merely a discussion that includes the phrase “imagine that’s” somewhere in one of the comments.

    Another utorrent.com discussion that had nothing to do with the Paramount movie Ghost was cited in a DMCA takedown notice as infringing on the copyright of that Patrick Swayze-starring documentary on homemade pottery. Why? Most likely because of the word “cyberghost” in the forum’s subject line.

    The clueless studio also didn’t realize that someone in a utorrent forum might describe themselves as “cluless” without actually infringing on the copyright of the movie Clueless.

    Thankfully, Google is better at reviewing takedown requests than the companies that file them, as these utterly unrelated discussions have not been flagged as piracy sites… because they aren’t.

    We understand that piracy is a huge and valid concern for the movie industry, but it can’t just cast such a wide and careless net without regard for innocent people who might get caught in it.

    A federal appeals court recently allowed the mom behind the now-famous “Dancing Baby” YouTube video to pursue her lawsuit against Universal Music. In that case, the record label ordered YouTube to remove a 29-second video of a baby dancing to a quick snippet of a Prince song.

    The mom was able to convince YouTube that her video was an allowable “fair use” of the song and the clip has remained. She is now trying to prove in court that Universal violated the law by knowingly filing a false DMCA takedown notice.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uBride & Groom’s “TNT” Wedding Favors Spark Evacuation At Denver Airportr


4 4 4 9
  • (TSA on Instagram)
    No matter how clever it is to put you and your intended’s initials on glass jars filled with fancy bath salts and topped with wax seals and fuses — “T” and “T” becomes “TNT, get it? — it’s not a great idea if you’re headed to the airport. See, the Transportation Security Administration can’t let something labeled as an explosive through without thoroughly checking things out, which, in this case, turned into an evacuation of the Denver International Airport.

    It’s unclear when exactly it all took place, though we’re guessing right around Sept. 19, according to the wedding date on the bottles’ labels, but the TSA posted a helpful reminder with an image of the wedding favors on Instagram yesterday, reminding folks to “be mindful” of what they’re traveling with. Because while it could appear quite innocent when you explain what’s going on, it’s a different story on the X-ray monitor.

    The novelty bottles of bath salts were found in a checked bag, the TSA says, “and resulted in a 20-minute evacuation while bomb specialists cleared the items.”

    Again, congratulations to you, T and T, may your marriage be explosively happy. Just don’t fly with fake bombs anymore.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uMarijuana Sales Legal In Oregon Today, But Not Available Statewider


4 4 4 9
  • (Great Beyond)
    As of this morning, Oregon became the latest state to allow the legal sale of marijuana for recreational use. But some shoppers in the state will have to go pretty far out of their way to do their pot purchasing.

    As the Oregonian notes, when state lawmakers drafted Measure 91, the legislation that legalized marijuana, they provided an out for communities that demonstrated an objection to retail weed sales.

    If more than 55% of a county voted against Measure 91, the local governments are allowed to ban marijuana sellers. So far, 13 cities — primarily in the eastern half of the state — and six counties — Baker, Malheur, Harney, Crook, Wheeler, and Klamath — have said no to drugs. The ban only applies to unincorporated parts of these counties, adding to the possible confusion over where exactly one can stock up.

    For now, retail pot sales in Oregon are only being done through licensed medical marijuana dispensaries. Six cities — this time mostly in the western half of the state — have dispensaries, but have banned them from retail sales.

    Next fall, another eight cities and one county will be asking local voters to decide on bans against marijuana related businesses.

    Beyond legal efforts to limit retail pot sales, a number of communities have ever simply decided to not license any dispensaries. The Oregonian notes that around 20 cities in the Portland area have no dispensaries.

    The paper also notes that, in spite of legalized recreational sales, the Oregon law does nothing to prevent employers from using a positive marijuana drug test as a reason for firing an employee — even if you’re not smoking on the job.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist