AngelList's Naval Ravikant brings Ethereum's Vitalik Buterin onstage to explain what it is and why it's useful. Read more: http://ift.tt/2xdqoNe
by TechCrunch via Endless Supplies .De - Brands
Endless Supplies Corporation liefert weltweit, bietet Angebote am selben Tag und enthält CPUs, Speichergeräte, Notebooks, Server, Monitore, Büroausstattung, Computer, Motherboards, Grafikkarten, Displays, Wireless Networking, Cases, Unterhaltungselektronik, Software und mehr. E-Procurement-Systeme für B2B, B2G und B2C. Mailen Sie uns heute.
Why would someone need to dispose of a huge amount of cash — tens of thousands of euros — very quickly? That’s what authorities in Geneva, Switzerland, want to know, after finding wads of foreign cash clogging toilets at a bank and at restaurants around the city.
The euro is a useful currency for stashing huge amounts of ill-gotten money, since its largest note is worth almost $600. The U.S. dollar now tops out at the $100 bill.
Yet who flushed the cash, and why did they do it? The first notes were discovered in a toilet near the safety-deposit box department at a Geneva branch of UBS. It’s possible that someone may have kept a large amount of cash in one of the boxes and disposed of it after retrieving it.
The mystery deepened a few days later, when restaurants in Geneva found that their toilets were clogged with cut-up cash as well.
Police say that someone tried to cut the bills up before flushing them, but why were they destroying so much cash in the first place? We may never know.
It’s worth noting that it’s not technically a crime to destroy banknotes in Switzerland. Still, the bill-flusher’s behavior indicates that he or she was trying to hide some other activity from authorities.
Less than a year after Chipotle added chorizo sausage to its menu, the fast-causal Mexican chain is ditching the protein option and turning its focus toward its new — not entirely loved — queso.
Chipotle confirmed to CNBC today that it would remove chorizo from its menu following speculation that it was considering cutting the item in light of sluggish sales.
The protein option — which joined chicken, steak, sofritas, and carnitas as a burrito, salad, and taco topping — accounts for just an estimated 3% of Chipotle’s sales.
Chipotle added chorizo to its menu in Oct. 2016 after more than a year of testing.
The chorizo is made with “responsibly raised” chicken and pork, and seasoned with paprika, toasted cumin and chipotle peppers, and then seared on a hot grill to give it a perfect char.
Adding Chorizo to the national menu has been a long time coming for Chipotle. The company initially added the meat to the menu in Kansas City in June 2015. Select restaurants in Washington, D.C., Ohio, New York, Colorado, and California received chorizo in June 2016.
The company had previously planned to rollout the option nationally sooner, but noted on an earnings call last year that the launch had been postponed because of the company’s ongoing food safety crisis.
The decision to remove chorizo from the menu was made around the same time the company decided to roll out queso nationally.
“While we really liked the chorizo — and many customers did too — the efficiency of our model has always been rooted in part, in doing just a few things so we can do them really well,” Chris Arnold, spokesperson for Chipotle, tells CNBC.
Whether or not Chipotle can do queso well remains to be seen. The initial reaction from customers hasn’t been great.
Still, the Arnold noted last week that it was prepared for the lukewarm reviews, “we knew there would be some who didn’t like it based on the simple fact that ours is different, largely because it’s not made with artificial ingredients.”
“That’s OK,” Arnold told Consumerist. “Others love it. And it’s performance in testing has been sufficiently encouraging that we opted to roll it out national.”
Last December, Frontier canceled 275 flights after severe winter weather disrupted operations in and out of its hub at Denver International Airport. Still, the airline was slow to respond to the storm, federal aviation officials claim, leaving hundreds of passengers stranded on planes for hours. As a result, the company has been fined $1.5 million.
The Department of Transportation announced recently that it had fined Frontier $1.5 million for violating rules prohibiting long tarmac delays.
Under DOT rules, U.S. airlines operating aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats are prohibited from allowing their domestic flights to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours without giving passengers an opportunity to leave the plane.
According to the DOT [PDF], Frontier failed to abide by this rule in 12 incidents during a severe snowstorm between Dec. 16 and Dec. 18. Specifically, 11 flights arriving at the airport and one departing were found to be in violation of the tarmac delay rules.
An investigation by the agency found that during the storm, Frontier failed to properly adjust its operations resulting in gate congestion and long tarmac delays.
Frontier failed to assess the gate situation during the height of the snowstorm and continued to experience gate availability issues and a ground staff shortage after the storm had passed.
While Frontier canceled many flights during the storm, it did not do so in a timely fashion to avoid congestion at Denver International Airport.
The DOT found that once heavy snow began to fall, the airline started to return departing airplanes to their gates. At this point, many of the aircraft began to experience mechanical issues, rendering the gates they were located at unusable.
This caused a problem for flights that were currently in route to Denver. Once these planes landed, there were not available gates for passengers to exit.
In one instance, when a Frontier gate became available, the carrier made the decision to bring an empty aircraft to a gate in order to operate a delayed flight, instead of deplaning one of its long-delayed arrival flights which was experiencing a tarmac delay.
To make matters worse, the DOT claims that Frontier could have prevented at least a portion of the tarmac delays had accepted services offered by the airport.
As the storm continued to affect the airport, three Frontier flights preparing for departure experienced mechanical issues.
Frontier quickly made the decision to return two of these flights to the gate. While the planes were unable to return within the FAA’s allotted three hours, because they began the process before that time frame, they are not subject to enforcement.
As for the third flight, employees attempted to correct the mechanical issue. That was not possible, and it was decided that the plane would return to the gate.
However, the decision to return to the gate was made after the three-hour mark. The plane did not receive clearance to return to the gate until the 4 hour and 14 minute mark.
In the end, the DOT determined that Frontier failed to adequately adjust its operations in response to the snowstorm, creating tarmac delay that were in violation of federal rules.
The DOT ordered Frontier to pay $1.5 million for the violations. Frontier will only pay about $600,000 of the fine, as the agency is crediting the airline for compensation provided to customer on the affected flights.
For its part, Frontier admits that the snowstorm was “much more severe and intense than predicted.” Still, it claims that it attempted to keep up with the influx of delayed and arriving flights by increasing its staffing and writing with airport personnel.
Do you have a Toys ‘R’ Us or Babies ‘R’ Us gift card sitting around? It might be time to use that up,just in case: The toys and kids chain is expected to file for bankruptcy basically any day now.
The rumor mill says that a bankruptcy filing could come as early as this week, to reassure toy suppliers that the company won’t be buried in debt for the holiday season.
Last week, Bloomberg News reported that suppliers had cut back on shipments to Toys ‘R’ Us at the most important time of year. The chain is even more dependent than the rest of the retail industry on the holiday season because, for any precocious children reading this article, Santa shops there.
The company didn’t do well during the 2016 holiday season. A repeat of that performance is a scary thought, since the chain normally takes in 40% of its earnings during the last 25% of the year.
Toys ‘R’ Us is owned by two private equity firms and a real estate company, and it has $400 million in debt coming due in 2018. Filing for bankruptcy or finding another way to organize that debt would be a good way to show suppliers that everything is under control, and that they can keep on shipping toys through the holiday season and beyond.
The reason why we urge readers to use their gift cards up when a retailer may file for bankruptcy soon is that a Chapter 11 filing often voids the company’s past gift cards. That’s bad when a chain shutters all of its stores and there aren’t any stores left where you can spend the cards, but it’s especially annoying for consumers when the store stays in business, yet you can’t use the card there since a new owner purchased the retailer out of bankruptcy.
The first bankruptcy of RadioShack in 2015 changed how some retailers deal with gift cards after a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Attorney General of the company’s home state, Texas, was outraged that a company could reorganize and void millions of dollars’ worth of gift cards. He arranged a settlement where gift card holders would be paid first, before the company’s creditors, with the remaining balance of gift card funds going to the offices of states’ attorneys general.
Since then, there’s been a trend to keep on accepting gift cards. Payless ShoeSource filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to unmanageable debt, just like Toys ‘R’ Us, but still accepts pre-bankruptcy gift cards. While forcing a retailer to pay out millions of dollars in cash refunds to gift card holders is a pro-consumer move, it’s easier for a retailer to just keep accepting its old cards rather than risk being forced into a settlement like RadioShack’s.
Two months after private student loan lender National Collegiate Student Loan Trust came under scrutiny amid reports that the company, along with its debt collector TransWorld, filed illegal student loan debt collection lawsuits against defaulted borrowers without citing proper or correct paperwork, federal regulators have ordered the companies to pay $21.6 million in refunds and penatlies, and revise their collection practices.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced today that National Collegiate Trusts must pay at least $19.1 million in refunds and penalties to borrowers, while TransWorld must pay a $2.5 million penalty for taking part in illegal student loan debt collection lawsuits, and allegedly having otherwise-shoddy record-keeping.
National Collegiate, which hired TransWorld to collect the student loans on its behalf, currently holds more than 800,000 student loans worth about $12 billion.
Related: $5 Billion In Private Student Loans Could Be Wiped Away Because Of Shoddy Record Keeping
According to the CFPB complaint [PDF], the companies violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Financial Protection Act by filing thousands of false affidavits and pursuing thousands of collection lawsuits they could not have won, if contested.
When a borrower defaults on one of National Collegiate’s loans, TransWorld would file a lawsuit agaisnt the debtor seeking to require the borrower repay the debt. In order to sue to collect debts, however, the person or company filing suit must be able to prove that the consumer owed the debt and that the company owns the loan being collected.
However, in the case of National Collegiate Trust and TransWorld, the CFPB alleges that the companies filed 1,214 lawsuits against borrowers even though documentation needed to prove debtors actually owed the loans was missing.
In many cases, the missing paperwork was likely the result of the way in which loans are issued and then sold.
In National Collegiate Trust’s case, the company holds loans that were made years ago by a plethora of banks, then bundled together and sold to investors. Over time, records on these loans can disappear. Which appears to be the case for many of these lawsuits.
For instance, the CFPB claims that in at least 812 collection lawsuits, there was no documentation that the loans were actually transferred to National Collegiate Trusts. In another 208 lawsuits, the promissory note to prove that a debt was owed did not exist or could not be located.
According to the CFPB, National Collegiate Trusts and TransWorld also filed at least 486 lawsuits after the applicable statute of limitations on the debt collection had expired.
As a result of these allegedly illegal lawsuits, borrowers paid more than $21.8 million in judgments. This despite the fact that in many instances judges have ruled in the borrower’s favor, wiping away their debt, because National Collegiate couldn’t prove it owns the student loans.
The CFPB claims that from Nov. 1, 2012 to April 25, 2016, 94,046 lawsuits were filed on behalf of National Collegiate Trusts citing allegedly falsified affidavits and documents supporting the company’s right to collect debts.
The notarized affidavits purported to show that employees had personal knowledge of the student loans. However, in many cases, the CFPB claims this wasn’t actually the case.
While many individuals swore that they reviewed the chain of title records regarding the debts, in reality, the CFPB contends that these people were simply told to look at a screen to verify the information. They did not have knowledge of where this data came from, the CFPB claims.
Related: Student Loan Company With Allegedly Shoddy Recordkeeping Under Investigation
In some cases, the Bureau claims that when affidavits piled up, interns and mailroom clerks were instructed to sign the documents.
According to the CFPB, when employees raised concerns about signing the affidavits, they were told to continue signing the documents. Many continued this practice as they felt bullied by management or feared losing their jobs.
Of the affidavits signed between Nov. 1, 2012 and Aug. 3, 2014, the Bureau claims 11,412 documents were improperly notarized.
Under the CFPB’s proposed judgment [PDF] resolving the case, National Collegiate Trusts must conduct a thorough audit of the more than 800,000 student loans in its portfolio.
If the audit identifies any additional student loans for which the Trusts lack the documentation needed to prove the consumer owed the debt, the National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts will cease all collections on those loans.
National Collegiate Trusts must pay at least $3.5 million in restitution to more than 2,000 borrowers who made payments after being sued by the trusts on a loan where documentation was missing or the statute of limitations had expired.
The company must also provide refunds to any customers who are identified through the upcoming independent audit.
National Collegiate and TransWorld [PDF] must also revamp their collection practices, ceasing the filing of collection lawsuits for debt that is no longer owed or for which they do not have proper documentation.
Additionally, the company must pay $7.8 million to the U.S. Treasury and a $7.8 million penalty to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.
As for TransWorld, the collection agency must pay $2.5 million to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.
There is no federal-level law protecting your private web data from your internet-providing company anymore, and there likely won’t be a replacement anytime soon. So some states are trying to take matters into their own hands. But the latest, last-ditch effort in the tech capital of the U.S. has failed, after strong pushback from the very companies it would regulate.
In late 2016, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a rule that would place some basic limitations on how your internet service provider can use your personal information.
Basically, the FCC split up all your personal data into two big categories. One was opt-in only: Your ISP could only share certain highly personal data (like your web browsing history) if you explicitly opted in.
Other data, however, was in the “opt-out” bucket: Your ISP would be permitted to use, sell, and share it until and unless you explicitly told them to stop.
The rule would have applied to home providers like Comcast and Charter, as well as to wireless providers like Verizon and T-Mobile. But it never got the chance to see the light of day: Basically as soon as the new Congress began in January, the House and then the Senate voted to reverse and block the rule. President Trump signed the resolution killing the privacy rule in May, and so its absence has been law ever since.
RELATED: Without internet privacy rules, how can I protect my data?
But the U.S., of course, operates at the state and local level as well as at the federal one, and so other jurisdictions have been trying to come up with their own ways to protect residents’ privacy ever since the federal rule was dropped.
In February, a member of the state Assembly proposed a bill to create an ISP privacy rule in California.
The California Broadband Internet Privacy Act (AB-375) sought to limit ISPs ability to share your data in almost exactly the same way that the now-defunct FCC rule did — with the customer having the right to opt-out of some kinds of data usage, and the internet company being required to get affirmative customer opt-in for others.
Because California is both the nation’s most populous state and also headquarters to most of our biggest tech conglomerates, its state laws have outsized influence. For example, California’s 2003 privacy protection law requires all websites accessible in the state to conspicuously post their privacy policies. Because of the way the Internet works, the list of websites accessible to California residents is functionally the same as a list of all websites, and so all of us everywhere get to benefit.
The bill, from the start, faced long odds. It was moving through the state Senate in an unusual way, procedurally, needing approval from three different committees in order to move forward.
Meanwhile, the same companies that objected to the federal government taking action to protect consumers’ privacy objected to the largest state doing it, too — and they had company from the Golden State’s own tech giants.
A massive coalition of internet groups sent a letter of opposition to AB-375 [PDF] to the California Assembly after the bill was last amended on Sept. 12. That coalition had every major ISP you can think of, including Altice, AT&T, Charter, Comcast, Cox, Frontier, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon signing on, along with their representative lobbying groups, as usual. But both Facebook and Google also joined in, along with Verizon’s Oath, the recently-renamed giant that used to be Yahoo and AOL.
Digital-rights advocates began framing AB-375 as a classic consumers-vs-industry battle: AT&T and Comcast wanted to quash the bill; constituents began to rally support and try to make it happen. But California’s legislative deadline came and went on Friday night with no motion, and so the bill is toast until it can be raised again in 2018.
When you download an app meant to clean your computer, you assume that it’s supposed to remove junk from your machine, not add more. Yet for about a month, downloads of the popular program CCleaner came with a free bonus dose of malware, installed on millions of PCs around the world.
CCleaner is a shortened and cleaned-up name; the program was once better known as “Crap Cleaner.” The security software company Avast recently acquired the company that created it, Piriform.
It helps speed up systems, remove temporary files, and delete programs while actually fully removing them from one’s system. It’s a free app with paid upgrades that unlock more features, and has been downloaded billions of times.
The compromised version of the program was distributed between Aug. 15, 2017 and Sept. 11, 2017. It was part of the Windows and cloud versions of CCleaner, distributed as version 5.33.6162. Yes, the malware installer piggybacked on the official versions of the app.
Since the compromised program came with a genuine Norton signature and was on the company’s servers, the investigation shows that baddies probably gained access to the company’s systems either by posing as one of its developers or using a developer’s login to add the extra malware to the program.
Piriform pushed a malware-free version of the program to users, and you should make sure that you’ve updated your copy to the latest version if you’re a CCleaner user.
The good news is that the malware was two-stage, and the malicious program hadn’t been installed on target computers… yet. Piriform and other experts believe that the end game here was probably to stage a future botnet attack on an outside target, turning your PC into part of a zombie army attacking… someone.
If you want the super-technical details of how the malware worked and how this happened, read up at Cisco Talos, the research group that discovered the mostly-hidden malware, and Piriform’s news site.
Is Payless ShoeSource trying to recover from bankruptcy by discouraging customers from ever redeeming their gift cards? A Consumerist reader bought a discounted gift card from a card exchange site, then was annoyed when his local Payless store wouldn’t accept it. The retailer says that it accepts virtual gift cards in its stores, but only from certain vendors, and only after taking very specific anti-fraud measures.
Reader Steve contacted Consumerist about his issue with a gift card for Payless ShoeSource that he bought from a marketplace. He believed that Payless was up to some trickery and refusing to accept gift cards that customers had bought in good faith. We found that wasn’t the case, but ruling that out means doing some research before you buy discounted gift cards online.
Before we get into Steve’s story, it’s important to understand gift card exchange sites and how they work. Ostensibly, these sites exist so people with gift cards they don’t want can exchange them for either cash or a card that they do want.
Would you rather have a $25 Outback Steakhouse card that you’ll never use because you’re a vegan, or twenty bucks in your PayPal account?
However, they can also be used to sell gift cards that have either been stolen the old-fashioned way, or that scam victims have used as currency. There’s a reason why iTunes and Amazon gift cards are popular forms of currency for paying scammers: There’s always a market for them, and they can be resold quickly.
Marketplaces can also be used to sell gift cards obtained from shoplifting. In this scam, people steal from brick-and-mortar retailers, then return the goods for gift cards and re-sell those gift cards for cash. They might sell those cards online, including in online marketplaces.
From some sites, you can buy just a code instead of a physical card. That means the gift credit can change hands instantly, without having to wait for a card to be mailed.
The buyer can turn around and spend this code on a retailer’s website, and some retailers accept them from some gift card marketplaces as payment in stores.
It’s those limitations that are important for Steve’s story, since a gift card marketplace site sold him a gift card code that the retailer isn’t willing to accept.
Steve bought a gift card code worth $31 from ABC Gift Cards, a site that he says that he normally trusts. He brought this code over to a physical Payless store, but they wouldn’t accept it, since the chain’s policy is that it only accepts virtual gift cards from the sites Raise and Gift Card Mall, and customers have to meet strict requirements.
He was told that he would have to print out the virtual gift card and hand this copy over to the store, and the store would write down his driver’s license number and keep it with the printout.
Steve thought that this sounded excessive, and speculated that Payless was trying to weasel out of accepting pre-bankruptcy gift cards.
“This bulls–t policy makes a lot of sense since Payless is bankrupt and every gift card they refuse to honor is more money they get to keep,” he emailed to Consumerist.
Unlike some retailers, Payless accepted gift cards all through its Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and at store liquidation sales. Now that it has emerged from bankruptcy, the company plans to accept its old gift cards indefinitely. Steve’s hypothesis would be true in some retail bankruptcies, but not this one.
We checked with Payless about using gift card codes purchased from third-party sites. A company spokeswoman confirmed that yes, it only accepts cards from Raise and from Gift Card Mall, and yes, it requires a printout of the virtual gift card.
We learned that Steve could have used the code on the Payless website as long as the seller provided the PIN used for online purchases. However, that wouldn’t have been helpful if he needed the shoes right then and couldn’t wait for them to be shipped, or if he were shopping a liquidation sale at a local store.
The transaction worked out okay for Steve. He received a refund from ABC Gift Cards when he reported that he had trouble spending the gift card. He most likely could have used the code online with no problems, but he didn’t know that at the time.
Consumerist checked with ABC Gift Cards to ask about how it markets cards for retailers that don’t accept them, but haven’t yet received a response. We will update this post if we do.
Grilling season might be winding down in some parts of the country, but that doesn’t mean our cravings of cheesy burgers is waning. If you’ve been hankering for a cheeseburger, today might just be the day to satisfy that craving, as it’s National Cheeseburger Day, which means there is a plethora of deals up for grabs.
As the lunch hour quickly approaches, many local diners and restaurants will have freebies or discounts, here’s what larger chains are offering in honor of the cheeseburger’s special day.
Applebee’s: Today only, customers dining in at the chain can score a burger and fries for $6.99.
BurgerFi: Customers at the 100-location chain can get a $5 cheeseburger by showing or mentioning BurgerFi’s deal, which is dine-in only while supplies last.
Happy #NationalCheeseburgerDay! Celebrate with $5 BurgerFi Cheeseburgers – All Day Today!
*Valid on 9/18/17 only. In-store only. http://pic.twitter.com/xCd6nXLSI0
— BURGERFI (@BURGERFI) September 18, 2017
Dairy Queen: The ice cream chain is offering a $5 bucket lunch that includes either a Deluxe Cheeseburger or three-piece Chicken Strips along with fries, a 21-ounce drink, and a sundae for dessert.
Hardee’s: Although it’s not an official National Cheeseburger Day deal, customers can print a coupon redeemable for a $3.99 small double cheeseburger combo meal.
Fuddrucker’s: Cheeseburger lovers can get a certainly satisfy any cravings for the meal with the $24.99 three pound burger challenge, which includes a one-pound order of fries and a bottomless Coca-Cola beverage. Customers who finish the challenge in one hour will receive a $20 gift card and free T-shirt.
Are you burger enough!?
Sign up now: https://t.co/5DBuU48A9N
*select locations only http://pic.twitter.com/VQH6ebPERW— Fuddruckers (@fuddruckers) September 15, 2017
McDoanld’s: While the chain isn’t offering a specific deal for National Burger Day, it did offer a video of its fresh beef Quarter Pounder burgers. Also, if you download the company’s mobile app, you could score a free burger.
The best way to celebrate #NationalCheeseburgerDay is with the Quarter Pounder with Cheese. P.S.
closely. http://pic.twitter.com/HRizBMlryI
— McDonald's (@McDonalds) September 18, 2017
Ruby Tuesday: Today and tomorrow members of the chain’s “So Connected” loyalty program can redeem a coupon for a free cheeseburger when they buy one entrée and beverage. The offer is valid for dine-in orders only.
Happy National Cheeseburger Day! We've been making cheeeseburgers since 1972, so come celebrate the cheesy goodness at Ruby Tuesday! http://pic.twitter.com/VkiZiomHrx
— Ruby Tuesday (@rubytuesday) September 18, 2017
Shake Shack: Order with DoorDash and get a free ShackBurger with the purchase of a ShackBurger from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. To score the deal use “Shack” at checkout.
#ShackWeek ends with FREE cheeseburgers
from @shakeshack for #NationalCheeseburgerDay! Find out how to get 1
https://t.co/FgzXkrFMMl http://pic.twitter.com/9cGLEuGCM1
— DoorDash (@DoorDash) September 18, 2017
Sonic Drive-In: For an unspecified limited-time, customers can get the Carhop Classic — a cheeseburger and onion rings — for $2.99.
It’s kind of a big deal. The Carhop Classic for $2.99, featuring a 100% pure beef cheeseburger and medium handmade Onion Rings. http://pic.twitter.com/rqr0p5FMPR
— Sonic Drive-In (@sonicdrivein) September 18, 2017
Wendy’s: The fast food chain doesn’t appear to be taking part in National Cheeseburger Day specifically, but it is offering customers the Giant JBC $5 meal for a limited time. The deal will get you a giant Junior Bacon Cheeseburger, nuggets, fries, and a drink.
Double the beef, bacon & cheese—that’s how you make the junior giant in the Giant Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger. Get the meal for just $5! http://pic.twitter.com/eIgdP9jEfp
— Wendy's (@Wendys) August 28, 2017
Spot a deal we missed? Let us know: tips@consumerist.com
Samsung’s answer to Siri, Alexa, and Cortana could soon be homeless: While the company continues to work on a smart speaker to house Bixby, it’s allowing customers to evict the artificially intelligent assistant from its dedicated button on their smartphones.
Months after Samsung debuted Bixby in its Galaxy S8 and Note 8 smartphones, the company is finally letting users disable the dedicated button used to summon the assistant.
Sammobile first noticed the change over the weekend, providing a bit of relief to customers who were tired of inadvertently activating the AI assistant.
When Samsung revealed Bixby back in March, it noted that Bixby, unlike competing AI assistants, it would live in a dedicated Bixby button on the side of the company’s devices, a move the company believed would alleviate confusion on how to activate the system.
Bixby was intended to serve as a guide to customers’ phones, having the capability to support nearly all tasks that can be performed through Bixby-enabled apps.
For example, Samsung said that instead of taking “multiple steps to make a call – turning on and unlocking the phone, looking for the phone application, clicking on the contact bar to search for the person that you’re trying to call and pressing the phone icon to start dialing – you will be able to do all these steps with one push of the Bixby button and a simple command.”
While that might have been convenient in concept, that wasn’t the case in practice, as customers quickly began complaining of being unable to avoid accidentally pressing the button, awaking Bixby.
Now, Sammobile notes that Samsung is rolling out an update that will let users disable the button. There are two ways to do this: At the top of Bixby Home users will see a Bixby Key for “open Bixby Home when you press the Bixby Key,” to disable just toggle the option off; users can also turn off the button through the actual Bixby settings menu.
Update to #Bixby now let's you DISABLE the Bixby button!
That's Intresting
RT if you're happy to see this?#GalaxyNote8 #GalaxyS8 http://pic.twitter.com/HJYYqSzQMa
— Andro Dollar (@AndroDollar) September 18, 2017
Bixby Home can still be activated by swiping left on the home screen, and Bixby Voice can still be activated by pressing the button.
While the ability to disable the Bixby button might bring a bit of relief to customers tired of being jarred by accidentally summoning the assistant, doing so leave their phone with a useless button.
So far, Samsung has not provided customers with a way to repurpose the button for other uses, say operating the device’s camera or moving between apps.
With an opioid addiction epidemic ravaging the nation, physicians are being asked to consider non-opioid treatments or opioids that are less addictive than the widely abused drugs on the market. But there’s a big problem with that suggestion: Many insurance companies won’t cover, or heavily restrict access to, a number of less-addictive painkillers.
According to a new joint report from ProPublica and the NY Times, a large number of insurance plans make it difficult or expensive for patients to acquire effective treatments that aren’t highly addictive opioids like oxycodone and morphine.
We’re not talking about insurance plans failing to cover unproven homeopathic remedies or herbal treatments. This is about insurers limiting patients’ ability to obtain proven non-opioid drugs like lidocaine or Lyrica (pregabalin).
In some cases, the insurance companies won’t cover a drug at all, or only covered if the patient receives prior approval from the insurer. In other situations, the non-opioid drug is placed on a pricing tier by the insurance company that the patient can’t afford it or requiring that the patient try other, less-expensive drugs first.
One 33-year-old patient tells ProPublica that she’d successfully made the switch from opioids to Lyrica to treat her chronic pain. But when she switched jobs — and insurance plans — her new insurer, Anthem, refused to pay for the patient’s Lyrica prescription because it believes there is not enough evidence to show that the drug actually works on her particular condition. Anthem says patients in this situation can apply for an exception; the patient says her application was turned down by the insurer.
She can’t afford to pay the $520/month retail price for Lyrica, so what are her options? The least expensive would be to go back on opioid painkillers, which are generally on insurance companies’ lowest price tiers. Instead, she chose a compromise, switching to anti-seizure medication gabapentin, which is less expensive than Lyrica, but which the patient says is not effective. Though she’s avoided doing so, she says she can see why some patients in her same situation would choose to just go back to the more effective, less-expensive, but highly addictive opioids.
Insurance companies are also limiting access to less-addictive opioid painkillers. ProPublica talked to a 28-year-old woman with chronic abdominal pain. She had been able to manage her ailment with Butrans, a patch containing the drug buprenorphine, which is an opioid but which is generally considered less dangerous and addictive than morphine. But it’s also more expensive.
Earlier this year, the woman’s insurance company, United HealthCare, decided it would no longer cover these patches. United’s solution? Morphine, which it approved without any issues.
“Because my Butrans was denied, I have had to jump into addictive drugs,” says the patient, who has asked her husband to help make sure she doesn’t slip into addiction.
For almost two years now, Walgreens and Rite Aid have been trying to make some kind of committed relationship work, but they remain star-crossed corporations. Walgreens wanted to buy the smaller drugstore chain, then switched to acquiring a few thousand of Rite Aid’s stores when it appeared that Federal Trade Commission approval wasn’t going to happen. Now “people with knowledge of the matter” say that a new version of the deal may finally meet FTC approval.
This is the fourth version of a deal between the two companies, after two versions of a merger and one store purchase deal fell through.
According to insiders who spoke with Bloomberg News, the deal would still include Walgreens purchasing sightly fewer Rite Aid stores. The sale would still involve more than 2,000 outlets, making Walgreens the country’s largest drugstore chain.
If Walgreens proposes a new version this week, that would give the FTC 30 days to make a decision on the transaction.
A full merger would have created the country’s largest drugstore chain, even after the companies sold off a few thousand stores to regional chain Fred’s to meet the FTC’s competition requirements.
If the FTC approves this sale, Walgreens would become the largest national drugstore chain, followed by CVS, with Rite Aid at a distant third with only around 2,200 stores.
The full extent of Equifax’s recently revealed, massive data breach isn’t known yet — although 143 million US customers and tens of millions of others globally are thought to be affected — but top executives are already having to answer for the debacle, with two Equifax officers making a sudden exit.
Equifax announced late Friday that its top security and information officers would retire as the company continues to reveal small details of the nearly two-and-a-half month-long hack attack.
Chief information officer David Webb will retire after seven years with the company. He was responsible for leading the CRA’s IT department and providing support to customers and businesses.
Related: Let’s Not Forget That Equifax Hackers Also Stole 200K Credit Card Numbers
Webb will be replaced on an interim basis by Mark Rohwasser, who joined the company just last year, as the head of Equifax’s international IT operations.
Susan Mauldin, chief security officer, will also retire from the company. It’s unclear how long Mauldin has worked for Equifax.
The Associated Press reports that Mauldin’s qualifications came under scrutiny shortly after Equifax’s data breach broke, as she has a degree in music.
Mauldin will be replaced on an interim basis by Russ Ayres, who most recently served as a vice president in the IT organization at Equifax.
Equifax notes that the changes were immediate.
In other Equifax data breach news, the company released a slightly more detailed timeline for the hack attack.
July 29: Equifax’s security team detected suspicious network traffic associated with the software used to operate its online-dispute portal in the U.S.
The company’s security team investigated the issue and blocked the suspicious traffic.
Related: States Call On Equifax To Halt Marketing Of Its Paid Credit Monitoring Service
July 30: The security team continued to monitor traffic and observed additional suspicious activity. As a result, the web application was taken offline for the day as the company began an internal review of the incident.
At this point, the company discovered a vulnerability in the Apache Struts web application, determining this was the initial attack area. A patch was conducted and the portal was brought back online.
According to Equifax, it became aware in March 2017 that there was a vulnerability in the Apache Struts framework. The company says it took efforts to identify and patch any vulnerabilities at that time.
Aug. 2: Equifax says it contacted cyber security firm Mandiant to assist in forensic review of the intrusion.
It’s unclear why Equifax did not disclose that it was the victim of a possible hack attack at this time. However, the company contends that over the next several weeks, Mandiant analyzed available forensic data to identify the extent of the unauthorized activity.
Equifax notes that its review of the breach is still ongoing, and will release additional information when it is available.