Want To Watch NFL Playoffs Online? You’ll Need To Be A Cable Subscriber For Some Games

(Kevin Dean)

Streaming video technology and broadband speeds have improved to the point where watching live TV online can be almost indistinguishable from the real thing, which is one reason why many people have cut ties with their cable TV providers in recent years. But if those cord-cutters — or any DirecTV subscribers who happen to be away from home — want to watch all of the NFL playoff games online this month, they’ll need to get a friend’s cable company login.

See, while NBC and CBS have decided to make their playoff games free for all online, Variety reports that the folks at FOX have opted to put their games (all of the NFC playoff bouts except this Saturday night’s Saints/Eagles game) behind its “TV Everywhere” paywall, which requires users to log in via their participating cable company.

Let’s put some stress on “participating,” as the current list of cable/satellite providers that have made deals with does not include the nation’s second-largest subscriber base, DirecTV.

It’s unclear which list of participating providers will be used, as there is this larger group of cable companies that have deals with FOX to give subscribers access to new FOX shows shortly after their initial airing, or if watching the games online will be done the FOX Sports Go, which has fewer participating cable and satellite providers.

Either way, if you’re a cord-cutter or a DirecTV customer, it looks like you won’t be watching this Sunday afternoon’s Niners/Packers game online without someone else’s cable login.

On a personal note that will probably result in hate mail: Go Iggles!

[via GigaOm]

via Consumerist http://consumerist.com/2014/01/03/want-to-watch-nfl-playoffs-online-youll-need-to-be-a-cable-subscriber-for-some-games/

Walmart Recalls 73,400 Card Table And Chair Sets Because Finger Amputations Are No Fun

Careful with your digits.

The thing about fingers is that they work best when each one is nice and complete. Since it’s much harder to complete everyday tasks with only half a finger, not to mention it’s a very uncomfortable experience to have the tip of your digit squeezed off, Walmart has issued a recall for 73,400 card table and chair sets.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission says in its alert about the recall that the Mainstays card table sets with a black padded metal folding table has four black padded metal folding chairs that can collapse unexpectedly, posing danger to any fingers that might be stuck in the fall.

Thus far Walmart has reported 10 injuries its heard about involving the collapsing chairs, including one finger amputation, three fingertip amputations, sprained or fractured fingers and one report of a sore back.

The sets were sold at Walmart stores nationwide and online at http://www.walmart.com from May 2013 through November 2013 for about $50. If you’re unsure if your set is included, look for a label on the bottom of the chairs reading: “Made by: Dongguan Shin Din Metal & Plastic Products Co.”

If you have a potential finger guillotine set of chairs on your hands, stop using them immediately and return the whole set to Walmart for a full refund.

Consumers with questions can call Walmart at (800) 925-6278 or on Walmart’s site.

via Consumerist http://consumerist.com/2014/01/03/walmart-recalls-73400-card-table-and-chair-sets-because-finger-amputations-are-no-fun/

Video: Restaurant Mocks Drone Trend, Uses Flying Bot To Chop Celery, Take Out Trash

While Amazon and others prepare to darken the skies with the flying robots that will one day enslave all humanity and turn us into organic batteries, some restaurants have already opened the door to the pernicious plague of aerial drones. Now one Austin eatery has produced a video showing all the ways in which it employs the hovering harbingers of the robo-pocalypse.

In the above video, the operators of Austin’s Swift’s Attic show off their fleet of motorized servers, which go far beyond the burger-delivering that you see at other restaurants latching onto the drone trend.

“With the drones it’s great because we could have them run food all day long, run drinks all day long, all going to the same table,” explains sous chef Zack Northcutt. “They’re super easy to maintain… get the food out to everybody in a nice, timely manner; always ready to go, never call in sick, always have nice sharp edges to ‘em.”

That’s right the drones at Swift’s Attic aren’t just flying out beer and snacks to tables.

“We have them in the kitchen, ready to go, ready to slice anything that we need,” says Northcutt, demonstrating the drone’s use as a flying food processor.

The drones also do the one job no human in the kitchen ever wants to do — carry the trash out to the dumpster.

“It’s taken a lot of stress off of them when they’re trying to run the restaurant,” explains a rep for Arch Aerial, which provided Swift’s with the devices that will soon swarm over Austin like the bats that emerge every night between March and November from underneath the Congress Ave. bridge.

[via Eater]

via Consumerist http://consumerist.com/2014/01/03/video-restaurant-mocks-drone-trend-uses-flying-bot-to-chop-celery-take-out-trash/

Original Cheerios Will Soon Be GMO-Free (There Aren’t Any Genetically Modified Oats Anyway)

(Superchou)

General Mills says it’s been making original-flavor Cheerios without genetically modified organisms and that they’ll be on store shelves soon after consumers piped up to ask for GMO-free products. It’s only doing so for the original flavor because that one is mostly oats and conveniently enough, there aren’t any genetically modified oats anyway.

It’s updated the flavor by switching the cornstarch and sugar out, said a spokesman, which was easy enough only with its basic version of Cheerios, reports the Associated Press.

“We were able to do this with original Cheerios because the main ingredients are oats,” the spokesman added, pointing out that no oats have GMOs. Each box will bear a label reading “Not Made With Genetically Modified Ingredients.”

That’s not so much an official certification as a way to alert customers that it’s trying to go GMO-free. There could be trace amounts of GMO ingredients however, due to the way the Cheerios are made.

Again, other flavors like Apple Cinnamon or Honey Nut Cheerios won’t get the same GMO-scrubbing as they use ingredients like corn. While there isn’t a lot of scientific evidence out there that shows that a food with GMOs is less safe than one without, some consumer groups have put pressure on food manufacturers to remove them, citing potential long-term effects.

One such consumer group called Green America started a campaign asking General Mills to make Cheerios GMO-free. Its corporate responsibility director said that this move is “an important victory in getting GMOs out of our food supply and an important first step for General Mills.”

Original Cheerios to go GMO-free [Associated Press]

via Consumerist http://consumerist.com/2014/01/03/original-cheerios-will-soon-be-gmo-free-there-arent-any-genetically-modified-oats-anyway/

Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

Here are seven of the best photos that readers added to the Consumerist Flickr Pool in the last week, picked for usability in a Consumerist post or for just plain neatness.

(Freaktography)

(Trish P.)

(frankieleon)

(Brian Rome Photography)

(Karen_Chappell)

(RickDrew)

(Trish P.)

(gothamiste)

(Freaktography)

Our Flickr Pool is the place where Consumerist readers upload photos for possible use in future Consumerist posts. Want to see your pictures on our site? Just be a registered Flickr user, go here, and click “Join Group?” up on the top right. Choose your best photos, then click “send to group” on the individual images you want to add to the pool.

via Consumerist http://consumerist.com/2014/01/03/consumerist-friday-flickr-finds-223/

Snapchat Says It’ll Release More Secure Version Of App In Wake Of Hack

(i Very Am)” target=”_blank”>i Very Am)

This week many Snapchat users were likely shocked to found out that 4.6 million usernames and the phone numbers connected to them were leaked online by a group of hackers. In response to the hack, Snapchat says now that it will release an updated version of its app that will allow users to opt out of the “Find Friends” feature that was exploited.

In a blog post late last night, Snapchat acknowledged that the breach had taken place, after having stayed mum on the attack even while media outlets were reporting that millions of usernames and phone numbers had been published in a database by the hacker group. The new version of the app will give users the chance to not associate their accounts with a phone number through Find Friends.

“We will be releasing an updated version of the Snapchat application that will allow Snapchatters to opt out of appearing in Find Friends after they have verified their phone number. We’re also improving rate limiting and other restrictions to address future attempts to abuse our service.”

At least users don’t have to worry about any of their pics — which are designed to self-destruct after a set amount of minutes designated by the sender — showing up on the Internet, according to Snapchat.

“No other information, including Snaps, was leaked or accessed in these attacks,” the company writes in the blog.

Research group Gibson Security had alerted Snapchat twice in the past about possible holes in its security, once in August and once on Dec. 24. Snapchat had said last week that it had set up “various safeguards” to make the app safer, but hadn’t detailed those measures. Then bam, hack attack on New Year’s Eve.

In response to the question of why Snapchat didn’t apparently listen to the warning from Gibson Security, last night’s blog post lists a direct email address any security researchers can use to alert the company of any abuse. Which sort of makes it sound like Snapchat maybe just didn’t get Gibson Security’s messages before? Just a guess.

“We want to make sure that security experts can get ahold of us when they discover new ways to abuse our service so that we can respond quickly to address those concerns. The best way to let us know about security vulnerabilities is by emailing us: security@snapchat.com,” Snapchat’s blog reads.

via Consumerist http://consumerist.com/2014/01/03/snapchat-says-itll-release-more-secure-version-of-app-in-wake-of-hack/

Facebook Sued For Allegedly Selling Private Message Info To Marketers

In tests of Facebook’s private messaging system, researchers claim that sending a link to a web page may be counted as a “like” for that page, whether the sender liked it or not.

Facebook, never exactly a paragon of privacy, has once again been sued by users over allegations of profiting off users’ personal data. This time, the plaintiffs claim that the website is turning links shared in private messages into public “likes,” from which Facebook earns ad revenue.

“Contrary to its representations, ‘private’ Facebook messages are systematically intercepted by the Company in an effort to learn the contents of the users’ communications,” reads the suit, filed in a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. “In the course of the last year, independent survey researchers discovered that Facebook reviews the content of its users’ private Facebook messages for purposes unrelated to the facilitation of message transmission.”

Specifically, claims the complaint, when a user sends a link in a Facebook message, Facebook then allegedly “scans the content of the Facebook message, follows the enclosed link, and searches for information to profile the message-sender’s web activity.”

So if you write to your pal Suzy about how much she would love a story on Consumerist and then copy/pasted the URL for that story into the message, the plaintiffs say that Facebook is now building a marketing profile on you based on the the fact that you shared this particular link.

Furthermore, when Facebook follows that link back to the source page, if it finds a “Like” button there, then the company assumes that your sharing of this story counts as a “like” for this content, whether or not you have actually enjoyed this story (perhaps you were sending the Consumerist link to Suzy because you thought it was the worst thing you’ve ever read).

“Representing to users that the content of Facebook messages is ‘private’ creates an especially profitable opportunity for Facebook, because users who believe they are communicating on a service free from surveillance are likely to reveal facts about themselves that they would not reveal had they known the content was being monitored,” contends the lawsuit. “Thus, Facebook has positioned itself to acquire pieces of the users’ profiles that are likely unavailable to other data

aggregators.”

The complaint seeks class-action status on behalf of all Facebook users in the U.S. who have sent links in private messages, which has to be a pretty hefty chunk of the 166 million or so registered Facebook users in the country.

In terms of damages being sought, the complaint asks for $100 for each day of violation or $10,000 per class member, plus statutory damages of either $5,000 per class member or three times the amount of actual damages, whichever is greater.

For its part, Facebook says the allegations are “without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously.”

Facebook sued for allegedly making private messages into public “likes” [Ars Technica]

Facebook faces suit over data allegations [CNBC/Financial Times]

via Consumerist http://consumerist.com/2014/01/03/facebook-sued-for-allegedly-selling-private-message-info-to-marketers/