Revealing The Hidden Cost Of PrePaid Debit Cards [Hot Infographics]

Revealing The Hidden Cost Of PrePaid Debit Cards [Hot Infographics]: "

With credit cards harder to come by and more annoying to use, the prepaid debit card market is projected to explode from $8.7 billion loaded on the cards to $119 billion in 2012, but a good chunk of that is going to be eaten up by hidden fees and gotchas. This sexy graphic visualization shows how.

Fees like:
$1.75 for each ATM withdrawal
$1 for each ATM balance inquiry
$.50 for each purchase
$4 monthly maintenance charge


Prepaid debit cards are a way for people who can't or won't get a banking account to do ATM withdrawals, make purchases online and to buy stuff without carrying cash around. But the hidden fees and sparse regulation can mean the unbanked get jacked once again.

The real cost of prepaid debit cards [FST] (Graphic by GDS Digital)

United Loses $12,418.28 Of Famous Rock Climber Steph Davis's Gear [Complaints]

United Loses $12,418.28 Of Famous Rock Climber Steph Davis's Gear [Complaints]: "

Pro rock climber and base jumper Steph Davis is always superstitious about her last 'flight.' On any trip, the last jump off the cliff in her wing suit, she's sure something will go wrong. Recently, her fears came true, but not while hurtling herself off the Eiger. It was her flight on United, who lost $12,418.28 of her gear, including parachute.

After many phonecalls, United informed Steph via email that they will pay $3,174.20 of the claim. They will let Steph know in 60 days whether they are going to continue looking for her gear or not.

'I was a hell of a lot safer tossing myself off a cliff in a nylon squirrel suit. It's awfully hard to base jump with no parachutes though. Thanks United! You're the best!' wrote Steph on her blog.

Here's a video of Steph climbing and jumping off the 400-foot Castleton Tower, in Moab, Utah.

Guitars, the luggage of people with broken guitars, rock-climbing equipment... United seems to have a problem safely delivering valuable baggage, or owning up to its mistakes.

So, next time, if you're flying with a lot of expensive gear, make sure to have it insured, or send it FedEx.

United Loses BASE Gear [High Places] (Thanks to Mark!)

Louisville Slugger Bat Maker Loses Lawsuit Because Batted Ball Kills Player [Louisville Slugger]

Louisville Slugger Bat Maker Loses Lawsuit Because Batted Ball Kills Player [Louisville Slugger]: "

I imagine it went down like this: One night over drinks, a couple lawyers got together and started one-upping one another with crazy boasts. At the end of the night, one of them said, 'Dude, I could sue Louisville Slugger for making baseball bats. And win!'

The other lawyer thought this was ludicrous and bet him that he couldn't. Well, the other lawyer lost that bet. WAVE 3 TV in Louisville reports that a Montana jury has found that Louisville Slugger batmakers Hillerich and Bradsby should have put warning labels on its aluminum bats, and must pay $850,000 to the family of 18-year-old player Brandon Patch, who was killed by a line drive in a 2003 American Legion game.

The story says:

The Patch family argued aluminum bats are dangerous because they cause the ball to travel faster than those hit off wooden bats. They said Brandon did not have enough time to react after the ball was hit.

Although the jury did award the Patch family money saying that H&B failed to place warning labels on the aluminum bats, they also said the bat was not defective.

I guess the jury believes that had warning labels been placed on the bats, Patch would have read the label, refused to play and be alive today.

Montana jury finds H&B at fault in baseball bat lawsuit [WAVE 3 TV (Louisville)]
(Photo: Flying Photog)
(Thanks, Brenndan!)

"

Misplaced Letter Costs PepsiCo $1.26 Billion In Bottled Water Lawsuit [Aquafina]

Misplaced Letter Costs PepsiCo $1.26 Billion In Bottled Water Lawsuit [Aquafina]: "

It's easy to joke about PepsiCo's Aquafina. After all, it's purified municipal tap water, bottled and sold at prices comparable to juices and soda. But the product is no joke to two men in Wisconsin. In 1981, they discussed their idea to bottle and sell purified tap water with some of PepsiCo's regional bottlers. Allegedly, the idea made its way back to PepsiCo and eventually became Aquafina.

This year, they sued PepsiCo. But the paperwork was lost in layers of corporate bureaucracy, and PepsiCo failed to send a representative, winning the men a default judgment of $1.26 billion. Yes, with a B.

Pepsi is fighting the judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations surely has run out when the meetings in question occurred 28 years ago and the product has been on the market for 15 years. Oh, yeah, and they didn't hear about the lawsuit soon enough.

In court papers, PepsiCo claims it first received a legal document related to the case from the North Carolina agent on Sept. 15 when a copy of a co-defendant's letter was forwarded to Deputy General Counsel Tom Tamoney in PepsiCo's law department. Tamoney's secretary, Kathy Henry, put the letter aside and didn't tell anyone about it because she was 'so busy preparing for a board meeting,' PepsiCo said in its Oct. 13 motion to vacate.

When Henry received a forwarded copy of the plaintiff's motion for default judgment on Oct. 5, she sent that to Yvonne Mazza, a legal assistant for Aquafina matters. Remembering that she still had the other document, Henry passed it to Mazza too. The next day Mazza sent the documents to David Wexler, a department attorney, and he 'immediately' called the agent to get a copy of the complaint.

Lawyers for PepsiCo distributors Wis-Pak Inc. and Carolina Canners Inc. made court appearances in June and July. PepsiCo was at a loss to explain why it hadn't heard about the case from them. 'It's just another unfortunate thing that didn't come together,' Jacuzzi said.

There will be another hearing in early November. The original article does not explain why it took the men 15 years to finally sue.

Price to PepsiCo for Not Being in Court: $1.26 Billion [National Law Journal]

(Photo: marcus_in_ny)

"

Copycat Company Sues Original Artist To Void Copyright Claims [Legal Battles]

Copycat Company Sues Original Artist To Void Copyright Claims [Legal Battles]: "

It's a natural impulse to want to support the little guy, the David who faces down a powerful Goliath. That's why it's easy to get behind this guy's claims that a copycat business is suing him to force him to abandon his own copyrights. Wtf!, you might say when you read something like that. Is that even possible? It is, and the story is more nuanced when you look at both sides, which makes it a good example of why it's sometimes hard to be a 'good consumer' when deciding where to spend your money.

John T. Unger is an artist who makes firepits, which are decorative metal bowls that you place on your deck or in your backyard and burn fires in. They're pretty cool looking; I'd own one if I had a deck, or a backyard, or $800. Rick Wittrig, the owner of FirePitArt.com, also makes and sells firepits, and it seems quite possible he stole many of his earlier designs from Unger's work—his bowls went up for sale approximately a year after Unger's bowls, and in many instances they're virtually identical. They're also slightly cheaper.

Unger was understandably upset that someone had swooped in and usurped the market he'd been carving out for himself. Here are three examples of Unger's original work and the copycat products Wittrig sells, along with estimated dates provided by Unger of when they were created. (Click the image to see it at full size.)

Unger contacted Wittrig:

Concerned about preserving my reputation and rapport with art buyers, I sent a Cease and Desist letter on April 30th, 2009 asking that Mr. Wittrig cease manufacturing the designs which were being confused as my own. A letter of flat refusal came back in response. In further correspondence, I explained my concerns over confusion of authorship, provided his attorney with copies of the copyright certificates as well as the original photos used to apply for copyright. I stated clearly that I have no objection to him creating original works that could share the marketplace in their own niche. Several times in the course of correspondence, I asked Wittrig to provide any evidence that his designs were original works. Given the opportunity to deny copying my designs, Wittrig did not- he only asserted that he was within his rights to continue making them on a large scale. Then he filed suit to have my copyrights removed, as well as for damages and legal fees.

I asked Rick Wittrig if Unger's claims were true, but he didn't respond. Well, actually he did, but only to say,

John has indeed written a carefully crafted emotional story omitting a lot and embellishing even more. I suspect your email is one sided in nature and you are not truly interested in the truth. The facts are all public knowledge and if you [are] an 'editor' you will check them.

Oooookay. Well, fine! I edited my way over to the Tennessee Middle District Court's Eelectronic Court Filings (ECF) System, and edited a look at the actual lawsuit.

In it, Wittrig doesn't deny that Unger's designs came first. He simply claims that Unger has no right to copyright his fire pit designs, as they are utilitarian objects and not decorative works. Here's some of the relevant language from the lawsuit (emphasis mine):

9. Over the course of the subsequent months and extensive communications between legal counsel for the parties, Defendant [Unger] has continued to assert his allegations of copyright infringement, further basing them on the registrations of copyright claims made by Defendant, and issued by the U.S. Copyright Office under numbers VA 1-667-92, VA 1-667-096 and VA 1-667-181, all for a number of articles that are in fact outdoor fire pits, but were registered by the Copyright Office as 'Sculpture/3-D Design,' on the basis of Defendant's claims and representations.

[...]

16. An actual case or controversy exists within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 as to whether Plaintiff's manufacturing, marketing and selling of Plaintiff's Fire Pits infringes on any copyrights of Defendant.

[...]

21. Defendant's Fire Pits are functional, utilitarian and useful articles that are not subject to copyright protection.

Utilitarian objects can't be copyrighted, but decorative elements on them sometimes can. The U.S. Copyright Office say this on the matter of utilitarian objects (emphasis mine):

'Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works' include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.

I spoke with a lawyer familiar with copyright law and showed him the pictures of Unger's and Wittrig's bowls. He too pointed out that decorative elements can be granted copyright protection so long as they're not required for the device or tool to function. He also pointed out, however, that the design has to be original enough to warrant copyright; if, for example, your design elements were pulled from Mayan iconography, then even if someone steals your idea of putting those icons on a utilitarian object it would be hard for you to press a copyright claim.

That doesn't prove Unger or Wittrig is right in this case. All it does is show that there may be some real questions for the judge to resolve, possibly on a case-by-case basis for each design. It may turn out that Unger and Wittrig both come out winners and losers in the battle.

That copyright stuff is fascinating, but what does it mean ultimately for a consumer looking to buy a firepit? Do you purchase from the artist who had the idea first, or do you buy a nearly identical version for slightly less money from the copycat? Maybe Wittrig was a jerk for suing the artist to get rid of his copyright claims, but then again maybe he really doesn't think they should be protected designs.

From a consumer perspective, Wittrig's bowls are slightly cheaper, but Unger has the market cornered on old fashioned concepts like convenience and creating an emotional experience. Unger's website is easy to navigate, and there's a narrative around his bowls—you see his role as an artist in creating them, you learn what each design means to him, and so on. By contrast, it's obvious Wittrig (or at least his web developer) should be put in Flash Prison for the FirePitArt.com website, which opens a new full-screen window and auto-plays music like some horrible MySpace parody.

My gut instinct is always to buy cheaper, unless by doing so I'm causing enough harm that it exceeds my 'I must pretend it isn't there in order to live in this world' threshhold. And obviously, Consumerist is all about making the best choice as a consumer, not as a 'friend of the artist' or 'outraged netizen.' In the end, all copyright battles aside, you have to decide how much loyalty you feel to the original producer of a good when there's a cheaper knockoff version available.

'Imitator Sues Me to Overturn Copyrights: Please Help Defend My Art' [johntunger.com] (Thanks to Shannon and Yamen!)
Firepitart.com LLC v. Unger
'Hot-rod style fire pit' [Boing Boing]

RELATED
youthoughtwewouldntnotice (Thanks to catastrophegirl!)

Losing Net Neutrality: The Worst Case Scenario [Net Neutrality]

Losing Net Neutrality: The Worst Case Scenario [Net Neutrality]: "

It's alarmist, over-the-top pro-net-neutrality propaganda, sure, but this chart goes a long way to explaining why the IT dude at the office wears that 'All Packets are Created Equal' shirt to work every Thursday: because tiered ISPs are scary.

And before you dismiss the chart outright, check out your cable company's channel packages. Replace content provider fees with new network backbone charges, and cable packages with traffic or website packages, and hey, look, shit—this doesn't seem so crazy, does it? Click here for the full version. [Reddit via Crunchgear]

Sugariest Cereals For Kids Get Pimped Hardest [$156 Million]

Sugariest Cereals For Kids Get Pimped Hardest [$156 Million]: "

A new Yale report finds that cereal companies spent $156 million per year marketing to children, and most of that money gets plowed into pushing the sugariest cereals, which they try to pretend are healthy.

Even milk-covered desert cereals like Lucky Charms, Reese's Puffs, and Cookie Crisp have 3-4 health claims on their boxes, the report finds. And most of the cereals with the lowest nutritional content are still pimp themselves out as being 'better-for you' or 'Smart Choices.'

The cereal companies typically 'dual-market.' From one side of their mouth, convince parents that it's a healthy and wholesome start to the day. Out the other, tell kids that cereal is a fun game.

Someone should tell these companies childhood obesity is no game. Parents need to make smart purchasing decisions, but regulators need to start taking on these bogus health claims.

Cereal FACTS:Evaluating the nutrition quality and marketing of children's cereals (PDF) (4-page summary</a (PDF))

FDA: Um, Please Do Not Buy Stupid #$@% Like "Swine Flu Shampoo" [Please Be Intelligent]

FDA: Um, Please Do Not Buy Stupid #$@% Like "Swine Flu Shampoo" [Please Be Intelligent]: "

The FDA is calling on consumers not to fall for unapproved bogus 'swine flu' or 'H1N1' products that claim to offer a cure or other health benefits. There's even a 'swine flu shampoo' that claims to protect against the virus. Awesome.

The FDA says:

FDA actively monitors the Internet and, where appropriate, purchases and analyzes drug products. In October 2009, it announced what it found when it purchased and analyzed several products represented online as Tamiflu.

One of these online orders resulted in delivery to FDA of an unmarked envelope postmarked from India. Inside were unlabeled, white tablets taped between two pieces of paper that were found to contain talc and acetaminophen, an active ingredient found in many medicines to help relieve pain and reduce fever. Not found was oseltamivir, the active ingredient of Tamiflu.

The Web site selling this product disappeared shortly after FDA placed the order.

The agency also bought four other products purported to diagnose, prevent, treat or cure the H1N1 influenza virus from other Web sites. These products contained various levels of oseltamivir but were not approved for use in the United States. Several did not require a prescription from a health professional.

In actions it announced in June 2009, FDA issued warning letters and advised operators of offending sites to immediately ensure that they weren't marketing products intended to act against the H1N1 flu virus that have not been cleared, approved, or authorized by the agency.

* Among the unapproved, uncleared, or unauthorized H1N1 flu products it targeted at that time were
* a shampoo said to protect against the H1N1 flu virus
* a dietary supplement said to protect infants and young children from contracting the virus
* a 'new' supplement said to cure H1N1 flu infection within four to eight hours
* a spray that claims to leave a layer of ionic silver on one's hands that kills the flu virus
* several diagnostic tests that have not been approved to detect the H1N1 flu virus
* an electronic instrument whose sellers claim uses 'photobiotic energy' and 'deeply penetrating mega-frequency life-force energy waves' to strengthen the immune system and prevent symptoms associated with H1N1 viral infection

Work by FDA and the FTC to identify, investigate, and take regulatory action against individuals or businesses that wrongfully promote purported 2009 H1N1 influenza products will continue. These efforts can include additional legal actions including seizure of products, injunction, or criminal prosecution.

For a list of the fraudulent products, click here.

The Word is Out on Unapproved H1N1 Products [FDA]

Would You Live With Ghosts For Cheaper Rent? 69% Would [Polls]

Would You Live With Ghosts For Cheaper Rent? 69% Would [Polls]: "

Rent.com conducted a survey that found more than 2/3 of renters ain't afraid of no ghosts, and would live with them as long as they got a hefty discount on rent.

From rent.com's press release:

While the survey found 11 percent of renters believe they have lived in a home inhabited by ghosts, others would be willing to do so in order to save money. In fact, 69 percent of renters would be willing to crash with Casper for the right price. More than half (51 percent) of renters would share their home with a ghost in exchange for free rent, and over one quarter (27 percent) would do it for half-price.

Three in 10 people who have rented (30 percent) said they'd bunk with the boogeyman if they received free utilities, while nearly one in four (23 percent) would do it in exchange for a free flat-screen TV with cable.

Overall, 31 percent of renters said no deal. Nothing, 'not even a million bucks,' would convince them to conquer their phasmophobia (fear of ghosts). However, a greater percentage of males than females are willing to live with ghosts for any given tradeoff (74 percent vs. 64 percent).

This data just goes to prove how much more daring women are than men. Judging from the Twilight phenomenon, a significant portion of women not only don't fear vampires, they lust after them, so long as they're metrosexual and sparkly.

So, Consumerists, let's have it out — would you live with a ghost? Have you?

Would you live with a ghost in exchange for free rent?(online surveys)

(Photo: MReder Design)

"

Wachovia's "Way2Save" Account Triggers Over $5,000 In Penalty Fees [This Is Not A Way To Save]

Wachovia's "Way2Save" Account Triggers Over $5,000 In Penalty Fees [This Is Not A Way To Save]: "

Wachovia has a new financial product called Way2Save that automatically moves $1 from your checking account into a high interest personal savings account every time you make an electronic bill payment. Susan tried to maximize her contributions by making a lot of little bill payments, but Wachovia cut off access to her funds without notice and triggered an avalanche of penalty fees. Now she owes over $5,000 to her credit card companies, far more than she would likely have ever earned through Wachovia's complicated savings program, and of course Wachovia is denying any responsibility.

I signed up for Wachovia's Way2Save program, which gives you 5% interest on your savings the first year. You can only deposit $100 a month into the account. The only other way to put money in is by account activity (paying bills, etc). So I scheduled a lot of $1 bill payments to my credit cards every day to try to get as much money in the savings account as possible.

Wachovia put a temporary hold on my checking account without telling me. There was no phone call, email, or online notification. So imagine my horror when I got emails from their billpay service saying they couldn't withdraw the money from my checking account and were reversing the bill payments. I had deposited several hundreds in cash (in person) into the checking account, so I knew it couldn't be because the funds hadn't cleared. And the bill payments totaled only around $200 anyway.

When I called, it turns out that Wachovia had put a temporary hold on my checking account, freezing the funds. No one was able to explain why, but they said the hold was gone. They weren't able to stop the payments from reversing.

The end result? My credit cards are charging me over $5000 in reversed payment fees (150 reversed payments * $39 average per returned payment, you do the math). In particular, Chase has canceled all my cards because of the multiple returned payments. I called my Chase small business card account, and the specialist at Chase said they could not do anything, or even waive *some* of the returned payment charges, unless I could get Wachovia to send a letter saying the returned payments were the result of bank error.

I called Wachovia, and they refused to do anything. Their stance is that it was not a bank error because I scheduled the bill payments, not them. There were no notes on my account (because I had talked to someone in bill pay, which apparently is a contracted out service, not part of their own system). They had no record of any hold on the account, and even if there was a hold, it wasn't their responsibility because I had scheduled the bill payments myself. They also mentioned deposit availability, though I pointed out that I had deposited cash. I'm going into a branch on Friday, but I don't think they will write anything for me either.

I haven't called the other credit cards yet. I'm dreading calling my other credit cards to see if they will waive anything. So in the end, I am stuck with this fiasco. At least Christopher's problem was caused by the same bank charging him the fees. They have the power to waive the fees. What happens when the problem is caused by a different bank, and that bank won't help at all, not even write a stupid letter?

I hate Wachovia. I don't have problems with it if the problems were caused by my scheduling bill payments, and there wasn't money in the checking account. I do have problems when the checking account says I have several hundred dollars available, I had deposited more than enough cash to cover the bills the previous week, and there is NO notification that a temporary hold had been put on the funds. How is that my fault and not the bank's???

Do you have any EEOB-type email addresses I could possibly use to write to the service departments at Chase, Bank of America, Discover, Amex, and Citibank?

Or any advice on how to handle the situation? Ways I can convince Wachovia to write the freakin' letter? Or am I stuck sucking it up?

The wildest thing about this is the idea that Wachovia would have no record of the minute-to-minute status of your accounts, including your deposits and when funds became available. You should go into a Wachovia and have a nice long sit-down with someone there, where you both go over the account item by item if necessary, until they have to admit that there is not a single reason those payments should have been reversed. After all, if they don't have a reason for—or even a record of—placing the hold, it should be easy to determine that you always had the funds necessary to cover your payments.

For now, keep this with Wachovia. It's on them to correct their mistake, and to provide you the necessary evidence you need to get your other creditors to reverse the charges and re-open those accounts. Unfortunately our Wachovia contact info is getting pretty dated (although now there's a Twitter contact), but maybe you can get somewhere if you EECB Wells Fargo. (Tell them you're a dirty telemarketer who wants to rip off old people and they should prick up their ears.)

For other Wachovia customers, you might want to find a less dangerous way to save your money. Tying it to bill payments is pretty risky, and you don't have to have an exceptional case like Susan's to wipe out your gains—a single error, whether by you or Wachovia, could easily do it.

(Photo: suburbandollar)

"

Internet Speeds and Costs Around the World, Shown Visually [Infographics]

Internet Speeds and Costs Around the World, Shown Visually [Infographics]: "

This awesome infographic shows the internet costs and speeds around the world for the top 20 nations in the ITIF Broadband Rankings. Unsurprisingly, we don't compare too well.

Number one is, predictably, Japan, where the average broadband speed is 60mbps and they pay $0.27 per 1mbps. We, in comparison, average 4.8mbps and pay $3.33 per 1mbps, putting us at #15. Be sure to click the above image to see it in its full glory. [Zach Klein]

This Grocery Store Bakery Price War Seems To Be Heating Up [Badvertising]

This Grocery Store Bakery Price War Seems To Be Heating Up [Badvertising]: "

We don't quite know what to say about this Mid-Atlantic regional grocery store bakery price war. It is intense, baby.

(Thanks, Chris!)

"

Yet another reason McCain's "Internet Freedom Act" is dumb, Net Neutrality is good: national security?

Yet another reason McCain's "Internet Freedom Act" is dumb, Net Neutrality is good: national security?: "
Boing Boing reader Ken Ward caught Friday's Rachel Maddow Show segment, in which I joined Ms. Maddow for a discussion around John McCain's 'Internet Freedom Act.'

McCain, who once described himself as technologically 'illiterate' and is the single largest senate recipient of telecom lobby money, is now campaigning against the net neutrality fundamentals recently reaffirmed by FCC actions.

Our reader suggests another reason McCain is dead-wrong: 'At the risk of sounding like a dinosaur, I have to point out that McCain's positions is, in fact, a danger to National Security.' Ken's email to Boing Boing, after the jump. Your thoughts welcomed in the comments.

Ken writes:

Interesting exchange between you and Rachel Maddow regarding McCain's position on Net Neutrality. At the risk of sounding like a dinosaur, I have to point out that McCain's positions is, in fact, a danger to National Security. Let's remember that the Internet grew out of DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which itself grew out of ARPA, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (an Eisenhower baby), both of which were government-funded efforts to ensure that government and military computer networks could survive and maintain in contact in the event of a nuclear or environmental disaster.

The National Security function of what is today known as the Internet has already been largely degraded by the privatization of the Internet backbone, and McCain's bill only further puts at risk National Security by allowing private enterprise to determine the 'importance' of Internet packets. As I see it, the best and only way to understand McCain's bill is as a betrayal of National Security interests.

Best regards,

Ken

NB: you probably already have read 'Where the Wizards Stay Up Late' by Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon, but if not, it is well worth a read.

--

Ken Ward MLIS
mailto:kcward@alumni.reed.edu

PhD Candidate
Department of History
UT @ Austin

This the coolest most amazing Robot ever!!!! @ the Dubai Gitex 2009 even if is a man in a suit.

Skinny Toddlers Also Can't Get Insurance? [Pre-existing Conditions]

Skinny Toddlers Also Can't Get Insurance? [Pre-existing Conditions]: "

We guess we should have seen this one coming. After news broke of the uninsurable fat baby last week, MSNBC found a similar case on the other end of the spectrum. A Colorado family with a 22-pound two-year-old says that United HealthCare told them their daughter Aislin is too small to qualify for insurance under their guidelines.

The funny thing is United HealthCare has already insured Aislin once before, when she was born. Then her father switched jobs and insurers. He recently switch jobs again and switched back to United HealthCare, and that's when the trouble started.

The insurer turned down coverage for Aislin - even though it had already insured Aislin as an infant - stating she did not meet height and weight standards and also noting the Bateses had sought treatment for Aislin's finicky eating habits.

But the Bates' doctor vouched for Aislin's health and said there's nothing wrong with her, that her petite size is due to genetics, and that she's perfectly healthy.

The Bates family told MSNBC why they sought 'treatment' over her eating habits in the first place:

Robert and Rachel realized Aislin was a picky eater early on, and went the extra mile to enroll her in food therapy. But instead of earning brownie points with the insurer, the family believes having their daughter in treatment is actually being held against them.

'We wanted to fix her picky eating, because we want her to be able to eat a wide variety of foods, and not just things she wants to eat, like chocolate,' Rachel Bates told TODAY.

'We personally sought out therapy; it was not prescribed by a doctor. In the process, it was found that [Aislin] has just a minor, minor gag reflex, causing her to not like certain foods. But the therapist says she's thriving and fine, and she's developing normally and in fact, possibly advanced.'

'Toddler denied insurance for being too small' [MSNBC] (Thanks to Kate!)

RELATED
'Fat Little Babies Can't Get Insurance?'

"

American Medical Alarms Sends Elderly Neighbor To Investigate Next Door [Granny Red Shirt]

American Medical Alarms Sends Elderly Neighbor To Investigate Next Door [Granny Red Shirt]: "

Is it okay for an alarm company to ask a neighbor to check on its customer? By sending a 70-year-old woman over to check on their 80-something-year-old customer, American Medical Alarms may have helped prematurely end a robbery/beating in progress. On the other hand, they asked a 70-year-old woman to go investigate an emergency next door—basically turning her into a potential Red Shirt. As the heroic neighbor's daughter points out, 'They should have already considered the possibility that something like this could happen, and have policies in place to prevent it.'

Here's what happened:

The afternoon of October 8, my 70-year-old mother got a call from American Medical Alarms asking her to check on an elderly neighbor whose alarm had gone off, and who hadn't responded when they tried to contact her.

My mother ran over to the woman's house and heard loud noises coming from inside. She pounded on the door and called the woman's name, and two men carrying knives ran out, jumped a fence, and escaped down an alley. Police and paramedics got there soon afterward, and found the woman inside, beaten and bloody. She was taken to the hospital and is now doing well.

So while things turned out OK in this case, the fact remains that a medical alarm company sent my mother to intervene in a violent home invasion. Of course, they didn't do it intentionally, and I'll grant that it's a reasonable assumption that the alarm was for a medical emergency. The woman is in her 80s and suffers from some serious medical issues. If it were a private party who had called my mother and asked her to check on the woman, I would understand completely.

But this wasn't some well-meaning private party who didn't have time to stop and think about all the possible scenarios. This is a corporation that exists primarily to serve as a middleman between their customers and local emergency services. This is all they do, and their customers pay them a lot of money to provide this questionable service. As such, they should have already considered the possibility that something like this could happen, and have policies in place to prevent it.

I emailed the company several days ago, asking them what their policies are, and what measures they intended to put in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future, but I haven't gotten a response at all.

Update: We asked Lisa whether her mom volunteered to be on the woman's contact list. Lisa wrote back,

My mom wasn't sure why they called her, but it's a pretty safe bet the woman listed my mom with the company as an emergency contact. My mom keeps an eye out for her, and from looking at their FAQs, they do ask for contact information. My mom didn't know anything about it until they called her, though.

(Photo: Paramount Pictures and Greencolander)

Shooting Anvils 200 Feet In the Air Is as Bloody Crazy as It Sounds [Explosions]

Shooting Anvils 200 Feet In the Air Is as Bloody Crazy as It Sounds [Explosions]: "

See that guy who kind of looks like Ernest Hemingway? His name is Gay Wilkinson. His favorite sport is to shoot anvils in the air. Anvils. He says that women ask him: 'why would you like to do that.'

I tell you why, women! Because he can. Just pack a lot of black powder between two anvils, put a notepad with the fuse in between, light up, and watch the anvil on top shooting up 100 to 200 feet into the air, stop for a second, and then fall down pretty much at the same spot.

Yes! I understand you, Mr. Wilkinson. I actually want to hang out with you, drink beer, eat grilled meat, fire up anvils, and change our names to Yosemite Sam and Wile E. Coyote for a day. [Riverfront Times via Boing Boing]

MoneyGram Agrees To Pay $18 Million Back To Fraud Victims [Wire Transfer Fraud]

MoneyGram Agrees To Pay $18 Million Back To Fraud Victims [Wire Transfer Fraud]: "

MoneyGram International announced today that it would pay $18 million to the FTC to settle charges it allowed wire fraud to happen between 2004 and 2008. MoneyGram's press release notes that they disagree with the FTC's view of the matter, but $18 million is a hell of a lot of money to pay if you don't think you were in the wrong. The press release from the FTC, on the other hand, provides plenty of detail illustrating MoneyGram's negligence, as well as the criminal behavior of some of its employees who were in on the frauds.

First, here's how MoneyGram delicately addresses it:

'While we don't agree with the FTC`s allegations regarding our fraud prevention in the past, we can agree on fraud prevention today and in the future,' said Patsley. 'We don`t want our customers being victimized by third-party fraud. What we are announcing today with the FTC is our commitment to enhance our already comprehensive efforts to combat fraud and ensure our customers can continue to rely on MoneyGram for safe, reliable money transfer services.'

But check out these specific allegations from the FTC's press release, which also came out today (emphasis ours):

The FTC charged that between 2004 and 2008, MoneyGram agents helped fraudulent telemarketers and other con artists who tricked U.S. consumers into wiring more than $84 million within the United States and to Canada – after these consumers were falsely told they had won a lottery, were hired for a secret shopper program, or were guaranteed loans. The $84 million in losses is based on consumer complaints to MoneyGram – actual consumer losses likely are much higher.

The FTC charged that MoneyGram knew that its system was being used to defraud people but did very little about it, and that in some cases its agents in Canada actually participated in these schemes. According to the FTC's complaint, MoneyGram knew, or avoided knowing, that about 131 of its more than 1,200 agents accounted for more than 95 percent of the fraud complaints it received in 2008 regarding money transfers to Canada; a similarly small number of agents was responsible for more than 96 percent of all fraud complaints to the company in 2006.

[...]

According to a recent FTC survey cited in the complaint, at least 79 percent of all MoneyGram transfers of $1,000 or more from the United States to Canada over a four-month period in 2007 were fraud-induced. The Commission's complaint further stated that based on the more than 20,600 fraud complaints MoneyGram itself received, U.S. consumers lost more than $44 million to cross-border money-transfer frauds between 2004 and 2008 alone. When combined with losses reported by U.S. consumers on money transfers within the United States, that number grows to $84 million.

[...]

The FTC's complaint alleges that MoneyGram ignored warnings from law enforcement officials and even its own employees that widespread fraud was being conducted over its network, claiming that proposals to deal with the problem were too costly and were not the company's responsibility. The company even discouraged its employees from enforcing its own fraud prevention policies or taking action against suspicious or corrupt agents. Some employees who raised concerns were disciplined or fired, the FTC charged.

Wow, that sure doesn't sound like MoneyGram gives a hoot about its customers. They say, 'Ensuring safe and reliable money transfers for our customers all over the world is at the forefront of all we do.' Except for that estimated $84 million, we guess.

'MoneyGram International Reaches Agreement with FTC' [Reuters]
'MoneyGram to Pay $18 Million to Settle FTC Charges That it Allowed its Money Transfer System To Be Used for Fraud' [FTC]

RELATED
'Money Transfers Can Be Risky Business' [FTC]
(Photo: renaissancechambara)

AT&T Asks Employees To Oppose Net Neutrality [Net Neutrality]

AT&T Asks Employees To Oppose Net Neutrality [Net Neutrality]: "

A reader sent us a letter that AT&T sent to its employees asking them to tell the FCC they oppose net neutrality. This comes after the FCC announced plans to investigate and enact net neutrality rules that will ensure that internet service providers (like AT&T) treat all content equally. The letter and a rebuttal are inside.

Here is the letter from AT&T:

Let your voice be heard: Internet regulation is bad for consumers, jobs, investment and universal broadband

TO: All U.S.-based managers

Over the last few weeks an extraordinary number of voices expressed concern over news reports that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to regulate the Internet in a manner that would drive up consumer prices, and burden companies like ours while exempting companies like Google. According to The Washington Post, the FCC has received a dozen letters from Republican and Democratic governors, a letter signed by 18 Republican senators, and a letter sent by 72 Democratic members of Congress. In addition, letters expressing serious concerns were sent by many state legislators and minority groups, and our union partners, CWA and the IBEW.

We encourage you, your family and friends to join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet. It can be done through a personal email account by going to www.openinternet.gov and clicking on the 'Join the Discussion' link.

The FCC has extended the period for receiving comments by allowing postings to its blog until Thursday, October 22nd. Those who seek to impose extreme regulations on the network are flooding the site to influence the FCC. It's now time for you to voice your opinion!

In addition to your own thoughts, any of the following points can be used when you develop your brief blog comments.

• America's wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world. Why disrupt a market that's working so well?
• There is fierce competition for wireless and broadband customers. Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want. There's been more innovation in this market than in any since the World Wide Web was introduced. The market is working for consumers. Don't burden it with unnecessarily harmful regulations.
• Network companies have to be able to manage their networks to ensure the most economical and efficient use of bandwidth, and provide affordable broadband services for all users. Network management is essential for consumers to enjoy the benefits of new quality-sensitive applications and services. The FCC rules should not stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network.
• The 'net neutrality' rules as reported will jeopardize the very goals supported by the Obama administration that every American have access to high-speed Internet services no matter where they live or their economic circumstance. That goal can't be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it.
• The FCC shouldn't burden an industry that is bringing jobs and investment to the country, but if it is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly. The goal of the FCC should be to maintain a level playing field by treating all competitors the same. Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers.

Thank you in advance for taking action that supports our customers, our company, and our country's commitment to ensure that every American has access to broadband.

Jim Cicconi
Senior Executive Vice President - External and Legislative Affairs
ATT

Well, let's break that down. First off, the FCC's contemplated action would be "exempting companies like Google" because the rules are directed at the ISPs, not at the content providers. AT&T, Comcast, et al are the subject of the regulation, companies like Google, who produce the content that consumers access via the internet, aren't. You could just as easily say it would "exempt companies like Craigslist, or Gawker, or Meatspin."

In response to AT&T's offered talking points:

• 'Why disrupt a market that's working so well?' The market is currently operating under net neutrality principles, albeit principles with little force of law behind them. Net neutrality has been the operating norm of the Internet since its inception; it's only recently that ISPs have discovered there's money to be made in ransoming certain content.
• 'Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want . . . . The market is working for consumers. Don't burden it with unnecessarily harmful regulations.' You know what doesn't encourage companies to develop products, services, and applications that consumers want? Making them pay an ISP for the privilege of even showing their content to consumers. A great part of the internet is the low cost of entry for new ideas and products. Forcing start-ups to buy access to a customer base could kill the next big idea.
• 'Network companies have to be able to manage their networks... The FCC rules should not stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network.' The FCC, which hasn't announced concrete rules yet and won't be until the completion of a lengthy factfinding process, has already indicated that in some circumstances network management may be necessary and would be allowable, provided it was done in a transparent manner. Telemedicine has in fact been used as an example where such management might be needed.
• '[Net neutrality rules would] halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it.' First, content providers, like Google, YouTube, or Facebook, also employ people. Limiting the content that can travel through the internet would also risk losing jobs. But more importantly, there is no evidence that net neutrality would discourage investment in broadband infrastructure. Indeed, from 2006 to 2008, AT&T has had net neutrality rules imposed on it as a condition of its merger with BellSouth. As this article points out, "AT&T's network investments increased immediately following the imposition of the Net Neutrality merger condition and continued to rise over the two years of the merger agreement. When the neutrality condition expired on Dec. 29, 2008, the company sharply reduced its investment."
• 'If [the FCC] is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly . . . . Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines, and other information services providers.' This is gibberish. Search engines don't transmit content; they can't, for instance, block torrent files. Only the tube owners like Comcast and AT&T can block or discriminate against content.

In conclusion, AT&T is full of it, net neutrality is awesome, and trying to stop the flow of information is usually a bad idea.

ELSEWHERE:
Now on Sale at the AT&T Store: Anti-Net Neutrality Propaganda [Public Knowledge]
AT&T Boss Asks Employees to Fake It [Save The Internet]
(Photo: quietmint)

Gyrowheel Eliminates Training Wheels in Kids' Bikes [Bikes]

Gyrowheel Eliminates Training Wheels in Kids' Bikes [Bikes]: "

Rarely one invention can save Humanity from annihilation, and push the world forward a couple of centuries in one go. The Gyrowheel is not it, but to millions of children worldwide, it'll feel like that. Check it in action:

LIke the Segway, the Gyrowhee uses gyroscopes to stabilize an object on wheels, using them to detect the when the vehicle is out of balance. Unlike the Segway, however, the Gyrowheel has a disk inside that spins in whatever direction is needed, creating a force that stabilizes the bike, even at low speeds. It's not the wheel itself that moves, it's the disk inside. According to Gyrobike, the manufacturer, this is called 'gyroscopic precession.' I call it 'black magic.'

Gyrobike says that their 12" wheel—which will be available on December 1 for around $100— will make any kid learn to ride a bike in 30 minutes to an hour, teaching "correct riding technique" in the process. A 16" model will be available in spring 2010. [Gyrobike via Daily Mail]

HSN Breaks TV, Showing Need To Firmly Attach Your Wii Accessories [Funny]

HSN Breaks TV, Showing Need To Firmly Attach Your Wii Accessories [Funny]: "

This HSN presenter remembered to use his wrist strap when playing with a Wiimote, so good for him! Unfortunately, it turns out you also have to make sure any attachments are firmly attached.

'Warning! Painful to watch!' [Oh Gizmo!]

TSA Takes Baby Away From Mother [Security Theater Of The Absurd]

TSA Takes Baby Away From Mother [Security Theater Of The Absurd]: "

Mommyblogger Nic tells the horrifying story of how TSA agents took away her child because the clip on his pacifier set off the metal detector yesterday.

Nic writes:

Jackson was in my arms, and in the midst of getting all of our gear on the conveyor belt, my mistake was neglecting to take off my son's pacifier clip that hangs from his shirt, which is metal.

The instant I walked through the metal detector with Jackson in my arms, we beeped. I knew exactly why...

...The male TSA agent repeated, 'I'm going to have to pick him up to inspect him.'

I handed him my son.

I handed him my son and he walked away with my child.

My eyes welled up with tears, I stood up from my chair and I asked the female TSA agent, 'Where is he going? Where is he taking my child? Why is he leaving?'

Jackson, while being whisked away looked at the male TSA agent awkwardly and repeated 'no no no no.'

I started crying.

The TSA eventually returned the child a few minutes later but the interim period was extremely stressful for the mother. According to the TSA website, 'We will not ask you to do anything that will separate you from your child or children.'

Looks like some agents need retraining.

TSA Agents Took My Son [My Bottle's Up] (Thanks to David!)

Cash4Gold Hit With Racketeering And Fraud Class Action Lawsuit [Cash4gold]

Cash4Gold Hit With Racketeering And Fraud Class Action Lawsuit [Cash4gold]: "

A class action lawsuit (PDF) was filed against Cash4Gold in California federal court last Friday, accusing the company of a 'massive scheme to defraud tens of thousands of consumers throughout the nation,' and racketeering.

The lawsuit says there are two specific promises that Cash4Gold makes and breaks: 1) that there is a 12-day return policy and 2) items sent in will be handled with the highest care. Cash4Gold breaks the first, claims the lawsuit, when checks are received by customers either after the return period is over or close to it, or when the company melts the jewelry before the expiration of the return period - allegedly a frequent occurrence.

Cash4Gold breaks the second when it 'repeatedly 'loses' the items sent,' frequently blaming the mail service for 'an absurdly high number of 'lost' items,' according to the suit.

The lawsuit says, 'These promises are lies. In a massive scheme to defraud tens of thousands of consumers throughout the nation, Cash4gold breaks both of its well-publicized promises with abandon, all the while committing a series of other frauds and misconduct, including attempts to silence former employees who dare to expose this fraud.'

Furthermore, Cash4Gold employs 'a deliberately frustrating so-called 'customer service' system which results in most individuals eventually giving up attempting to receive compensation for their 'lost' or greatly under appraised jewelry.'

The various techniques Cash4Gold customer service reps use to delay and discourage consumers from getting their money's worth or their gold back illustrate how Cash4gold's 'institutional culture is corrupt to its very core, designed at all levels to commit fraud,' says the lawsuit, which seeks treble damages.

Reached for comment, Cash4Gold responded, 'Cash4Gold has not been served with a complaint and therefore has no comment at this time.'

Read the entire lawsuit here. (PDF)

More information about the suit can be found in the press release on the plaintiff's lawyer's website.

PREVIOUSLY:
Cash4Gold Drops Consumerist From Lawsuit
Cash4Gold Threatened Jail If Negative Comments Weren't Removed
Cash4Gold Defendant Liberis Files To Vacate Default
Cash4Gold Activates Magical Press Release Machine
The Article Cash4Gold Doesn't Want You To Read
Cash4Gold Counters Critics With Super Polite Blog Posts
Florida AG Examining Cash4Gold Complaints
10 Confessions Of A Cash4Gold Employee
Cash4Gold Offers Blogger $3,000 To Remove Negative Post
How To Avoid Getting Ripped Off By Cash4Gold

Behold: Laser-Etched Food [Now With More Lasers]

Behold: Laser-Etched Food [Now With More Lasers]: "

Look at this picture that Kellogg's UK posted on its Twitter feed. That's a bunch of Corn Flakes that have been laser-etched with the Kellogg's logo. This is the best marriage of food and language since alphabet soup.

What is the point of this? Helen Lyons, lead food technologist at Kellogg's UK's, is glad you asked!

In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of own brands trying to capitalize on the popularity of Kellogg's corn flakes. We want shoppers to be under absolutely no illusion that Kellogg's does not make cereal for anyone else. We're constantly looking at new ways to reaffirm this and giving our golden flakes of corn an official stamp of approval could be the answer.'

This way, when you're eating one of the most boring cereals of all time, you can be sure that it's the real thing, not some cheap knockoff.

The internet has viewed this with skepticism, with our estranged family member Gizmodo writing, 'There's a fair chance this is a joke. Dear god, tell me this is a joke.' So we called Kellogg's to ask if this was a joke, and they said it's not happening... yet: "Kellogg's UK has no immediate plans to roll out this initiative — although exploration of the capability was underway. In the US, we have no plans to roll out this initiative."

Although we're not really enthused about this use, we're eager to see what other applications laser-etching will have on food. We're picturing going out to dinner and the waiter bringing plates of food that have each diner's face blasted onto the steak.

We will keep you updated on the development of laser gastrolexicology. If any UK readers spot these monogrammed Corn Flakes in the wild, please send us a picture and, if you purchased them, a taste test.

Thanks, Tony!

Brewer Sued By Monster Energy Drink Asks America For Help [Trademarks]

Brewer Sued By Monster Energy Drink Asks America For Help [Trademarks]: "

Matt Nadeau, the owner of a tiny Vermont brewery being sued by the makers of the Monster energy drink for brewing a beer called 'Vermonster,' has taken his case to the people. He says that trademark attorneys keep telling him the law is with him, but that he should just give up because it will be too expensive to litigate. 'This is just about principle,' Nadeau told the AP. 'Corporate America can't be allowed to do this, in this day and age. It's just not right.'

The dispute has arisen because Hansen, the maker of Monster Energy Drink wants to enter the alcoholic beverage market.

'I said `Too bad, I'm already here.' I've been here. And I'm already brewing beer,' said Nadeau.

Here's an interview with Mr. Nadeau:

Monster-maker to Vt. brewer: No 'Vermonster' beer [AP] (Thanks, Gene!)

Meet Burgerville's Awesome New Nutritional Info Receipt [Great Ideas]

Meet Burgerville's Awesome New Nutritional Info Receipt [Great Ideas]: "

We love the idea of Northwestern chain Burgerville's new receipts that feature nutritional information—not just calorie counts, but also the amount of fiber, fat, and carbohydrates in each item of your order, as well as the order as a whole. Now, here's one of the receipts as spotted out in the wild.

We like the breakdown by meal, the feature showing the fat and calorie savings when leaving off toppings, and also the feature that shows how this meal fits into a 2,000 or 2,500 calorie diet.

The Best Fast Food Receipt [CABEL'S BLOG LOL] (Thanks, Josh!)

(Photo: aprilskiver)

Fortune Teller Arrested For Selling Thousand Dollar Body Wash At The Mall [Drag Me To Jail]

Fortune Teller Arrested For Selling Thousand Dollar Body Wash At The Mall [Drag Me To Jail]: "

Fortune tellers are sort of like the con-artist version of the website Significant Objects—the more interesting the story, the higher the price you can fetch for an otherwise cheap piece of crap. Unless, of course, the police arrest you for 'fraudulent accosting' at the mall and ruin your con.

According to GazetteOnline, a 22-year-old woman was arrested last Friday in a mall in Lake Grove, New York, for trying to sell a teenager a magic stone and some miraculous body wash for $1,250. The woman had approached the teen a few days before at the mall and offered to read her fortune for $25, which she then upsold to a $100 'in depth' reading. Two days later, she met up with the teen again to warn her that she was cursed and should buy the stone and body wash. The teen paid $600 for the objects and agreed to come back in two days time with the remaining $650.

Instead, the teen went to the police, who arrested the woman and charged her with fraudulent accosting, fortune telling, and attempted grand larceny. Which is weird, because we're fairly sure Axe Shower Kits—which sell for nearly the same amount—use pretty much the same argument to convince teenage boys to hand over their money.

We bet you're wondering what we wondered: holy frak, you can get arrested for pretending to accost someone when you have no intention of following through on it?!! Does that mean you can get arrested for bailing on a handshake and saying 'Psyche!'? But no, that's not what it means in New York Penal Law:

A person is guilty of fraudulent accosting when he accosts a person in a public place with intent to defraud him of money or other property by means of a trick, swindle or confidence game.

'Woman at NY mall charged in curse scam; Offered to get rid of it for $1,250' [GazetteOnline]
(Photo: twid)

Fat Little Babies Can't Get Insurance? [Pre-existing Conditions]

Fat Little Babies Can't Get Insurance? [Pre-existing Conditions]: "

Up until yesterday, 4-month-old Alex Lange was considered uninsurable by Rocky Mountain Health Plans because he was above the 95th percentile for height and weight for his age—that gave him a pre-existing condition of obesity, and earned him a stamp of rejection.

After the Denver Post publicized the story over the weekend, the insurance company relented yesterday and issued a press release saying, 'We have changed our policy, corrected our underwriting guidelines and are working to notify the parents of the infant who we earlier denied.'

The company blames the incident on the fact that individual health insurance for babies is a 'relatively new process,' and that their underwriting system was flawed.

'Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance' [Denver Post via the raw story]

Officials Take Baseball Away From Little Girl Who Sues And Gets It Back [Nine-tenths Of The Law]

Officials Take Baseball Away From Little Girl Who Sues And Gets It Back [Nine-tenths Of The Law]: "

Back in July near Miami, 12-year-old Jennifer came away with Phillies player Ryan Howard's 200th home run ball. Florida Marlins officials asked her to give up the milestone ball so Howard could autograph it.

Turns out the team pulled the old switcheroo on Jennifer, handing her a polished, new ball autographed by Howard. She didn't buy the trickery and went home and told her mom, who asked the Phillies for the ball she gave up. After a long struggle, which included a lawsuit, she's finally gotten the Phillies to back down. CNN reports:

If the girl wants the baseball, Webb continued, contact Howard's agent, 'since the player now has the ball.'

By Monday of this week, with the regular season over and no ball in hand, Kent took the extraordinary measure of suing on behalf of Jennifer. He sought the ball and a judgment 'in excess of $15,000.'

The ball was promptly returned.

'Ryan Howard 200th career home run,' it says in capital letters across the ball, now encased.

'My ball,' Jennifer says with a smile.

The Phillies may be the reigning world champs, but they're no match for Jennifer.

Girl, 12, slugged back at Phillies slugger [CNN]
(Photo: jaredrubinski)
(Thanks, Lauren!)

Robber Walks Through Walmart Receipt Check With $200,000 Cash [Crime]

Robber Walks Through Walmart Receipt Check With $200,000 Cash [Crime]: "

You and I can't get past Walmart's receipt checks with a 12-pack of toilet paper, but one criminal made it past the greeter with a cart full of cash. $200,000 from the store's safe, to be precise. How does that happen?

Somehow, this feat was pulled off in Florida back in July. True, Walmart greeters are no substitute for actual security measures, but a combination of social engineering and inside knowledge was behind the success of this heist. Police have been unable to identify the culprit(s) despite having the entire incident on surveillance video.

A criminal dressed as a Walmart supervisor, complete with badge, had the proper combinations to open office doors and the store's safe, but no store employees admit recognizing the man.

After closing the safe, the burglar carried boxes outside the office and loaded them into his shopping cart. Then he headed for the store exit.

However, a Walmart greeter briefly stopped the cash-rich thief at the door and asked to see his sales receipt.

'The man continued to walk out the store,' the report states. 'Upon insisting to see his receipt, the man held up his name badge that said assistant manager and 10 years of service on it.'

The greeter let him pass.

Does this mean that Walmart managers can walk out of the front door with boxes of whatever they can carry and no consequences? That doesn't seem right, either.

Who stole more than $200,000 at Walmart? [Orlando Sentinel]

(Photo: Brave New Films)

More Airlines Add $10 Travel Surcharge To More Holidays [Travel]

More Airlines Add $10 Travel Surcharge To More Holidays [Travel]: "

Since consumers didn't whine too much about the addition of $10 'just because' fees airlines imposed on busy travel days, they've added fees on more days. Goody for us!

Companies participating in this exciting new program include Delta, US Airways, American, Northwest, Continental, United, and AirTran. According to WalletPop, here's the expanded list, including exciting new holidays such as Easter, Memorial Day, and apparently Spring Break.

• Nov. 29
• Nov. 30
• Dec. 19
• Dec. 26
• Dec. 27
• Jan. 2, 2010
• Jan. 3
• March 14
• March 20
• March 21
• April 11
• May 28

If you've already booked your tickets, the fee won't be added after the fact. But watch out when making holiday travel plans.

Happy holidays: Airlines expand $10 fee, and it's your fault [WalletPop]
Airlines' Holiday Surcharge Extends to Memorial Day [Bnet]

PREVIOUSLY: Airlines Add $10 Surcharge On Busy Holidays

(Photo: elderleaf) (Thanks, William!)

Ok, Someone Should Have Thought This VeggieTales Cookie Cutter Through [Awesome]

Ok, Someone Should Have Thought This VeggieTales Cookie Cutter Through [Awesome]: "

Reader Aaron was in his local Christian bookstore when he found something, um, interesting. It's a VeggieTales cookie cutter, right? Let's all stop for a moment and think about this.

Ok, now that we've considered it carefully, let's hear what Aaron has to say:

So I walked into my local Christian bookstore the other day, just to kill time while at the mall, and I see a rack displaying various Veggitales products. Having once worked in a church nursery, I know of the magical powers contained in those anthropomorphic carrots and cauliflowers. Imagine my surprise when I see this SEEMINGLY innocuous cookie cutter.

Innocent looking at first...but with a simple 90° rotation.....

What the deuce? Will someone please think of the children!

/satirical rant

This is just multitasking. It's perfect for your kids AND perfect for bachelorette parties. It's all about the frosting. Ya know?

PG&E Charges $1000/Month For Electricity Used In The 70's [Call CPUC]

PG&E Charges $1000/Month For Electricity Used In The 70's [Call CPUC]: "

PG&E has decided to start billing Josh's parents for electricity from the 1970's, to the tune of nearly $1000 per month.

Seems that some faulty meters were installed back then and now PG&E has figured out they underbilled the house. Problem is, Josh's parents didn't buy the house until 1986.

Josh writes:

My mother lives in a house in California that was built in the 40's. PG&E installed a meter sometime in the early 70's. As far back as I can remember we had to use the little meter cards, or a tech would come and read the meter personally. Now with the advent of the "smart meter" they dont have to read cards or check the meter. They can just check it remotely.

Here's where PG&E gets dicey. They have decided to start charging my parents an extra $800-$1000 dollars per month because they say that the meters that were installed in the 70's were faulty. When we bring up the fact that tech would read the cards or the meters themselves, they shrug it off and say that they were improperly trained. So now we are stuck paying the difference for power that was used in the 70's (before we even moved in in 1986 might I add!). So now what do my parents do? They are content letting PG&E charge them outrageous prices for power that we didnt use, but I am a bit more up to date on consumer rights and whatnot, so I need your help on the best course of action.

Thanks a bunch,

-Josh (an aggravated PG&E customer)

Whodjawhutzit? How can that be right? What the heck is going on?

Sounds like a case for the California Public Utilities Commission, 1-800-649-7570 or file a complaint here.

(Photo: oskay)

MediaFire asks Mozilla to take down SkipScreen

MediaFire asks Mozilla to take down SkipScreen: "

Popular file hosting service, MediaFire, has asked Mozilla to take down the SkipScreen Firefox extension.

Like other file sharing systems, MediaFire will allow you to download a file only after waiting 45 seconds during which you are presented a few ads so you are most likely to click on them and get the revenue, or, even better, you get annoyed enough to pay for its premium services.

SkipScreen circumvents MediaFire delay making it work like any other download: you click the link and you immediately start receiving the file: so there’s no more exposure to ads, and there’s no annoyance to push you to paid services.

It remains to be seen what Mozilla will do with the request: SkipScreen definitely harms MediaFire’s business but it’s also about the user experience and how she interacts with a public resource like MediaFire’s hosted content.

In the meantime, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has sided with Worcester, LLC, the maker of SkipScreen, and has taken them as clients and sent a letter to Mozilla making the case for the continued hosting of the extension:

MediaFire probably would prefer that we all sit, transfixed, while they display ads for us, just like certain Hollywood executives wish we would never leave the couch or hit FFWD when commercials run during our favorite TV shows, and certain websites wish they could ban Firefox ad-blockers. Fortunately, there’s nothing in the law that says that by simply visiting a website, I give up the right to control my desktop.

Baristas Flash Their Hoohas At The Grab-n-Go, Get Charged With Prostitution [I Keep The Tip Jar In My Pants]

Baristas Flash Their Hoohas At The Grab-n-Go, Get Charged With Prostitution [I Keep The Tip Jar In My Pants]: "

We're not at the 'full body latte' stage just yet, but Grab-n-Go Espresso in Everett, Washington has apparently taken us right up to that edge with their espresso stands where baristas show skin while serving coffee. Now five Grab-n-Go baristas have been charged 'with multiple counts of prostitution and violating the city's adult entertainment ordinance.'

You want to know exactly what they were doing, right? You're terrible.

Detectives say the women were charging up to $80 to strip down and flash customers while fixing lattes and mochas.

Investigators saw the women expose their crotches, lick whipped cream off their co-workers' private parts and pose naked for pictures inside the Grab-n-Go Espresso stand at 8015 Broadway, according to police reports obtained by The Herald on Wednesday.

Detectives also witnessed some of the women charging customers to touch their bare breasts and naked buttocks. Touching of that kind, for pay, falls under the city's definition of prostitution.

For even more scandalous descriptions of bad good 'memorable' coffee service, be sure to read the full article at HeraldNet.

'Five Everett bikini baristas charged with prostitution' [HeraldNet] (Thanks to Michael Belisle!)
(Photo: journeyscoffee)

Hidden Cameras Catch LA Valets Breaking All Kinds Of Laws [Investigations]

Hidden Cameras Catch LA Valets Breaking All Kinds Of Laws [Investigations]: "

An excellent piece of investigative journalism by NBC Los Angeles catches valets all over the city putting up fake no parking signs, jamming meters, and using customers' cars to shuttle valets around.

NBC's findings will be troubling to people who use valet parking, as valets are seen hitting other cars, getting parking tickets and not telling the customers, and using cars to ferry other valets back and forth. But even though we don't use valet parking, we're really upset to see valets breaking parking laws by blocking off public spaces, putting up fake no parking signs, and swapping cars out of the same metered spaces all day. We assume other cities have this problem, we hope there will be more exposés in other cities, and that these videos will lead to some city action.

Rogue Valets Exposed [NBC Los Angeles] (via Curbed LA)
(Photo: Lindacat)Thanks, John!

Best Buy Opens 360s, Updates Firmware, Slaps $30 More Onto Price Tag [I've Seen Better Buys, Actually]

Best Buy Opens 360s, Updates Firmware, Slaps $30 More Onto Price Tag [I've Seen Better Buys, Actually]: "

Bryan sent us this photo he shot at a local Best Buy that shows a helpful employee named Kim has opened an Xbox 360, hooked it up to the internet and pressed the 'X' button, downloading the latest system update. For all this hard, un-requested work, she also added $29.99 to the sticker price.

Bryan writes:

Just wanted to share what my local Best Buy here in [redacted] was doing to rip the unaware off. They are taking brand new Xbox 360 Elites and opening them and updating the system software, and as you can see in the photo, charging people 29.99 for a service that is available for free!!! Now do they discount these units after they have opened them, nope full price for all. Now I don't know if Microsoft is aware that Best Buy is tampering with the seal and replacing with a Best Buy branded "Inspected By". Sorry for the crappy pics but it's a cheap cell phone don't usually take pics, but readers beware of their new scheme. Thanks Best Buy — way to stick it to the uninformed.

I really should have slapped this with the 'above and beyond' tag. Just look at that penmanship! And the exquisite rectangle! It adds the appropriate amount of class to the endeavor.