AT&T has three new streaming video packages coming that are designed for the cord cutter

Something Direct this way comes.

AT&T has three new streaming services on the way that will let you stream content without having any TV subscriptions or set-top equipment. The new DirecTV Now, FreeVIEW and Fullscreen packages offer network TV as well as cable channels, plus made-for-digital content that you can stream from your computer, phone, tablet or smart TV anytime you like as often as you like.

Think of these services as digital cable TV that doesn’t need a dedicated box and you’ll have the right idea of what they are. You pay a monthly bill just like you would with AT&T’s DirecTV service or any other cable TV package but you can stream it through a web browser or an app. The DirecTV Now service offers channels from the DirecTV Satellite service AT&T offers today through a cable box and the pricing isn’t terrible.

• Live a Little – $35 / month (60+ channels)
• Just Right – $50 / month (80+ channels)
• Go Big – $60 / month (100+ channels)
• Gotta Have it – $70 / month (120+ channels)

You can also add HBO or Cinemax to any package for $5 each per month.

Fullscreen is AT&T’s curated lineup of digital TV programming and video. You can already check it out for $5.99 per month, but starting November 30 folks with AT&T phone service can have access to Fullscreen for a year at no charge.

Both the Fullscreen service and DirecTV Now will work with Android phones and tablets as well as Chromecast devices at launch. AT&T is also letting their customers stream these services without using any of their cellular data if streamed through the dedicated app(s).

FreeVIEW is a new 100% free service that brings curated content from AT&T media properties. You can stream FreeVIEW content at no charge through the DirecTV app or on the web at http://www.directvnow.com/ starting November 30.

You can read about the finer details and offerings at AT&T’s press page.

Instagram now notifies you if someone takes a screenshot

Instagram has taken another page from Snapchat’s playbook.

When you receive a snap (photo or video message) or watch someone’s story (a 24-hour reel of broadcasted snaps) in Snapchat, and then take a screenshot of that snap or story, the person who sent the snap or posted the story will receive an alert that you took a screenshot. 

Now Instagram is doing the same thing, but it’s not exactly clear why. 

The app will now alert users when someone has taken a screenshot of a photo or video that’s part of an Instagram story. Remember, Instagram Stories is Instagram’s version of Snapchat’s Stories. Videos, photos, and Boomerangs can be added to Instagram Stories, and they will disappear after 24 hours, just like snaps do in Snapchat’s Stories feature. 

• What’s the point of Snapchat?

So, if you’re months-deep into someone’s IG grid and screenshot a gram of his or her selfie, they won’t know. But if you screenshot a person’s story on Instagram, he or she will know. Instagram has quietly rolled out this feature without any explanation, and it’s a little perplexing. You see, Snapchat alerts you of screenshots because it essentially wants to keep the app ephemeral in nature.

INSTAGRAM GOT SCREENSHOT NOTIFICATIONS NOW pic.twitter.com/Hlng1F4uKH

— anna (@nutellaANDpizza) November 24, 2016

Snapchatters may be hesitant to screenshot because of alerts, and so they will let snaps self-destruct instead. But now it seems Instagram – which has never been about letting users share ephemeral moments, but rather keep a visual, filter-heavy catalogue of their adventures over the years – also doesn’t want you capturing what was never meant to live beyond a 24-hour period. 

Or maybe it just wants to continue shamelessly copying Snapchat.

Uber’s self-driving car partner skirted state rules to get noticed

Remember how Otto demonstrated a self-driving big rig truck without anyone in the cabin, making a great case for its eventual acquisition by Uber? It turns out that the company knowingly broke the rules, according to Backchannel… but also didn’t have to face consequences for its actions. Nevada (where Otto shot its promo video) requires both a special license and people in the cockpit for any autonomous testing, but Otto decided that the month of licensing, modification and testing would take too long — it went ahead anyway. Officials were outraged, and there was even talk of the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles backing away from self-driving tech and placing it in the hands of a department focused on business development.

However, there wasn’t much Nevada regulators could do in response. You see, the current rules (which were partly shaped by Otto’s own Anthony Levandowski) don’t actually punish violations. Amendments to the regulations could introduce penalties in 2017, but that’s too late to do anything against Otto.

For its part, Otto maintains that this wasn’t really a test of full autonomy, since there was an engineer in the back monitoring what was happening. That might not fly if Otto ever lands in court, though. Law professors speaking to Backchannel say that monitoring might not count unless someone is at the steering wheel, ready to take over in case of an emergency. And in practice, it might not matter much if police see a pilotless truck and decide to pull it over.

It’s evident that Otto took a big risk by flouting regulations, and the move paid off when Uber spent $680 million to buy Otto just months after that self-driving video appeared. However, the stunt is also a reminder that governments everywhere have to be very careful when producing autonomous driving rules. If they don’t put teeth into their regulations, those limits become meaningless — and that could pose real danger on the road if a company’s technology is flawed.

Source: Backchannel

San Francisco transit hackers threaten to expose data

Looks like San Francisco refused to give in to transit system hackers trying to hold the city for ransom. In a conversation with Motherboard, the attackers (still going by “Andy Saolis”) have threatened to expose 30GB of Muni databases and documents unless they receive the $73,000 in bitcoin that they demanded alongside the initial hack. They’re trying to claim the moral high ground, too. Purportedly, the hack was a “proof of concept” meant to show that the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Authority doesn’t “pay attention to your safety.” This forces SFMTA to “do right job,” the perpetrators claim in broken English.

The threat doesn’t exactly hold a lot of water, though. For one, the hackers don’t have any proof that they actually have the files — they refused to send samples to Motherboard. Also, it’s doubtful that there’s a noble cybersecurity cause here between the demands for money and the Russian email address used to demand payment. Based on current evidence, this appears to be little more than a botched extortion attempt by criminals. They successfully compromised Muni systems, but they weren’t prepared for officials to call their bluff and restore service without paying a dime.

Source: Motherboard

Record swathes of the Great Barrier Reef died in 2016

The Great Barrier Reef lost more coral to bleaching in 2016 than in any other year on record, according to scientists at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. The northern area was hit the worst: A region spanning 435 miles at the tip of the reef lost 67 percent of its shallow-water corals over the past nine months alone.

The story is better in the central and southern regions, which respectively lost just 6 percent and 1 percent of their corals in 2016. “The corals have now regained their vibrant color and these reefs are in good condition,” ARC Centre Professor Andrew Baird said. (We’ve reached out to the ARC Centre for additional information about this year’s die-off and will update this story as we hear back.)

Bleaching can occur when water temperatures rise and stay too warm, causing corals to expel the algae zooxanthellae, which gives them their color and provides them with food. The corals turn white and they’re immensely weakened, though not dead quite yet. If they survive predators and disease, they can be revitalized, though ARC Centre researchers expect it will take 10 to 15 years to regain the northern region’s corals. Another bleaching event could of course slow down the recovery process.

This is the third major die-off to strike the Great Barrier Reef, following less destructive events in 1998 and 2002. Coral bleaching is yet another sign that the planet is warming in unprecedented ways, largely because of human activity.

Source: The ARC Centre