Actually, this is likely just ignorance coupled with "get the mission done" motives that had some PFC showing up with his home router and a USB drive to put the documents in a conveniently available place so they are easy to find so they could get the work done.
Can he still be held responsible for paying his deceased wife's debts? One of my girlfriends ran up all her mom's credit cards as she was dying of breast cancer, because she knew the debt would go away when she died.
Unlikely he was liable unless it was a joint account of some kind. However, if the creditors of your girlfriend's mother found out what your girlfriend did, it's possible they could get her for fraudulently using the credit cards if her mother wasn't authorizing the charges or she was buying stuff just for herself.
the wording might be insensitive but notifying her husband about it isn't that unusual, is it?
Nope, this is just an attempt to collect a debt by PayPal. Poorly worded and untimely given his wife's death was already legally established by the copy of the death certificate he provided, but just SOP for debt collection. Common, even when the person in debt is dead. I got lots of demands for payment when my mother died. I wasn't liable for any of the debt, yet the letters came and got shreded.
I do think that PayPal was stupid to try this, mainly because of the risk of a bad PR outcome. Receipt of a death certificate should suspend the account and all debt collection activities for any unsecured debt associated with the deceased.
When the probability of what you are talking about is 1 in some 30+ digit number, No, they DON'T happen. Then you add in bit error correction and they REALLY don't happen.
Sending them a copy of the death certificate was nice to do. However, after that let them chase their tails trying to collect a debt from a dead person and waste their time an money in the process...
What are they going to do? Ruin a dead persons credit? Knock yourself out PayPal. Take them to court? It will be fun to see what the process server does with that....
Also, would you please review what I've written and make sure it is consistently portion marked and has the appropriate matching headers and footers? And while you are at it, could you verify that the classification markings are with my authorized area as well as those of the people on the distribution list? Finally, as I'm cutting and pasting from source material, could you keep information around about the original classification of said material and make sure I've not caused the letter's content to change overall classification?
Gas stations don't explode... Even when a car is on fire AT the gas pumps. I know, I've seen it happen when a guy left his car running and then proceeded to walk away while refueling. The auto-shutoff didn't work when his tank got full, gasoline went onto the ground and the brand new shiny yellow corvette when up in flames WITH the gas pump. Quite the fire, but no explosion. In fact, it's quite difficult to get gasoline to explode, despite what you see on TV and in movies. A car on fire in the next lot isn't a problem for the gas station... It is for any structures near by though..
But my point remains. Emergency help takes time to arrive. Sometimes it takes a LONG time. As individuals we need to be prepared to deal with situations until help can arrive, which in some cases can be days.
Thus the saying "Calling 911 can get you help in min, when seconds count."
That doesn't remove the personal responsibility angle here.
Your manager may be a moron and having you doing seemingly stupid things, but you still should have the profitability of the business in mind, even if you are working minimum wage jobs. You may not have any control, but you *should* care, if for no other reason than YOUR livelihood depends, at least in some way, on if the business remains profitable or not. Helping your stupid manager succeed is almost a sure fire way of making MORE money. Either they will recognize they depend on you and want to keep you around, or their manager will eventually see they are an idiot and replace them, giving you a chance at being picked.
By the way... Stupid people don't generally stay in business very long, nor do those who hire stupid managers. I've seen my share of managers who have risen as high as their incompetence could take them, but I've rarely seen them being kept around if they didn't produce some kind of gain for the business. Owners are NOT going to lose money on an idiot manager, at least not for long. Businesses WILL, however, pay good folks who care to stick around.
Who said I hate Apple? I'm just pointing out the differences in how they do business.
They have their business model and make money so do makers of Android devices. I have no ax to grind or chop down Apple's tree with and I have no dog hunting in the Android world. If they are making money with their business model, power to them.
Some folks enjoy the security of the walled garden where strict controls protect you, others like the flexibility of being able to move beyond the walls and accept the risks of doing so. I make no moral judgments about what garden you play in or if you choose no garden at all.
You play in their garden, or you don't play in any meaningful way. If you want folks to connect to YOUR store, they will have to jail break their phones (and voiding their Apple warranty).
Again, you are not being forced to call it "android" if you use the android code base for your device. I fail to see how this is coercive, especially given the other major competitors don't share *anything* close to their source code.
Didn't Amazon pretty much make a business out of marketing their own essentially android devices w/o having to pony up the fees for the trademark? Heck, I ran a number of android apps from the "play store" on mine....
A 5C temperature gradient you can have nearly everywhere.
A solar cell only works where you habe light, obviously.
9 Degrees Fahrenheit over say half a square meter is NOT that easy to come by and isn't going to net you much energy. But my point is a solar collector might be a better choice in a lot of cases because it's a lot smaller size for the same energy. Batteries and other storage devices can take up the gaps and you'd still have size to spare. Not to mention that most temperature differentials are caused by solar heating anyway, at least the ones you would want to be using.
If a manufacturer wants something else they can damn well build it themselves.
What's more, the Apache 2.0 license doesn't require you release your source for your branch... So hardware developers are free to port Android to their hardware and not be required to release their source code or resort to delivering binary blobs of independently developed drivers..
Apple -> You may not play in our garden with your device, nor may you alter our device to play in another garden, no way, no how.. And by the way, we have strict rules for what you can do IN our garden.
Google -> You MAY play in our garden or any other garden you choose with your device, but if you wish to play in our garden, you must follow our rules.
One has high stone walls and NO door or gate. You either start inside the wall or you don't get in.. The other has a nice fence and a door with a list of regulations on it.
Why isn't there an antitrust lawsuit against Apple whose App Store is 100^100 more closed/restricted than the Android ecosystem?
Because Apple doesn't license its OS to third parties under coercive terms? As far as I can tell, Google is welcome to do whatever they like with something like Pixel or Nexus.
You mean the Apache license 2.0 is coercive now? The majority of the code is released under Apache 2.0 with a handful of the Linux Kernel things being GPL.
As I understand Android licenses, you are free to use and modify the baseline code while keeping your hardware designs closed. Doesn't sound too coercive to me.
Remember... The original story was in Detroit where money for police is in short supply. My guess is their average response time is quite a bit higher in Detroit than the middle of nowhere Minnesota...
Both of my examples where in major metropolitan areas, the first in Raleigh NC and the second in Garland TX (The third largest city in the Dallas-Fort Worth area) and all happened over 20 years ago now. Back when there was money for public services.
I can tell, you've not called the police have you?
I called 911 once because the car I was driving burst into flames in the middle of a major city and almost within visual distance of the fire station. It took almost 10 min for the police to arrive and another 10 for the fire department. For 20 min, the car burned. I'm guessing this was faster than normal because the car was blocking the major east/west road though town.
In another instance, there was an automobile accident in the middle of a major city I was involved in. It took almost two hours for ANYBODY to show up and that was with two cars blocking three lanes of traffic and the other driver needing an ambulance.
You might get better response to a "active shooter" report, but simple non-violent criminal activity request for assistance might have you waiting for 24 hours...Especially in Detroit.
You think a minimum wage gas station attendant gives a fuck if a faceless corporate entity makes a profit or not? How cute!
He better... Lack of profit ==> Going out of business ==> Unemployed.
In fact, I think you've hit on a common issue in today's society, this demonization of the faceless, nameless rich people who employ the vast majority of us. You'd better care about profits for the business you work for, the more the better (within the bounds of law and ethics) because it's what pays your wages and benefits. If you don't like that somebody else is making money on your efforts, then I suggest you start your own business, take your own risks and work for yourself and keep ALL the profits. Just be prepared to work for less than minimum wage for awhile like most small business owners do. I'm guessing you will soon learn how sweet a minimum wage (minimum responsibility) job actually is.
Um.... That's nice in theory, but in practice, not so much.
If you don't think you can handle graphic descriptions of slaughtering animals, stop reading here OK? Fair warning..
You really are stunning the animal with a bolt gun. Sure, you may have scrambled their brain enough that they are going to die and hopefully have lost consciousness with the first blow, it doesn't always happen that way. I've witnessed cases where the animal was for all intents and purposes dead, where they where NOT going to survive the brain injury from the bolt, which where still on their feet and reacting to visual stimuli. I heard of one case where the animal was stunned and down, but awoke later and had to be stunned again. It happens. So, the POINT of the bolt gun is to stun badly enough to kill, but the animal is NOT dead when they hit the ground, but unconscious. They are breathing, their hearts are beating, but unconscious as the slaughtering process gets underway.
C02 stunning doesn't always cause fear and panic. It can, if done properly, be just the opposite and produce humane results in a manor that can be automated and not subject to a human's ability to hit the right spot with the bolt, which requires some skill and/or the confining of the animal's head. So I'm not sure how you think bolt guns are better, with all the forcible handling and confinement required to immobilize the animal enough to stun it, over just entering a small enclosed space and stunned by something you cannot see, smell or feel.
Slaughtering is a messy business and doing it both safely and humanely is always an issue. However, the quality of the product going though slaughter is improved by keeping the animals calm as long as possible, hopefully right up to the instant they loose consciousness. Any killing method can cause distress in the animal. C02 seems to be the best solution to me, especially for small animals. When done right with larger ones, can cause loss of consciousness with the least distress. But like all methods, it has to be done right.
One may debate this I guess, but having slaughtered animals (chickens, turkeys, pigs and cows) personally I can tell you that bolt stunning is far from perfect and doesn't always work. CO2 stunning has similar issues if not done correctly, but the process can be better controlled though automation and is less dependent on personal skill. I've never seen this CO2 thing done, but reading about it, sure indicates to me that it CAN be better, less stressful for the animals and safer for the people doing it.
I don't care how you slice it.. Slaughtering animals is a messy process (pun intended). Trying to stun a cow by a blow to the head may be the traditional approach, and I felt was quite humane considering. CO2 stunning seems a bit better with a lot less stress on the animals involved. Certainly for poultry this is a huge advantage as the slaughtering methods available there are pretty gruesome.
In short, I don't agree with you. C02 stunning is indeed effective and seems much more humane to this old farm boy.
LOL.. I will say, you guys have the BEST curry I've ever had. I cannot find anything to compare to what I had on that week in Manchester.
Personally, I like grass fed beef, but I was raised on a farm and we raised our own, so it was cheap.. For us anyway.
In the USA we are not in a position where we have to use all our land for farming and ranching. We also have large swaths of land which are unsuitable for said use due to lack of rain, topography and soil composition. But we raise a LOT of stuff on the land we use. Wheat, Corn, soybeans, cotton and more are abundant here.
By the way.. The reason you have so many more cows per person is because grass feeding and not using hormones to stimulate growth lengthens the time from birth to market weight and lowers the dairy production per cow. You need more of them to keep up with the population. In the USA we produced 23 Billion pounds in 2015 and in the UK they produced 1.8 Billion pounds in 2017 (a banner year). Really, per person beef production rates are far higher in the USA and we use a lot less of our land mass for it. Dairy has similar stats. Our population here in the USA is about 326 million to UK's 66 million. You guys do a LOT less beef...
Oh sure, if you feed them grass and hay, Britain has that. But face it, Britain is an island with limited acreage for doing this, so they have a hard time producing a lot of cattle for slaughter.
The issue is it's hard/expensive to do the feed lot thing. You know, where the cattle stand around eating themselves silly on corn to put on as much weight as possible in the time allowed. Growing grains like corn takes a lot of space and feed lots take a lot of grain. Britain doesn't have the space or climate to grow all that grain.
As a result, they get mostly grass fed meat, which takes longer, makes the meat tougher with more connective tissue and less fat. Some folks like the stronger taste of grass fed, but most of us (in the USA at least) are predisposed to like what we normally get in the grocery store. Young fat cattle that are given growth hormones and fed lots of grain which is more tender and has a milder taste.
However, to their credit, they do grow a lot of sheep which are much better suited to their climate and are a bit more efficient when working from just grass. They have some good lamb over there, it just doesn't appeal to your average US beef and chicken eater....
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, they went with the lowest bidder..
Actually, this is likely just ignorance coupled with "get the mission done" motives that had some PFC showing up with his home router and a USB drive to put the documents in a conveniently available place so they are easy to find so they could get the work done.
Lowest bidder perhaps?
Trump should tell Mueller to kiss his hairy ass and flee the country to Russia like Snowden did. Problem solved.
I agree, Trump should tell Mueller that... But Why flee the country if you've done nothing wrong?
Can he still be held responsible for paying his deceased wife's debts? One of my girlfriends ran up all her mom's credit cards as she was dying of breast cancer, because she knew the debt would go away when she died.
Unlikely he was liable unless it was a joint account of some kind. However, if the creditors of your girlfriend's mother found out what your girlfriend did, it's possible they could get her for fraudulently using the credit cards if her mother wasn't authorizing the charges or she was buying stuff just for herself.
the wording might be insensitive but notifying her husband about it isn't that unusual, is it?
Nope, this is just an attempt to collect a debt by PayPal. Poorly worded and untimely given his wife's death was already legally established by the copy of the death certificate he provided, but just SOP for debt collection. Common, even when the person in debt is dead. I got lots of demands for payment when my mother died. I wasn't liable for any of the debt, yet the letters came and got shreded.
I do think that PayPal was stupid to try this, mainly because of the risk of a bad PR outcome. Receipt of a death certificate should suspend the account and all debt collection activities for any unsecured debt associated with the deceased.
When the probability of what you are talking about is 1 in some 30+ digit number, No, they DON'T happen. Then you add in bit error correction and they REALLY don't happen.
Sending them a copy of the death certificate was nice to do. However, after that let them chase their tails trying to collect a debt from a dead person and waste their time an money in the process...
What are they going to do? Ruin a dead persons credit? Knock yourself out PayPal. Take them to court? It will be fun to see what the process server does with that....
Yes please....
Also, would you please review what I've written and make sure it is consistently portion marked and has the appropriate matching headers and footers? And while you are at it, could you verify that the classification markings are with my authorized area as well as those of the people on the distribution list? Finally, as I'm cutting and pasting from source material, could you keep information around about the original classification of said material and make sure I've not caused the letter's content to change overall classification?
That would be a great help..
Thank you.
Open source isn't necessarily better than closed source and closed source isn't always better than open source.
Both have their issues and advantages.. Both have their place.
Gas stations don't explode... Even when a car is on fire AT the gas pumps. I know, I've seen it happen when a guy left his car running and then proceeded to walk away while refueling. The auto-shutoff didn't work when his tank got full, gasoline went onto the ground and the brand new shiny yellow corvette when up in flames WITH the gas pump. Quite the fire, but no explosion. In fact, it's quite difficult to get gasoline to explode, despite what you see on TV and in movies. A car on fire in the next lot isn't a problem for the gas station... It is for any structures near by though..
But my point remains. Emergency help takes time to arrive. Sometimes it takes a LONG time. As individuals we need to be prepared to deal with situations until help can arrive, which in some cases can be days.
Thus the saying "Calling 911 can get you help in min, when seconds count."
That doesn't remove the personal responsibility angle here.
Your manager may be a moron and having you doing seemingly stupid things, but you still should have the profitability of the business in mind, even if you are working minimum wage jobs. You may not have any control, but you *should* care, if for no other reason than YOUR livelihood depends, at least in some way, on if the business remains profitable or not. Helping your stupid manager succeed is almost a sure fire way of making MORE money. Either they will recognize they depend on you and want to keep you around, or their manager will eventually see they are an idiot and replace them, giving you a chance at being picked.
By the way... Stupid people don't generally stay in business very long, nor do those who hire stupid managers. I've seen my share of managers who have risen as high as their incompetence could take them, but I've rarely seen them being kept around if they didn't produce some kind of gain for the business. Owners are NOT going to lose money on an idiot manager, at least not for long. Businesses WILL, however, pay good folks who care to stick around.
Who said I hate Apple? I'm just pointing out the differences in how they do business.
They have their business model and make money so do makers of Android devices. I have no ax to grind or chop down Apple's tree with and I have no dog hunting in the Android world. If they are making money with their business model, power to them.
Some folks enjoy the security of the walled garden where strict controls protect you, others like the flexibility of being able to move beyond the walls and accept the risks of doing so. I make no moral judgments about what garden you play in or if you choose no garden at all.
You play in their garden, or you don't play in any meaningful way. If you want folks to connect to YOUR store, they will have to jail break their phones (and voiding their Apple warranty).
Again, you are not being forced to call it "android" if you use the android code base for your device. I fail to see how this is coercive, especially given the other major competitors don't share *anything* close to their source code.
Didn't Amazon pretty much make a business out of marketing their own essentially android devices w/o having to pony up the fees for the trademark? Heck, I ran a number of android apps from the "play store" on mine....
A 5C temperature gradient you can have nearly everywhere. A solar cell only works where you habe light, obviously.
9 Degrees Fahrenheit over say half a square meter is NOT that easy to come by and isn't going to net you much energy. But my point is a solar collector might be a better choice in a lot of cases because it's a lot smaller size for the same energy. Batteries and other storage devices can take up the gaps and you'd still have size to spare. Not to mention that most temperature differentials are caused by solar heating anyway, at least the ones you would want to be using.
It's freaking Open Source. you can get what you need to build your own here https://source.android.com/
If a manufacturer wants something else they can damn well build it themselves.
What's more, the Apache 2.0 license doesn't require you release your source for your branch... So hardware developers are free to port Android to their hardware and not be required to release their source code or resort to delivering binary blobs of independently developed drivers..
I see the difference...
Apple -> You may not play in our garden with your device, nor may you alter our device to play in another garden, no way, no how.. And by the way, we have strict rules for what you can do IN our garden.
Google -> You MAY play in our garden or any other garden you choose with your device, but if you wish to play in our garden, you must follow our rules.
One has high stone walls and NO door or gate. You either start inside the wall or you don't get in.. The other has a nice fence and a door with a list of regulations on it.
Why isn't there an antitrust lawsuit against Apple whose App Store is 100^100 more closed/restricted than the Android ecosystem?
Because Apple doesn't license its OS to third parties under coercive terms? As far as I can tell, Google is welcome to do whatever they like with something like Pixel or Nexus.
You mean the Apache license 2.0 is coercive now? The majority of the code is released under Apache 2.0 with a handful of the Linux Kernel things being GPL.
As I understand Android licenses, you are free to use and modify the baseline code while keeping your hardware designs closed. Doesn't sound too coercive to me.
Unless my math is wrong, that's less than an eighth of a watt per square meter.
Can you say "LOW, LOW duty Cycle"? You'd be better off with a small solar cell over this..
Remember... The original story was in Detroit where money for police is in short supply. My guess is their average response time is quite a bit higher in Detroit than the middle of nowhere Minnesota...
Both of my examples where in major metropolitan areas, the first in Raleigh NC and the second in Garland TX (The third largest city in the Dallas-Fort Worth area) and all happened over 20 years ago now. Back when there was money for public services.
I can tell, you've not called the police have you?
I called 911 once because the car I was driving burst into flames in the middle of a major city and almost within visual distance of the fire station. It took almost 10 min for the police to arrive and another 10 for the fire department. For 20 min, the car burned. I'm guessing this was faster than normal because the car was blocking the major east/west road though town.
In another instance, there was an automobile accident in the middle of a major city I was involved in. It took almost two hours for ANYBODY to show up and that was with two cars blocking three lanes of traffic and the other driver needing an ambulance.
You might get better response to a "active shooter" report, but simple non-violent criminal activity request for assistance might have you waiting for 24 hours...Especially in Detroit.
You think a minimum wage gas station attendant gives a fuck if a faceless corporate entity makes a profit or not? How cute!
He better... Lack of profit ==> Going out of business ==> Unemployed.
In fact, I think you've hit on a common issue in today's society, this demonization of the faceless, nameless rich people who employ the vast majority of us. You'd better care about profits for the business you work for, the more the better (within the bounds of law and ethics) because it's what pays your wages and benefits. If you don't like that somebody else is making money on your efforts, then I suggest you start your own business, take your own risks and work for yourself and keep ALL the profits. Just be prepared to work for less than minimum wage for awhile like most small business owners do. I'm guessing you will soon learn how sweet a minimum wage (minimum responsibility) job actually is.
Um.... That's nice in theory, but in practice, not so much.
If you don't think you can handle graphic descriptions of slaughtering animals, stop reading here OK? Fair warning..
You really are stunning the animal with a bolt gun. Sure, you may have scrambled their brain enough that they are going to die and hopefully have lost consciousness with the first blow, it doesn't always happen that way. I've witnessed cases where the animal was for all intents and purposes dead, where they where NOT going to survive the brain injury from the bolt, which where still on their feet and reacting to visual stimuli. I heard of one case where the animal was stunned and down, but awoke later and had to be stunned again. It happens. So, the POINT of the bolt gun is to stun badly enough to kill, but the animal is NOT dead when they hit the ground, but unconscious. They are breathing, their hearts are beating, but unconscious as the slaughtering process gets underway.
C02 stunning doesn't always cause fear and panic. It can, if done properly, be just the opposite and produce humane results in a manor that can be automated and not subject to a human's ability to hit the right spot with the bolt, which requires some skill and/or the confining of the animal's head. So I'm not sure how you think bolt guns are better, with all the forcible handling and confinement required to immobilize the animal enough to stun it, over just entering a small enclosed space and stunned by something you cannot see, smell or feel.
Slaughtering is a messy business and doing it both safely and humanely is always an issue. However, the quality of the product going though slaughter is improved by keeping the animals calm as long as possible, hopefully right up to the instant they loose consciousness. Any killing method can cause distress in the animal. C02 seems to be the best solution to me, especially for small animals. When done right with larger ones, can cause loss of consciousness with the least distress. But like all methods, it has to be done right.
One may debate this I guess, but having slaughtered animals (chickens, turkeys, pigs and cows) personally I can tell you that bolt stunning is far from perfect and doesn't always work. CO2 stunning has similar issues if not done correctly, but the process can be better controlled though automation and is less dependent on personal skill. I've never seen this CO2 thing done, but reading about it, sure indicates to me that it CAN be better, less stressful for the animals and safer for the people doing it.
I don't care how you slice it.. Slaughtering animals is a messy process (pun intended). Trying to stun a cow by a blow to the head may be the traditional approach, and I felt was quite humane considering. CO2 stunning seems a bit better with a lot less stress on the animals involved. Certainly for poultry this is a huge advantage as the slaughtering methods available there are pretty gruesome.
In short, I don't agree with you. C02 stunning is indeed effective and seems much more humane to this old farm boy.
LOL.. I will say, you guys have the BEST curry I've ever had. I cannot find anything to compare to what I had on that week in Manchester.
Personally, I like grass fed beef, but I was raised on a farm and we raised our own, so it was cheap.. For us anyway.
In the USA we are not in a position where we have to use all our land for farming and ranching. We also have large swaths of land which are unsuitable for said use due to lack of rain, topography and soil composition. But we raise a LOT of stuff on the land we use. Wheat, Corn, soybeans, cotton and more are abundant here.
By the way.. The reason you have so many more cows per person is because grass feeding and not using hormones to stimulate growth lengthens the time from birth to market weight and lowers the dairy production per cow. You need more of them to keep up with the population. In the USA we produced 23 Billion pounds in 2015 and in the UK they produced 1.8 Billion pounds in 2017 (a banner year). Really, per person beef production rates are far higher in the USA and we use a lot less of our land mass for it. Dairy has similar stats. Our population here in the USA is about 326 million to UK's 66 million. You guys do a LOT less beef...
Oh sure, if you feed them grass and hay, Britain has that. But face it, Britain is an island with limited acreage for doing this, so they have a hard time producing a lot of cattle for slaughter.
The issue is it's hard/expensive to do the feed lot thing. You know, where the cattle stand around eating themselves silly on corn to put on as much weight as possible in the time allowed. Growing grains like corn takes a lot of space and feed lots take a lot of grain. Britain doesn't have the space or climate to grow all that grain.
As a result, they get mostly grass fed meat, which takes longer, makes the meat tougher with more connective tissue and less fat. Some folks like the stronger taste of grass fed, but most of us (in the USA at least) are predisposed to like what we normally get in the grocery store. Young fat cattle that are given growth hormones and fed lots of grain which is more tender and has a milder taste.
However, to their credit, they do grow a lot of sheep which are much better suited to their climate and are a bit more efficient when working from just grass. They have some good lamb over there, it just doesn't appeal to your average US beef and chicken eater....