The estate is the remaining assets and liabilities of the deceased. Once assets are inherited, they no longer belong to the deceased's estate (as the estate, a legal construct, ceases to exist once liabilities are settled and assets are transferred).
You're missing a key logic point there (or misstating your point). If there are debts, any debts except federally secured student loans, the estate is responsible for paying them off. You only inherit stuff once all debts are paid. Therefore, if you've inherited anything, it is only because all debts were satisfied: either paid, forgiven, or assumed by the inheritor.
Belmolis has it nearly correct. The last sentence fragment ", but they never inherit any debt." is the only misleading portion. Inheritors can and do inherit debt, but only when they choose to (mortgage on a house, loan on a car, or, as Cyberax pointed out, any other debt to avoid sentimental items from being auctioned to pay said debt).
Also, botulinum is the single most lethal toxin known to humans. Yet McCarthy has enthusiastically praised injecting this toxin into her face. How can anyone possibly say that and also say vaccines have dangerous levels of toxins in them with a straight face?
When you are trying to make a buck off of other people's work, and book clients on work you are misrepresenting, there is a serious problem.
I don't need copyright, fraud, or theft explained to me, thanks. Nor does any explanation of why "action x, y, & z is bad" justify vigilantism.
Now I'm curious why a demonstrated ignorance of history with the likes of "Why is vigilantism bad?" is considered "insightful", but a clear historical precedence based answer is "overrated"? Probably too many moderators so its too easy for topics to be hijacked by "+1 agree" mods. Don't know. Would be interesting research.
Considering the plethora of "Original source unknown" descriptions
Plethora? Eight out of fifty-two is a plethora? We have different meanings for that word, I guess.
There are more than 52 image pairings if you bothered to actually look over the site. I'm not only talking about Brett & Jizelle. But since you're talking about that post exclusively, I'm sure you saw the update
Update 04/09/2013
Updated a few original sources that I had as unknown.
Regardless of when the original was found, they still don't indicate how or if they've identified the actual copyright owners or how the offending site got a hold of them.
I'm not doubting Brett & Jizelle being douche-bags. I think the evidence presented is rather compelling and their canned, expected response of blaming the nameless, faceless, "already gone so there is no point in pursuing it" ex-employee only serves to seal the deal. I think that much of the time, vigilantes like this are doing a public service. However I also think the negatives of being wrong outweigh any possible benefit of their actions because safer, lawful, working measures are already in place to deal with this kind of situation.
The vigilante debate is quite old. You asked how its a problem, the answer is well known.
So, how is it bad? Just like any other form of vigilantism, it's not, until they get it wrong.
Then some honest photographer or artist gets to live with the stigma, and reduced business, from being labeled a thief.
If they're innocent, then they can prove they bought copyright, or were tricked. Problem solved.
Right. And I'm sure every accused criminal that was later exonerated suffered no ill-effects. They've never failed to get a job due somebody seeing the original, but not the fix.
You'll have to bring something new to the 1000 year old "Is vigilantism a good thing" debate if you want to continue.
To follow up on this.. I actually had an employer plan once that had a maximum annual payout of $1500. Not MY out-of-pocket maximum, the Insurers out-of-pocket maximum. I took one test for Sleep Apnea and I was done. They refused to pay for anything else the rest of the year. When I confronted my employer about it, they said "Well, it's cheap, and contractors don't tend to care about health insurance". That particular employer didn't offer any other plans. Oh, and my payment for this plan? About $1500 a year.
Some health plans really NEEDED to be eliminated, as they were little more than fraud.
Why would you sign up for a plan that costs $1500 but only pays a maximum of $1500?
Did you not read it? Or fail to realize that a $1500 cap / $1500 premium is a wash that basically guarantees you're losing money every year?
vigilante... noun -s often attributive
Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante, adjective, watchful, vigilant, from Latin vigilant-,
So, yes. But what's your point? The site shows original pictures and then their rip-offs. This is bad how?
None of those images detail whether or not the copyright was transferred. Nor do they explain how the suspected infringer obtained the image (Did they rip it off the web, or buy a stock photo package while being assured everything was legit?)
Considering the plethora of "Original source unknown" descriptions of those pairings, it seems the investigation into whether or not it actually is infringing is still ongoing.
So, how is it bad? Just like any other form of vigilantism, it's not, until they get it wrong. Then some honest photographer or artist gets to live with the stigma, and reduced business, from being labeled a thief. That kind of branding never goes completely away no matter what kind of redaction is published on the shaming site.
I think public shaming is a great way to deal with people that actually steal stuff. But the point of doing the whole C&D letter followed by a lawsuit is to give everybody a chance to have their say before the punishments start.
I'd throw tampering and obstruction charges in on the second offense.
Ah, I see you're new to the whole "filing charges" thing. The correct filing should include (but is absolutely not limited to):
Evidence tampering, hindering an investigation, obstruction of justice, vandalizing government property, theft, fraud, abusing authority, circumventing electronic security, computer hacking, assault, providing material support to terrorists, and a "conspiracy to commit" of every one of those charges.
but can't, in a 1000 years, just "whip up" a quality OS.
Remind me again how did Linux come into existance?
Are you trying to imply that Linus wrote it in a vacuum, by himself, without GNU, MINIX, Unix, or the public's help, like a blogger writing a story all by himself without an editor, research team, or a guaranteed audience no matter what crap he spits out?
If you truly think his involvement in Linux was as complete as a blogger's involvement on a story so much so that you feel your rhetorical question repudiates my points instead of merely pedantically attacking a blogger quality spur-of-the-moment analogy... then I'm not sure where our discussion can go after this. It seems I strongly disagree with you.
I've often thought about what differentiates a blogger from a journalist. To suggest that there is no difference is demeaning to journalists -- and yes, I know there are lots of those are hardly worthy of the name, but to just flatly equate the two is unjust to the professional, fact-checking variety that is supposed to be the standard.
Before the rise of the internet, there was no platform for any old person to put their opinion in print (digital or otherwise) and reach a broad audience. Sure, you could print up pamphlets and hand them out on street corners, but wide distribution was gated by publishers. We've removed a lot of middlemen between content producers and content consumers, and a lot of that is probably good. But one of the benefits (and problems in some cases) was that some of those middlemen provided filtering. It's great that we no longer have that filtering in one aspect; it's allowed a lot of things that the 'powers that be' judged uninteresting and turned out not to be so. But it also means that a lot of pure noise that was filtered out is now crowding out the signal in some cases.
Part of the problem journalism faces is that in order to compete on speed, they're skipping steps. There was a time when a juicy story was held back while they triple-checked it. That happens less & less because time-to-print (or broadcast, etc.) has become the defining metric. When you're competing with someone who doesn't check anything they put up, you start to look pretty follow-the-leaders when you post after fact-checking.
So while some of this is definitely a problem for journalists, namely how to stay relevant in a world of instant publication, a lot of this is our fault too. If we were willing to wait a bit, preferring immediately accuracy instead of immediate attention grabbing, it would give those who want to do things right the breathing room to verify. So long as we're all grabbing click bait the second its available, we're screaming loud and clear to the conglomerates that run our news media that its far more important to be first than accurate.
I doubt Sarten-X has an editor budget.
Its more like: "Pot, meet Fully Staffed & Automated Modern Kitchen Here Take A Look At The Internet Controlled Toaster No It Only Toasts One Side I Don't Know Where The Butter Is Anyways Just Have Coffee Oops I Spilled It."
because I know that the journalists are, as I said, under pressure to run a story as soon as possible, and often play fast and loose with facts in a way bloggers cannot and still maintain readers.
You really think so?
Personally, I would think if what you said were true, we wouldn't have any vaccine deniers, Oprah would be penniless, & Rush Limbaugh would never have been famous at all. Really, how does Rush keep any viewers despite his wonderful record of lies, b.s., inaccuracies and hypocrisy?
No, they don't write, but they're of the same class as youtube bloggers. They are 2 of many that have proven the only thing you need to get readers or viewers, is a well-presented story. Facts be damned.
Bloggers just don't have the resources, the time, the inclination, the requirement, or the ability to do the kind of fact checking that mainstream media does. If a blogger spends 6 months intensely investigating a story, that is 180 blog posts they didn't write. The only thing that hurts bloggers total viewer #s is not posting regularly. While many outlets, *cough* cnn *cough*, have tried to follow the blogger money train in terms of story quality, and there have been scandals and honest mistakes in mainstream, they still have the power to produce quality, in-depth, reports. Bloggers don't. Just like individual code-whizes can produce some stunningly awesome apps, hacks, & snippets, but can't, in a 1000 years, just "whip up" a quality OS.
Do *some* bloggers do better and produce quality stuff? Sure. To me though, that only proves a million monkeys working together can eventually produce Shakespeare: 999,999 monkeys throwing shit + 1 Mojo Jojo.
The further you get away from your education the less knowledge you have of the new technologies, and technology is always moving forward
The thing is, if you got a quality education, or even a sub-par one but made up for it with natural talent, you never "get away from your education" because technology, like other science, just builds on existing technology. The core of it doesn't change.
Obviously as it becomes more complicated, it requires more specialization, so there is a chance your chosen specialization may get pruned off the technology tree, but again that only means you have to go back to the last branch that goes to something active.
Furthermore, once you're done with school, you start your next round of schooling: conferences, documentation, "nothing we have now will do it right so lets find a new way." It is the very basis of every creative mind out there.
This is about money. More of it in his pocket at any expense to others. Pure and simple.
You've failed to account for what happens to dairy cattle in this country after they are not useful producers. They become ground beef.
It's likely that much of the beef served in fast food restaurants has extensive historical alfalfa input - from the many years those cows spent in a dairy.
Except OP wasn't talking about beef, he was talking about McDonald's hamburgers. -1 offtopic for you.;)
You provided an English definition. I provided a legal definition. If you use the word "occupant" in a legal document (such as this ruling), it means tenant or owner.
An occupant is defined as somebody using the residence as an owner, or tenant.
Housekeepers (even if they have a key), babysitters, construction workers, gardeners, your friends, and your grandmother that is down visiting for the week, are neither and so do not have the legal authority to consent to a search of the residence.
"Occupant means you live there as a legal resident. It does not include strangers and "persons that have no habitation rights of the residence they are in"."
Well I can't possibly go over each case-by-case basis (or just have no interest in going that far in the discussion). For all I know they chose to make 6 & 7 stops be the same price for convenience of the riders.
I just didn't like your example because I felt it excluded too many variables that are not insignificant. Whatever the reason for the prices is actually irrelevant to SplatMan_DK's point that swapping tickets is not arbitrage because tickets to/from different stops are not the same.
If you want to protest the system by exchanging tickets or otherwise cheating it... That's up to you. If I was dictator I'd run the systems differently than they are, but I don't think the unfairness in the pricing is bad enough to jump turnstyles.
Slashdot Mirror
The estate is the remaining assets and liabilities of the deceased. Once assets are inherited, they no longer belong to the deceased's estate (as the estate, a legal construct, ceases to exist once liabilities are settled and assets are transferred).
You're missing a key logic point there (or misstating your point). If there are debts, any debts except federally secured student loans, the estate is responsible for paying them off. You only inherit stuff once all debts are paid. Therefore, if you've inherited anything, it is only because all debts were satisfied: either paid, forgiven, or assumed by the inheritor.
Belmolis has it nearly correct. The last sentence fragment ", but they never inherit any debt." is the only misleading portion. Inheritors can and do inherit debt, but only when they choose to (mortgage on a house, loan on a car, or, as Cyberax pointed out, any other debt to avoid sentimental items from being auctioned to pay said debt).
Plait wondered:
Also, botulinum is the single most lethal toxin known to humans. Yet McCarthy has enthusiastically praised injecting this toxin into her face. How can anyone possibly say that and also say vaccines have dangerous levels of toxins in them with a straight face?
Partial facial paralysis. Duh.
When you are trying to make a buck off of other people's work, and book clients on work you are misrepresenting, there is a serious problem.
I don't need copyright, fraud, or theft explained to me, thanks. Nor does any explanation of why "action x, y, & z is bad" justify vigilantism.
Now I'm curious why a demonstrated ignorance of history with the likes of "Why is vigilantism bad?" is considered "insightful", but a clear historical precedence based answer is "overrated"? Probably too many moderators so its too easy for topics to be hijacked by "+1 agree" mods. Don't know. Would be interesting research.
Considering the plethora of "Original source unknown" descriptions
Plethora? Eight out of fifty-two is a plethora? We have different meanings for that word, I guess.
There are more than 52 image pairings if you bothered to actually look over the site. I'm not only talking about Brett & Jizelle. But since you're talking about that post exclusively, I'm sure you saw the update
Update 04/09/2013
Updated a few original sources that I had as unknown.
Regardless of when the original was found, they still don't indicate how or if they've identified the actual copyright owners or how the offending site got a hold of them.
I'm not doubting Brett & Jizelle being douche-bags. I think the evidence presented is rather compelling and their canned, expected response of blaming the nameless, faceless, "already gone so there is no point in pursuing it" ex-employee only serves to seal the deal. I think that much of the time, vigilantes like this are doing a public service. However I also think the negatives of being wrong outweigh any possible benefit of their actions because safer, lawful, working measures are already in place to deal with this kind of situation.
The vigilante debate is quite old. You asked how its a problem, the answer is well known.
So, how is it bad? Just like any other form of vigilantism, it's not, until they get it wrong. Then some honest photographer or artist gets to live with the stigma, and reduced business, from being labeled a thief.
If they're innocent, then they can prove they bought copyright, or were tricked. Problem solved.
Right. And I'm sure every accused criminal that was later exonerated suffered no ill-effects. They've never failed to get a job due somebody seeing the original, but not the fix.
You'll have to bring something new to the 1000 year old "Is vigilantism a good thing" debate if you want to continue.
To follow up on this.. I actually had an employer plan once that had a maximum annual payout of $1500. Not MY out-of-pocket maximum, the Insurers out-of-pocket maximum. I took one test for Sleep Apnea and I was done. They refused to pay for anything else the rest of the year. When I confronted my employer about it, they said "Well, it's cheap, and contractors don't tend to care about health insurance". That particular employer didn't offer any other plans. Oh, and my payment for this plan? About $1500 a year.
Some health plans really NEEDED to be eliminated, as they were little more than fraud.
Why would you sign up for a plan that costs $1500 but only pays a maximum of $1500?
Did you not read it? Or fail to realize that a $1500 cap / $1500 premium is a wash that basically guarantees you're losing money every year?
And you're a contractor with a health plan?
Your story does not sound very believable to me.
vigilante ... noun -s often attributive
Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante, adjective, watchful, vigilant, from Latin vigilant-,
So, yes. But what's your point? The site shows original pictures and then their rip-offs. This is bad how?
None of those images detail whether or not the copyright was transferred. Nor do they explain how the suspected infringer obtained the image (Did they rip it off the web, or buy a stock photo package while being assured everything was legit?)
Considering the plethora of "Original source unknown" descriptions of those pairings, it seems the investigation into whether or not it actually is infringing is still ongoing.
So, how is it bad? Just like any other form of vigilantism, it's not, until they get it wrong.
Then some honest photographer or artist gets to live with the stigma, and reduced business, from being labeled a thief. That kind of branding never goes completely away no matter what kind of redaction is published on the shaming site.
I think public shaming is a great way to deal with people that actually steal stuff. But the point of doing the whole C&D letter followed by a lawsuit is to give everybody a chance to have their say before the punishments start.
I'd throw tampering and obstruction charges in on the second offense.
Ah, I see you're new to the whole "filing charges" thing. The correct filing should include (but is absolutely not limited to):
Evidence tampering, hindering an investigation, obstruction of justice, vandalizing government property, theft, fraud, abusing authority, circumventing electronic security, computer hacking, assault, providing material support to terrorists, and a "conspiracy to commit" of every one of those charges.
I doubt Sarten-X has an editor budget.
Somewhere in here, there's a joke about FLOSS text editors and the ensuing flame wars, but I just can't think of a good way to phrase it.
I have a plugin that could help with that phrasing, but I don't remember how to run it...
Well then, time to put in for an IT budget too. :)
but can't, in a 1000 years, just "whip up" a quality OS.
Remind me again how did Linux come into existance?
Are you trying to imply that Linus wrote it in a vacuum, by himself, without GNU, MINIX, Unix, or the public's help, like a blogger writing a story all by himself without an editor, research team, or a guaranteed audience no matter what crap he spits out?
If you truly think his involvement in Linux was as complete as a blogger's involvement on a story so much so that you feel your rhetorical question repudiates my points instead of merely pedantically attacking a blogger quality spur-of-the-moment analogy... then I'm not sure where our discussion can go after this. It seems I strongly disagree with you.
Teach the controversy! :)
I've often thought about what differentiates a blogger from a journalist. To suggest that there is no difference is demeaning to journalists -- and yes, I know there are lots of those are hardly worthy of the name, but to just flatly equate the two is unjust to the professional, fact-checking variety that is supposed to be the standard.
Before the rise of the internet, there was no platform for any old person to put their opinion in print (digital or otherwise) and reach a broad audience. Sure, you could print up pamphlets and hand them out on street corners, but wide distribution was gated by publishers. We've removed a lot of middlemen between content producers and content consumers, and a lot of that is probably good. But one of the benefits (and problems in some cases) was that some of those middlemen provided filtering. It's great that we no longer have that filtering in one aspect; it's allowed a lot of things that the 'powers that be' judged uninteresting and turned out not to be so. But it also means that a lot of pure noise that was filtered out is now crowding out the signal in some cases.
Part of the problem journalism faces is that in order to compete on speed, they're skipping steps. There was a time when a juicy story was held back while they triple-checked it. That happens less & less because time-to-print (or broadcast, etc.) has become the defining metric. When you're competing with someone who doesn't check anything they put up, you start to look pretty follow-the-leaders when you post after fact-checking.
So while some of this is definitely a problem for journalists, namely how to stay relevant in a world of instant publication, a lot of this is our fault too. If we were willing to wait a bit, preferring immediately accuracy instead of immediate attention grabbing, it would give those who want to do things right the breathing room to verify. So long as we're all grabbing click bait the second its available, we're screaming loud and clear to the conglomerates that run our news media that its far more important to be first than accurate.
1 vote for: Bloggers + Snopes > Journalism.
"Attempts to editing"??
Pot, meet Kettle....
I doubt Sarten-X has an editor budget.
Its more like: "Pot, meet Fully Staffed & Automated Modern Kitchen Here Take A Look At The Internet Controlled Toaster No It Only Toasts One Side I Don't Know Where The Butter Is Anyways Just Have Coffee Oops I Spilled It."
because I know that the journalists are, as I said, under pressure to run a story as soon as possible, and often play fast and loose with facts in a way bloggers cannot and still maintain readers.
You really think so?
Personally, I would think if what you said were true, we wouldn't have any vaccine deniers, Oprah would be penniless, & Rush Limbaugh would never have been famous at all. Really, how does Rush keep any viewers despite his wonderful record of lies, b.s., inaccuracies and hypocrisy?
No, they don't write, but they're of the same class as youtube bloggers. They are 2 of many that have proven the only thing you need to get readers or viewers, is a well-presented story. Facts be damned.
Bloggers just don't have the resources, the time, the inclination, the requirement, or the ability to do the kind of fact checking that mainstream media does. If a blogger spends 6 months intensely investigating a story, that is 180 blog posts they didn't write. The only thing that hurts bloggers total viewer #s is not posting regularly. While many outlets, *cough* cnn *cough*, have tried to follow the blogger money train in terms of story quality, and there have been scandals and honest mistakes in mainstream, they still have the power to produce quality, in-depth, reports. Bloggers don't. Just like individual code-whizes can produce some stunningly awesome apps, hacks, & snippets, but can't, in a 1000 years, just "whip up" a quality OS.
Do *some* bloggers do better and produce quality stuff? Sure. To me though, that only proves a million monkeys working together can eventually produce Shakespeare: 999,999 monkeys throwing shit + 1 Mojo Jojo.
The further you get away from your education the less knowledge you have of the new technologies, and technology is always moving forward
The thing is, if you got a quality education, or even a sub-par one but made up for it with natural talent, you never "get away from your education" because technology, like other science, just builds on existing technology. The core of it doesn't change.
Obviously as it becomes more complicated, it requires more specialization, so there is a chance your chosen specialization may get pruned off the technology tree, but again that only means you have to go back to the last branch that goes to something active.
Furthermore, once you're done with school, you start your next round of schooling: conferences, documentation, "nothing we have now will do it right so lets find a new way." It is the very basis of every creative mind out there.
This is about money. More of it in his pocket at any expense to others. Pure and simple.
I can't believe anyone mods this shit up.
Stupid is never alone.
You've failed to account for what happens to dairy cattle in this country after they are not useful producers. They become ground beef.
It's likely that much of the beef served in fast food restaurants has extensive historical alfalfa input - from the many years those cows spent in a dairy.
Except OP wasn't talking about beef, he was talking about McDonald's hamburgers. -1 offtopic for you. ;)
No. Dogs and race car drivers, specifically canine race car drivers, are awesome.
Go, Dog. Go!
Women are smarter... maybe they just know something we don't?
Here is nolo's definition: https://www.nolo.com/dictionar...
IANAL, I'm just pedantic enough to be one.
I think http://legal-dictionary.thefre... covers it.
Resident != Occupant, and an unchallenged occupants consent is all that is required per this case and Georgia v Randolph
Occupant
An occupant is defined as somebody using the residence as an owner, or tenant.
Housekeepers (even if they have a key), babysitters, construction workers, gardeners, your friends, and your grandmother that is down visiting for the week, are neither and so do not have the legal authority to consent to a search of the residence.
"Occupant means you live there as a legal resident. It does not include strangers and "persons that have no habitation rights of the residence they are in"."
Citation needed.
Such is actually common legal knowledge. http://legal-dictionary.thefre...
Th ultimate programming model: Inactive programming. You do nothing, but still get a working program.
Already have that.
Its called "Management".
I just didn't like your example because I felt it excluded too many variables that are not insignificant. Whatever the reason for the prices is actually irrelevant to SplatMan_DK's point that swapping tickets is not arbitrage because tickets to/from different stops are not the same.
If you want to protest the system by exchanging tickets or otherwise cheating it... That's up to you. If I was dictator I'd run the systems differently than they are, but I don't think the unfairness in the pricing is bad enough to jump turnstyles.