It is one of the big reasons, ya.

With only 65 total ships in the Continental Navy, and over 2000 letters of marque issued to privateers, I doubt there was any meaningful bans on cannon or warship ownership at the time. So, please, prove me wrong by citing the law banning cannons that predates the 1934 NFA

The real issue is context. What you see me doing, is not what I'm doing. It is what you think I'm doing. If you record it, and then play it for somebody else, then what they see is not only not what I'm doing, it is not what you think I'm doing. You are not recording my thoughts & emotions, nor does your recording include my entire life history. So, I don't want you slandering me to Google, et. all, by telling them I'm doing something that I'm not. And I definitely don't want the context to be distorted even further by such a recording being interpreted and reinterpreted, edited, and then interpreted again, for as long as Google decides it should be available, which Glass makes far more likely by virtue of reducing the effort to do so.

Horrible. You start by saying how unreliable brains are, then say the only difference between human memory and a recorded image is the ability to play it back.

Our memory, besides forgetting stuff, is also non-deterministic. Every memory is impacted by future memories and emotions on the subject. A memory of you happily going to the ice cream shop can, 30 years later, be a horrible journey of agony because your parents love your sister more than you. If we get the ability to play back memories (and we no doubt will eventually), it will be no more or less reliable than a verbal explanation in determining what really happened, and thus no less irritating to some people as Glass is today.

So why focus on the 2nd Amendment, demonizing the NRA & their arguments, and restricting private gun ownership then? Stevens wants to talk about the "intelligent debate", while obviously ignoring this kind of argument. The anti-gun crowd is effectively saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people; but we're going to get rid of guns because that will stop people from killing people", and calling it "intelligent debate".

Absolutely. I think his misinterpretation (I won't get into whether or not I think its intentional) can be summed up in just a couple quotes from the article:

First, here (emphasis mine). He has the 2nd amendment backwards. He is claiming a militia is a required piece of the Amendment. It isn't. A well-regulated militia is the goal of the amendment, and it accomplishes that by making sure the People, who would compose the militia should it be needed, have the weapons and experience using them.

But that (my) definition isn't even on his radar:

Granted he is talking specifically about Sandyhook styled shootings, but to say "unquestionably"? I question it. I think Sandyhook is an acceptable risk when it comes to gun ownership. Additionally, removing guns in this day & age is just wiping somebody's nose and claiming you cured their flu. McVeigh & Nichols filled a truck with gasoline and fertilizer. 9/11 used box-cutters & a plane. Technology improvements don't only make cell phones cheaper & more useful than the pony express, it also means explosives and other weapons (3-d printers anybody?) are cheaper & more useful than bows & arrows. So if you want to actually stop mass killings, then go after mass killings. Fund mental health research & treatment, balance wealth inequality, accept that public assistance is required in a world where technology is raising the education bar higher than most people can reach and that when public assistance is as laughable as it is today... the have-nots are going to be restless.

Incidentally, I think the 1939 Miller decision is wrong. Whether or not guns have some other lawful use is entirely irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment. Tanks, APCs, and F-16s even are relevant to a militia in today's technological world. Especially if you consider some of the original arguments behind the 2nd amendment: tyrannical governments abusing the people with the military, so you "outlaw" a standing army and rely on The People forming a militia for self-defense until a regular army can be formed. Requiring "some other lawful purpose" is putting an additional restriction, or infringement, on the right to own guns and preventing a militia from behind formed. And since it is easy enough to simply declare there is no other lawful purpose for any gun (Police fill the defense role, beef industry fills the hunting role, so, done), such logic invalidates the entire amendment. (Specifically to sawed-off shotguns, there is a place for them with today's style of house-to-house close-quarters fighting where unskilled shooters need to hit whatever baddy is directly in front of them without penetrating walls or the people behind them; there is even more of a reason as better guns are outlawed/restricted/demonized, thus severely limiting people's chances of learning to hit the broad side of a barn).

Continuing

Whereas I say no, they remind you that you're begging the question by simply assuming the debate has already moved on to "how to get guns out of the hands of mass-killers". Like I said above, people owning guns is not the problem. Revolutions don't happen just because people have guns. Mass killings don't happen just because people have guns. You don't have the flu just because your nose is runny (I like that analogy, so I'm using it again). Private gun ownership IS so important that it is protected by the Constitution, else it wouldn't have been mentioned, but, again, that is not the only argument for private gun ownership.

But lets talk about the "intelligent debate". I'll start by bringing up Fort Hood, the Washington Navy Yard, Christopher Dorner, Charles Whitman, and Franklin Regional High School (already touched on McVeigh) before I even ask: How does restricting gun ownership to a "well regulated milita" stop mass killings?

Of course the answer is: It doesn't. I'm sure Stevens would agree there, so I'll go into the followup question: What science based evidence do you have the says gun restrictions not only have a significant impact, but more of an impact than pursuing other avenues of violence reduction, such as mental health research & treatment, population density reduction, education, and/or resource equality; while at the same time assuring government abuse of its citizens can't or won't happen?

Some debts, such as social security over-payments, do survive the death of the original recipient in certain situations. This link describes some of those situations.

Furthermore, as you describe it "appear to be free and clear" is absolute bubkis. Acting in good faith may protect you from criminal prosecution, but does not transfer property free & clear just because you thought it was. Shit, just ask somebody that got kicked out of their "free & clear" inherited house once an old loan popped up (fyi: title companies are not responsible in such situations, even if they cleared the title).

You're making 2 very flawed assumptions here (with your entire post actually):
1. That the Federal Government follows the same laws as a private entity in this or any other matter
2. That the law follows common sense.

Neither are true.

Ya. Whatever the terminology is, it seems people understand things. So, close enough. :)

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:

Partial facial paralysis. Duh.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.