Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
@Stndsh0: The original Mac team signed the inside of the first case, and they incorporated engraving their signatures in the case into the manufacturing process. I believe it was because Steve Jobs thought that all artists signed their work.
The Roddenberry's have always loved their (and other) dogs. They've even got a charity fund to help pet shelters and those who work there. Leaving some amount of money to help another living being is not shameful, nor does it mean they were kooky or a bad person if it happens to be an animal. Sure, they cannot spend it or decide to send "less than the price of a cup of coffee" over to some starving kid in Darfur, monthly.
Notice what this article doesn't state is what other charities that she possibly left some amount of cash to. If she left $20 Million for homeless/hunger relief would you still bash her (a dead woman mind you) because she didn't leave $24 Million?
It's not your money, it was hers and she earned/inherited it. It was hers to do with as she pleased and no one has the right to scoff at her posthumously just because they feel guilt over not being able to help those in need. If you feel so strongly about this, and are willing to decry her for leaving money to take care of her beloved pets' well being, then I want to see photographic proof of you volunteering at your local soup kitchen. It's easy to slam someone who can't fight back about not doing the right thing, it's another when you slam them and then do nothing yourself.
Leona Helmsley left her entire estate for dogs, valued at between 5 and 8 billion, with 12 million for her dog "trouble." I think she left her kids some breath mints or something.
And it's not like she was the second most famous computer voice in history.
I approve of Majel's actions in taking care of her pets after her death. On the (hopefullly) off chance that I should die unexpectedly, I likewise have a trust fund set up for my own two cats. I mean, it's no $4 million kind of thing--regretfully, not even close, lose several zeroes--but it is enough to be fairly sure they can be taken care of for whatever remaining years they would have.
@bosskev: If I die, I'll leave my money and my dog to my family. What they do with the dog and money is up to them. I'm not leaving any money specifically for my dog.
@SJRNWT: Some people view their pets as just important a part of their lives as kids. That's because they choose to be stewards and caretakers for their pets, not owners.
They treat their pet as part of their family, not as property.
I think it's great that they're not only responsible enough to care specifically for their pets in their will, but they went out of their way to find someone who cared for their pets as much as they do, instead of just dumping them on whomever as Rabid Penguin is looking to do.
@bosskev: It's your money bosskev, but most people just leave their pets/money to friends/family. If you don't know of anyone you trust enough to entrust your pets welfare to after your death, than you have bigger problems than how your pets will survive after your untimely end.
@newgalactic: "If you don't know of anyone you trust enough to entrust your pets welfare to after your death, than you have bigger problems..."
Ignoring the slight snarkiness in your comment, I will say this. I am 53. As such, both of my parents, all grandparents, etc., are deceased. I have no siblings (parents saw me and, terrified, wisely chose to end the genetic line). Distant relatives are, in fact, distant, both geographically and emotionally. So much for family.
Friends? I live in San Francisco, as do most of my friends/acquaintances. In apartments. With strict anti-pet policies. When I took a lease on the unit I am in, it was (A) in that extremely rare unit that does allow cats and (B) with a hefty deposit to do so. So, yeah, if I were to die tomorrow, the job of finding a home for my two cats would likely fall to one of those homeless pet agencies/shelters--which, as anyone with a brain knows, a pair of 7-year-old cats will NOT find a home but will instead be euthanized.
As HMM...Lite suggested, some people regard pets (and animals in general) with a much higher regard. I am one of them. I don't fault you or anyone else for seeing dogs or cats as mere second-class animals, but please don't fault me for seeing them otherwise. As I would with children, if I'd had any, I will see to it that their remaining years are safe, healthy and comfortable.
@bosskev: Not to mention that whole California BBD issue. Where your "friends" are really always in search of the bigger, better deal. Getting stuck with someone's pet involuntarily is a cramp.
I really don't miss that place all that much. Mostly just EspetuS, some concerts at the DNA Lounge, and some minor bits.
@Howlin' Mad Murdock...Lite: Leaving my stuff to my folks isn't exactly the same thing as just dumping it off on whomever... If I had $4 million I would leave that to my folks as well. I trust their judgment over my dogs. Full disclosure: I don't actually have a dog. However, dogs are notoriously bad with finances. It would probably just waste the whole four mil on raw hide bones, snausages, and blow.
That's nice, give your dogs $4 million while there's people dying in 3rd world countries...
Yeah, I know that was a hippy-ish statement, but seriously-- what the f**k is the world coming to when people are leaving their dogs $4 million in their will????
@SJRNWT: you have no idea how much they have give to charity through out their lives. they could have financed the education of 1 million Ecuadorian chillun for all you know.
@SJRNWT: First off, there will always be people dying in 3rd world countries. There are people dying in 1st world countries. People die, just like everything else on this planet except cockroaches, Bea Arthur, Abe Vigoda, and twinkies.
The money is basically so that the dogs are taken care of, and that the person who takes care of the dogs is taken care of. How awful to reward someone for loyal years of service by allowing them to continue interacting with the dogs they love, and getting paid even better to do it?
Now, if the people in those 3rd world countries would stop hacking each other with machetes, trying to farm desert, and a bunch of other things, they wouldn't be starving.
@Howlin' Mad Murdock...Lite: So you're saying that because there will always be people that die, making an attempt at reducing that amount is futile?
$4 million. NO dogs need $4 million to be taken care of, and NO dog caretakers need $4 million to be taken care of.
Now if those innocent people in 3rd world countries would stop being subjected to corrupt governments and stop having their families raped, robbed, and killed, maybe they wouldn't be starving. 'Cuz you know, THAT'S gonna happen. :/
//You'd think this would be a no brainer, but there's actually people who think it's justified to give $4 million to dogs when they die. Whatever happened to common sense and logic?
@SJRNWT: My point was that in history, rich people spent a greater fraction of society's resources on hedonistic things, despite more people starving/dying than there are now. By comparison, modern society is extremely equitable.
@SJRNWT: It's also hyprocritical for most people in developed countries to criticize others for not giving more of their wealth to the poor. For instance, does anyone really need to spend $400 on an iPod? If you are a starving Somalian child, that had might as well be $4 million.
I do not claim to know your circumstances. Perhaps instead of wearing $50 shoes, you donate $40 of that to education programs in India. It is very possible that you drive, or will drive a Tata Nano instead of a $20,000 car while using the thousands of dollars of savings to support a family in Zimbabwe whose breadwinner is killed in ethnic violence. It seems like common sense, right?
But maybe you are like the millions of Americans who don't do those things. Aren't these millions of people as much at fault for not donating their lives savings to impoverished countries as the woman who willed $4 million to care for her pet? Everyone has luxuries that they don't need.
@SJRNWT: Common sense isn't common. Take a look at the world around you and people's behaviors. They're mostly idiots with blinders on to keep them from seeing reality around them. They see what they want, consume what they want, and are more interested in surviving each day than caring for others.
Now, you don't have to agree with how the money was divvied up, but you do have to agree that it is their money to decide what to do with as they please.
And even if you spent $4 million to help people, considering how corrupt the governments/warlords/people are? How much of that aid will actually get to them?
So, you help who you can, where you can, when you can. In this case they helped the caretaker of the dogs, which shows a commitment to life.
As for A MILLION DOLLARS? Most people in the US will see about 2 million dollars pass through their hands in a lifetime. Just not all at once.
Not to mention that there is a tax on all of this inheritence that is rather steep. So, they won't actually see 4 million, or likely even 2 million.
@SJRNWT: $500 can stop someone from starving for a year. You could afford to help someone not die, but you don't. Where's the difference? You can't just come up with some arbitrary standard to justify your (relative) exemption from charity.
@SJRNWT: Well, jokes aside, she did donate a great deal to charity. People spend a lot more on a lot of other senseless nonsense, but at the same time, I'll bet a lot of those other jokers don't donate a dime, and say no to the $1 donation to whatever charity offer at movie theaters :P
@darkstar misses his preview button: I might be wrong about this, but I think the Roddenberry's have been donating quite a bit to several charities throughout their lifetime(s). $4 Million was probably chump-change compared to that.
@darkstar misses his preview button: You are all up in arms that her pets should have a $4 million trust fund to make sure they and their caretaker live out their lives in the home in which the animals were raised. Got it.
But you apparently are completely unconcerned with the way, way over $60 million given to the son? Because that does not register as a violation on your "people in this world that can't afford to eat" scale? Please explain.
@RiceBandit: I don't care who you are, $4 million IS NOT chump change.@bosskev: Well let's see... a human can spend money in a responsible way, so giving her son $60 million isn't exactly a lost cause because technically he can still donate money to charity, etc...
A dog though? What the fuck is a dog going to do with $4 million? Please explain.
@Howlin' Mad Murdock...Lite: I hate to be a buzzkill but lately the star commenters... well... their comments haven't been very star-ish. Just humorous, which is nice and all, but it's nice to read comments with substance once in a while.
09/20/09
09/20/09
09/20/09
09/18/09
09/17/09
09/18/09
09/18/09
09/17/09
09/17/09
09/17/09
09/17/09
09/17/09
"Hello computer."
09/18/09
09/18/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
Notice what this article doesn't state is what other charities that she possibly left some amount of cash to. If she left $20 Million for homeless/hunger relief would you still bash her (a dead woman mind you) because she didn't leave $24 Million?
It's not your money, it was hers and she earned/inherited it. It was hers to do with as she pleased and no one has the right to scoff at her posthumously just because they feel guilt over not being able to help those in need. If you feel so strongly about this, and are willing to decry her for leaving money to take care of her beloved pets' well being, then I want to see photographic proof of you volunteering at your local soup kitchen. It's easy to slam someone who can't fight back about not doing the right thing, it's another when you slam them and then do nothing yourself.
~JYH
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
And it's not like she was the second most famous computer voice in history.
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
Yeah leaving your pets some cash is fine, but $4 million? How do you approve that?
05/05/09
Planning on avoiding it?
05/05/09
They treat their pet as part of their family, not as property.
I think it's great that they're not only responsible enough to care specifically for their pets in their will, but they went out of their way to find someone who cared for their pets as much as they do, instead of just dumping them on whomever as Rabid Penguin is looking to do.
@frigg: Most people try to avoid death.
05/05/09
05/05/09
Ignoring the slight snarkiness in your comment, I will say this. I am 53. As such, both of my parents, all grandparents, etc., are deceased. I have no siblings (parents saw me and, terrified, wisely chose to end the genetic line). Distant relatives are, in fact, distant, both geographically and emotionally. So much for family.
Friends? I live in San Francisco, as do most of my friends/acquaintances. In apartments. With strict anti-pet policies. When I took a lease on the unit I am in, it was (A) in that extremely rare unit that does allow cats and (B) with a hefty deposit to do so. So, yeah, if I were to die tomorrow, the job of finding a home for my two cats would likely fall to one of those homeless pet agencies/shelters--which, as anyone with a brain knows, a pair of 7-year-old cats will NOT find a home but will instead be euthanized.
As HMM...Lite suggested, some people regard pets (and animals in general) with a much higher regard. I am one of them. I don't fault you or anyone else for seeing dogs or cats as mere second-class animals, but please don't fault me for seeing them otherwise. As I would with children, if I'd had any, I will see to it that their remaining years are safe, healthy and comfortable.
05/05/09
I really don't miss that place all that much. Mostly just EspetuS, some concerts at the DNA Lounge, and some minor bits.
05/05/09
05/05/09
And who is this Adam? Has HE been saying things about me?
05/05/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/05/09
Yeah, I know that was a hippy-ish statement, but seriously-- what the f**k is the world coming to when people are leaving their dogs $4 million in their will????
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
The money is basically so that the dogs are taken care of, and that the person who takes care of the dogs is taken care of. How awful to reward someone for loyal years of service by allowing them to continue interacting with the dogs they love, and getting paid even better to do it?
Now, if the people in those 3rd world countries would stop hacking each other with machetes, trying to farm desert, and a bunch of other things, they wouldn't be starving.
05/05/09
$4 million. NO dogs need $4 million to be taken care of, and NO dog caretakers need $4 million to be taken care of.
Now if those innocent people in 3rd world countries would stop being subjected to corrupt governments and stop having their families raped, robbed, and killed, maybe they wouldn't be starving. 'Cuz you know, THAT'S gonna happen. :/
//You'd think this would be a no brainer, but there's actually people who think it's justified to give $4 million to dogs when they die. Whatever happened to common sense and logic?
05/05/09
05/05/09
I do not claim to know your circumstances. Perhaps instead of wearing $50 shoes, you donate $40 of that to education programs in India. It is very possible that you drive, or will drive a Tata Nano instead of a $20,000 car while using the thousands of dollars of savings to support a family in Zimbabwe whose breadwinner is killed in ethnic violence. It seems like common sense, right?
But maybe you are like the millions of Americans who don't do those things. Aren't these millions of people as much at fault for not donating their lives savings to impoverished countries as the woman who willed $4 million to care for her pet? Everyone has luxuries that they don't need.
05/05/09
05/05/09
Now, you don't have to agree with how the money was divvied up, but you do have to agree that it is their money to decide what to do with as they please.
And even if you spent $4 million to help people, considering how corrupt the governments/warlords/people are? How much of that aid will actually get to them?
So, you help who you can, where you can, when you can. In this case they helped the caretaker of the dogs, which shows a commitment to life.
As for A MILLION DOLLARS? Most people in the US will see about 2 million dollars pass through their hands in a lifetime. Just not all at once.
Not to mention that there is a tax on all of this inheritence that is rather steep. So, they won't actually see 4 million, or likely even 2 million.
05/05/09
05/05/09
Personally, I actually do donate a large portion of money to charities, and I try to spend as less as possible on frivolous things.
The average person isn't nearly as guilty as someone who's got millions of dollars, and gives away $4 million to dogs.
You can't compare $40 to $4 million, simple as that.
05/05/09
It's really not that simple. As for donating a large portion to charities, what do you call taxes for anyone over median income?
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
But you apparently are completely unconcerned with the way, way over $60 million given to the son? Because that does not register as a violation on your "people in this world that can't afford to eat" scale? Please explain.
05/05/09
A dog though? What the fuck is a dog going to do with $4 million? Please explain.
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09