This line of clothing was similar to the Missoni line for target. Basically, a legit designer puts together a collection to sell at Target pricing. so you can get a "designer" piece at 1/10 or less the usual price. people have reported that the pieces are nicer, more interesting, better cut, and actually have a "designer quality" to them. the idea is to "show some love" to the people who can't shell out $100+ for a shirt.

unfortunately, what happened with the Missoni for Target collection (and what happened in Miami by the looks of things) was that consumers acted like spoiled brats on Black Friday, the collection was sold out within a day, and Ebay and Craigslist were flooded with clothes at a 5x markup or more within a week. Target took a lot of heat last time for the collection failing to reach its intended audience, and promised a smoother release with the Jason Wu collection ( i remember reading a statement that you would be kicked out of the store if you grabbed items out of an employee's hands, to give you an idea of the bad behavior Target anticipated).

personally, I look for designer bargains at thrift stores. or, you know, i take care of the clothes i already have.

Apparently the dude vulture is a local DJ in the Miami area who goes by DJ Midas, aka Kevin Wills.

As people have pointed out, what he did was legal, although many people feel it is wrong (including me). The point of these lines was to make high-fashion available at lower prices. this sniping/reselling means many people in the target audience cannot afford enjoy the clothes. it's just like scalping; a huge proportion of the profits are captured by a middleman doing very little of the work. Target corporate was supposed to roll out a max-items-per-person rule, but obviously failed pretty hard on that.

I hope DJ Midas drops his inventory into a big mud puddle, and is unable to sell/return the bulk of it. I hope his smug lady friend gets Bell's Palsy.

1) Meh.

2) if you touch the outside of the peel when peeling the orange (you do) and then the flesh when eating the orange (you do), then you are already transferring the stuff (pesticide residue, dust, bug parts) from the peel layer to the flesh layer, and into your mouth. this also happens during the initial gouge one typically makes when peeling the orange. if you wash your hands in between peeling and eating, then just washing the orange beforehand (along with your hands) does not cost you any extra time

3) seriously? talk about first-world problems. How about, when you notice that the orange you're about to eat has some appetizing portions of the peel, you eat them?

why are people angry someone observed that part of a food we throw away has health benefits? and why are people bitching about not liking a food they NEVER eat?! the vast majority of people, as children, had to be coerced into liking many healthy foods (most vegetables) through repeated exposure. try it. then try it 9 more times, in different configurations (P.F. changs makes "orange peel beef," a home-cooked version would be wonderful), then decide whether it's a stupid idea.

Broccoli is healthy, and many people don't like it. but i don't see those people get so worked up that the scientific community has acknowledged its benefits.

sometimes y'all will do anything to blame the OP.

Do i still get the benefits if i candy the orange peel? might be enough of a motivator to chose that over other non-dark-chocolate candies when i do eat them.

Also, if this study holds true for all citrus, I highly recommend people try eating an entirethin slice of lemon, peel and all (like the thin slice you might get on the rim of a drink). The bitterness of the pith balances out the sourness of the lemon flesh, and the zest adds a sweet additional dimension of lemony-ness. I have occasionally eaten a slice of lemon, peel and all, for pleasure and not health for more than a decade now. Good stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if eating a slice of orange worked in a similar way.

well, this article is about adverse possession, and you just started "i'm guessing the trick is..." without ever mentioning squatting, so i assumed you were talking about adverse possession. my bad, but your unclear writing.

If you want squatter's rights apart from AP, move to Europe. if the banks wanted them so much they kicked people out who were taking good care of them, only to let them fall into disrepair and become crack/meth dens, the county/city should be fining the banks for code enforcement violations, nuicance issues, etc., eventually condemn the house, and tear it down. as inventory shrinks and lots become available following the tear-down, new home contracts will pick back up and home values will stabilize.

note that this is only for uninhabitable places. if the place is habitable but empty, i fully encourage attempts to adversely possess/squat. i feel like banks are holding on to the massive home inventory so they can use them as a respository of "losses" that they will apply as necessary each year against their taxable profits. presumably, they only suffer the "loss" once they sell the property and have to write off a shortcoming on the loan. business losses can be subtracted from business gains to reduce your tax liability. you can only carry forward losses by a few years. by holding on to the inventory rather than locking in the loss, they can sell off/demolish properties as necessary to offset their gains. by letting these properties languish, they are destroying communities for a tax write-off.

Nope. Actual knowledge of the owner is not required. constructive knowledge is fine, which usually means putting visible improvement on the property (classic ones are fences and "no trespassing" signs). If i own land in colorado but live in massachusetts, and i haven't been out to see my land in a decade, and someone else has been living on/farming that land the whole time, then i shouldn't be able to stop the adverse possession by saying "but i'm SO neglectful of my land i haven't even BEEN out there in a decade! one point of adverse possession is that any owner keeping reasonable track of his land would have seen evidence of the adverse possession. the requisite elements of adverse possession (see below) give constructive knowledge to the true owner. basically, "i didn't know" is a poor defense because, as the owner, you should have known. that you had no idea someone was possessing your land for 7+ years because you couldn't be bothered to look at your property is evidence that you do not value the property enough to deprive its beneficial use by another who, through acting as a "proper" owner, may gain the right to title.

traditionally, adverse possession must be continuous (as in, you can't possess for years 1-6 and 10 in a 10-year period and call that 7 years), open and notorious (you can't always lie and say you're the gardener or the meter maid when asked, you have to interact with the property in a way that, if someone sees you, they would think "oh, that's the owner"), hostile (if the owner gives permission after finding you on the land, you're no longer adversely possessing. you're a tenant, guest, invitee, resident, or something else. there MAY be an ownership argument under an acquiescence theory, but that's not AP), actual (you actually must do stuff to the land and, you know, be on it at times acting like an owner would act. you can't just drive by the land every day and say "i want you, land!" and call that possession), and exclusive (you can't adversely possess land concurrently occupied by the true owner, or land owned by the public in common, like parks).

I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.

part of proper adverse possession, as i understand it, is that you are holding yourself out as the owner or the property. if there are tax liens in place, there are 2 issues:

you, as would-be owner, must pay the outstanding taxes if you wish to "quiet title" after 7 years of adverse possession. quieting title is just the process of getting the deed put in your name, effectively extinguishing the rights of the previous owner.

Second, a tax lien is attached to the property itself. after a lien is put on the home, eventually the gov't can foreclose/force the sale of the property to collect the unpaid taxes. you cannot adversely possess the tax man's interest out from under him. So, you may be adversely possessing, and in year 4 the true owner stops paying property taxes. many states have a 3 year period running between placing liens and forcing sales. so you could have fully satisfied the adverse possession requirements, only to have the home foreclosed out from under both you and the "true" owner.

this is not legal advice, i'm not your lawyer.

also, people should know that, when you are sitting on hold and are told "this call may be recorded for blah blah blah", they are both notifying you that they may record it as well as giving you permission to record it yourself. I think it would be very prudent to record phone calls with business like this when you agree to terms. I managed to force Comcast to honor a deal by pointing out that i had a recording of my discussing with the CSR when i signed up. I'm sure the insurance company would get a little less dumb when you say "oh, no worries, i have a recording of the conversation where we agreed to my insurance terms."

derp, forgot to paste the link to the post:

http://consumerist.com/2011/06/canceling-verizon-without-etf-over-fee-increase-is-hard-but-doable.html

i would think that levying a fee against something that used to be free would ce considered a materially adverse change to the terms of your contract. those are the magic words you need: "materially adverse change." I would check your contract, of course, in case for some reason such a change were specifically contemplated and permitted. that would infuriate, but not surprise me.

if you want to try, you contact them and explain that you wish to cancel because of a materially adverse change to the terms of your contract. emphasize that this materially adverse change, and nothing else, is why you want out of your contract. you didn't agree to that when you signed up.

here is a post from consumerist about trying to get out of your ETF with Verizon because of materially adverse changes that are far smaller than the $2 they are currently trying to get. Keep in mind that the main difference you will face is they will insist that, because it is an avoidable fee, it is not materially adverse. do not let up! you did not agree to pay a fee to pay your bill, you agreed to XYZ phone/data plan for a set price. this fee is effectively changing your price by $2, and is thus a materially adverse change to the terms of your contract.