Slashdot Mirror
Gizmodo Not Welcome at 2010 WWDC
recoiledsnake writes "Gizmodo is reporting that Apple has refused to answer its request to attend the company's big Worldwide Developers Conference keynote this Monday. Apple's move to ban Gizmodo seems a direct repercussion of Apple's prototype leak by Gizmodo and subsequent actions of Apple to get the prototype back. Meanwhile, Gizmodo said that it would resort to a live blog to cover the event in case of the ban. This comes a few days after San Mateo County authorities announced that a 'special master' had been appointed to assist in the search of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's belongings: goods seized as part of a police investigation into the disappearance (and Gizmodo acquisition) of one of Apple's prototype iPhones. It's the very device that's rumored to be announced at the Monday keynote."
I mean, it was quite clear from Steve's reaction during D8 that he regards it as having been stolen (and CA law would seem to agree, at least IMHO). Why the hell would he give free passes to the people who he thinks stole from his company ?
If Giz really wanted to get in, they could pay for a ticket like everyone else, if necessary getting someone not-so-in-the-news to buy it. Nothing Apple could do about that...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I don't care so much that they exposed Apple's new phone but the fact they so happily gave up the guy's name showing no journalistic integrity. Fuck 'em, ban them for years.
Gizmodo has shown in the past that they are too immature to be allowed attend these types of events.
So ... Gizmodo can't provide news at the WWDC after obvious events previously, so they're plugging link-bait about their inability to provide news.
And this is news - how?
Why, it's Gizmodo news! But of course! (Get your news that's only news to Gizmodo, on Gizmodo!)
This is the same outfit that thought it would be an amusing prank to show up at CES with a universal TV power-off remote, which they used to interrupt demonstrations, presentations and meetings. I wouldn't blame anyone for banning them from a trade show. Apple just has more specific reasons than most for barring them.
I hope you were joking.
This kind of shit is par for the course today, and it's the reason it is hard to trust journalists these days. Most so-called reviews out there - especially larger sites - are essentially paid-for ads. It's a rare day that a bad game or bad product gets panned like it deserves, because the editors are always worried about (a) the company pulling their ad dollars, (b) the company pulling product support away, or (c) the company launching some frivolous lawsuit just to burn up cash.
Remember the Kane & Lynch Eidos/Gamespot fiasco? Ever watched Farhad Manjoo at Slate change his tune to whatever Apple/Google want him to say on a given day, even if they were saying the opposite last week?
How about Rockstar's bullshit recently at a reviewer who didn't like Red Dead Redemption? I wonder how many people Rockstar paid off to get the "critical acclaim" for their boring western sandbox... er litterbox gameplay.
The apparent snub has left the tech blog in a bit of a predicament—according to Editorial Director Brian Lam, Gizmodo is going to use the liveblogging of a number of other sources to construct its own, well, liveblog, of the WWDC keynote instead of its planned, "we're actually there" coverage.
All of the Gizmodo sources can start this concerted effort to make something up. Have one guy write that Steve showed up Naked. One the Steve had a pink faux turtle neck. Steve came out. Steve introduces the iWall for the very wealthy who want a touch screen wall for their internet a movie viewing pleasure..
This could be really fun!
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Apple and Gizmodo really are playing this publicity stunt to the hilt. It's almost like notoriously anal-retentive Apple really was stupid enough to allow a top-secret prototype to be taken to a bar by some junior employee, and almost like Gizmodo really was stupid enough to purchase stolen property, report on it, and then tell everyone exactly how they got it. But everyone knows that could never have actually happened.
Right?
Rob
There seems to be a real lack of editorial power at Gawker Media. Gawker itself is factually wrong rather often. Gizmodo has a real bad habit of doing things they just shouldn't be doing. Paying for play with the iPhone prototype was really disgraceful, then hiding behind being "journalists" as an excuse. The remote incident. Then there's Kotaku, which seems to be run by immature 18 year olds who have yet to touch a boob in their life before. Jalopnik can't keep their mouth shut about Top Gear spoilers. It's frustrating.
I'm through with the entire Gawker Media network. Engadget and Destructoid are much better blogs than Giz and Kotaku. Really haven't had a need for celeb gossip or car news, but when I do, it's not going to be Gawker.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
If Gizmodo pissed in my Cherios - I wouldn't invite them to my party either.
But don't dare criticize them for acting unprofessional, trying to milk the story, or otherwise disagree with them. They will ban or unstar you at a moment's notice.
Every fucking day they had an article summarizing the iPhone 4 coverage. Even if there was no actual new content. There were only ever two articles. The first one breaking the news, and then a second on where they showed a tear-down. But what do you expect from a firm that destroys presentations and displays at trade shows with TV-B-gone.
It's interesting how their tone changed. They used to sit around and wax and masturbate at great lengths about anything Apple. Now, not so much. Though it seems they all but forgot that computex was on this week.
I've pretty much abandoned them for Engadget.
PLEASE never call these narcissistic twits journalists again. Journalism is based on research, fact finding, source checking and has a goal to keep a check and balance on the democratic process. Agreed, much of the media today fails this. But in a spectrum of "news" Gizmodo "stories" are on par with Bat Boy in the Enquirer. Their usage of the English language is barely a step above txt speak while their maturity is nowhere above that of a third grade child.
Why do media sites always complain about Apple, then proceed to give them so much free advertising? Every time Apple releases a new product, the media falls over themselves to tell everyone about it. If they wanted to teach Apple a lesson, they'd impose their own ban on Apple news. No free product placement on the front page. No glowing "reviews" about how great the new iWhatever is and how you just have to have one.
Of course, that would imply intelligence in the media, and so far there's been very little evidence of that.
(that, and as others have noted, Gizmodo isn't exactly above reproach in many ways)
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
Coverup? Coverup would be if Apple invited no news outlets and kept everything hush and squelched any reporting which Apple has done in the past. I think the word you are looking for is "retribution".
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
That's why I don't look to journalists for product information any more than I would seek it from dead-tree media that depend on adverts.
I don't need to be an early adopter (let them take the risks, they will) so I wait until the folks on enough different forums I lurk in report problems with (electronics, vehicles, whatever) before considering a buy. Pissed off people are more than ready to expose defects.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"I pity the fool who messes with Mr. Steve."
I agree in general that a journalistic site should not fear biting the hand that feeds them, for the sake of integrity.
But Gizmodo has already proven that they do not have integrity. They fenced stolen property and then attempted blackmail/extortion on Apple, very very recently. It's not some 10 year old grudge, the fallout of this shit is still happening. This sort of behaviour really should not be condoned, and nobody should expect it to be.
Rockstar and Eidos just didn't like the reviews, though. Gizmodo actually committed a felony.
It's not that Apple didn't like the press, it's that Gizmodo stole their property.
Denying press credentials to any legitimate news organization, which is Gizmodo sure as hell is, is rotten PR at the very least.
I think that under the circumstances, the only bad PR Apple is going to receive over excluding Gizmodo is going to come from those sources that are always looking for bad things to say about the company no matter what. More rational people, even those who may not completely agree with Apple's decision, will at least understand where it's coming from.
As for Gizmodo being a legitimate news organization, well, that's debatable, isn't it? IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property. And, yes, according to California law, the iPhone prototype was stolen. I'm not even going to entertain any debate about that.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Apple, they will format your life.
I'm pretty sure Fox didn't steal Obama's Blackberry...
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Get an account, go to Preferences, Sections, block the Apple category and STFU.
Really? I'm not sure why I'm replying to an AC, but really? You think that after the shit that Gizmodo pulled that Apple should invite them to WWDC, and that if they don't it's somehow going to hurt Apple? If you left an upper decker at my place I wouldn't invite you to any more parties either.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
They are welcome, they just don't get their tickets gratis. If they bought a ticket they would be at the keynote. You can construct whatever narrative you like. Either this is apple imposing their iron fist on dissent or this is Gizmodo getting their comeuppance for buying stolen property and attempting to extort apple for it. In both cases apple (presumably) has the right to refuse to extend a welcome to a press organization. That may be unseemly, but it is true.
I don't think either party comes out looking good, but Gizmodo is really milking it. You bought a leaked phone, attempted to get confirmation that the phone was real to get a scoop, and you got burnt. Oh well. that shit happens. If you don't want to get burnt, don't play with fire. This isn't the pentagon or the white house, where some public service is gained through continued access by all parties--Apple is not a government agency. They are a private company. We may feel (As I do) that Apple SHOULD allow press to attend regardless of their orientation, but apple is under no mandate to do so. If we feel strongly enough, we should refuse to buy the products and/or own the stock on the basis of our reservations. Beyond that, we don't have much sway.
You know, fuck PR. If Obama refused to "talk to Fox" I guess many people would approve.
As someone who is tired of Gizmodo's general behavior and attitude, but enjoys the spectrum of coverage they provide, what would be a viable alternative tech blog to read? I mainly read giz, slashdot, and ars.
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
Slate isn't changing their tune due to pressure. Slate gets clicks by writing a story which is contrary to whatever prevailing wisdom is out there on any given subject--regardless of whether or not that contrary position is consistent with their past articles or has a shred of credibility regardless.
And then wouldn't give it back without an "official confirmation" by apple. They were trying to hold the prototype hostage for an inside scoop.
"Denying press credentials to any legitimate news organization, which is Gizmodo sure as hell is..." Yeah, and so is Faux News.... Gizmodo a legitimate news organization. Ha!
If you'll note the article is by PC Magazine which is not associated with gawker as far as I am aware. So how is this link-baiting? I certainly think it isn't news and there is HUGE difference between BANNING Gizmodo and not giving them a free pass with news credentials but I don't see how you are correct in your assertion that this is link-baiting.
I haven't eaten Cheerios in years; can we please stick to the car analogies?
Heck, I'll start:
Steve Jobs left the keys in his Mercedes SL55 AMG after parking it in the usual handicapped space. A Good Samaritan quickly discovered this abandoned vehicle and yelled out "Finders keepers!" before driving it straight home.
It then took more than a month of negotiations before Steve Jobs finally got his car back, but not before the Good Samaritan disassembled the vehicle and put it back together again.
IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property.
Sure they do. They even pay worse criminals and occasionally keep their identities secret from the authorities, preventing justice.
And Apple can then add libel to the Gizmodo editors' rap sheet, and seek injunctions to take down gizmodo.com, in addition to the criminal charges?
Fox hasn't committed any felonies against the Obama Administration though.
Well to begin with this is a public event and Gizmodo was not denied the ability to buy a pass. Do you really think Apple should support an organization that knowingly stole from them and then laughed about it?
This stuff happens when you leave things like secret prototypes lying around Starbucks; it's not the news media's fault that they write about it. It is by way of being their job.
It's their fault they do not immediately return it or hand it over to authorities. Instead they chose to illegally dissect and did not return it. Their holding onto someone else's property for their own purposes is obviously criminal conversion, if they actually did that.
Losing press credentials should be the worst of their worries. After Apple is done with them, they will be lucky if Apple does not decide to pursue having gizmodo shut down over this.
"Gizmodo actually committed a felony."
Did someone get convicted that we don't know about, or do you commit libel as a hobby?
And this is news why?
They'll be welcome again at another Apple shindig when Steve Jobs is dead and buried.
And, probably not then.
Steven
Apple had already privately confirmed it. Gizmodo wanted them to publicly acknowledge that they got the true scoop. That's extortion.
I am the JOBS !!! Don't FUCK WITH ME !! FUCK WITH ME AND I WILL CRACK LIKE THE TOOTHPICK I HAVE BECOME !!!!
In reply to (what the fuck is a gizmodo anyways):
Rafael Nadal Just Won the French Open Wearing This $525,000 Wristwatch
Congratulations to Rafael Nadal, whose dominance on Roland Garros clay was reaffirmed today following his French Open victory over Swede Robin Söderling. The victory is sweet, to be sure, but so was the bling he wore on his wrist.
If Gizmodo wants to go, they can buy a ticket. No one is stopping them.
You really expect Apple to give them a ticket for free (which is what this story is about - and it's not even a confirmed denial, Apple just hasn't go back to them, so it;s either ignoring or busy etc, not a confirmed no) after the entire iPhone prototype fiasco?
Mm.
Remind me to invite the guy who stole my last car to my party celebrating the purchase of my new car so he can drink my beer and eat my food all at my expense.
Not just dissect. According to the affidavit, they also broke it in their half-assed attempt to put it back together. It mentions ground shorts among the damage, so it's likely that they effectively destroyed critical parts the phone.
Not Apple! It looks like the DA is going after this, carefully but vigorously. Any civil suit will likely come after the criminal charges, which Apple has no part in.
Obviously, your definition of legit differs from mine. My definition excludes those who pay others to steal, misappropriate trade secrets and remove vowels from any comment on gizmodo that is critical of gizmodo.
cat
Wow, the old "Apple is for gay people" joke.
The 1980's called. They want their humour back.
But congratulations on being a homophobic bigot - your parents must be so proud.
Um no, they wanted a *public* "official confirmation." That is they wanted Apple to come out and say "yes that's our device" to the public. Apple readily said it was theirs privately. The emails were pretty clear they were trying to protect their investment in the story (he even said so), not Apple's hardware.
Not taking sides here, but claiming the confirmation was to verify ownership is nonsense. Even Gizmodo didn't make such a silly claim.
How about Rockstar's bullshit [geek.com] recently at a reviewer who didn't like Red Dead Redemption? I wonder how many people Rockstar paid off to get the "critical acclaim" for their boring western sandbox... er litterbox gameplay.
I know this is probably going to come as a shock to you, but the reason it's been getting rave reviews is because people actually fucking like it. It's cool if you don't, I hate some of the most acclaimed games (and movies, and music for that matter) of all time. That's just because it doesn't fit me, not because everyone else got paid to pretend to like it.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Oh please. Because they thought it might have belonged to IBM or Microsoft?
(...) Can they not see the global trend toward free and open? (...)
Really? You see a global trend toward free and open? As soon as I get enough money to buy my own starship, I'm going to call you up and ask for the coordinates to your planet.
I kinda agree. I could understand if it were a prototype of a new form-factor(like if it were an iPad leaked a year ago), but it's only an iPhone. Everybody knows what they look like and what they do and the new features are hardly revolutionary.
The story is only interesting because of the legal brouhaha surrounding the acquisition of the prototype.
I think the fundamental mistake your making is indulging the likes of Gizmodo and Gamespot by calling it journalism. Its not journalism at all. They are at best infomercials that on rare occasions make a weak attempt at balance just to grab a little credibility here and there.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Any real journalist knows their defining characteristic is integrity. Everybody just wants to overlook that when it comes to Gizmodo though. Integrity means you don't go to a trade show and disrupt the demonstrations of companies that paid lots of money to be there. Integrity means you don't even offer, let alone actually pay for a stolen device. Failing that, integrity means you simply give the device back when asked for it, you don't try to use it as a bargaining chip. Integrity means you don't harm members of the public for no good reason.
Now, let's get into common sense. If journalists are to be the protectors and the propagators of truth, discernment and common sense are two of their most valuable tools. Common sense tells you that you don't attempt to acquire trade secrets of a company that has less than three months ago sent you a letter to cease and desist attempts to acquire said trade secrets. Common sense tells you that if you want greater access to a company, and someone offers to sell you something valuable belonging to said company, you buy it, then return it to said company without making a story about it. Common sense tells you if you do purchase a device that is likely to be stolen in California, pay no more than $799 for it, thereby avoiding any implicit acknowledgement that the device is worth enough to you, to constitute grand theft in the eyes of the law.
So who thinks these guys are journalists? People who don't care about what a journalist is supposed to be.
cat
But congratulations on being a homophobic bigot - your parents must be so proud.
Congrats on being a humorless prick - Phantom Limb must be so proud.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
You can blame him for a lot but what Gizmodo did was plain stupid and they deserve punishment for that, including removing any preferential treatment they were previously getting.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
No, Gizmodo claimed that the public confirmation was to help ensure they weren't painted as being participants in an Apple marketing ploy... which, in and of itself, is a fairly valid desire.
Oregon law obviously doesn't apply, but California law. California law is a bit unusual in that it calls all kinds of things "theft" that have different names elsewhere. For example, if you rent a car, and don't return it, and the rental car company asks you to return it, and you keep it for another eleven days, then by California law it will be assumed that this was theft. The important one in this case is that when you find someone's lost property, and take it, and then neither return it to the owner nor hand it over to the police, then California law calls this theft.
The way this is written always causes confusion among the feeble-minded. For example, unlike other cases where the theft happens right when you take something that you shouldn't take, in the case of lost property it is absolutely fine to pick up lost property, then you can take some time looking for the owner, and it's not theft. When you finally keep it instead of handing it over to the police, that is when it becomes theft. In this case, when the finder sold the phone to Gizmodo it was obvious that he wasn't returning it to the owner or giving it to the police, so at that point it became a theft and the sale was a sale of stolen goods. Some people ask why Apple only called it a theft when pictures appeared on the internet and not earlier - obviously Apple didn't _know_ it was theft up to that point; for all they knew someone could be knocking on every door in Cupertino to find the owner.
In Oregon, you would likely have to look for crimes related to lost property. For example, in New York you must give lost property to the police within ten days of finding or receiving it, otherwise it is a misdemeanour punishable with jail up to six months (they don't give that misdemeanour any name, so apparently it is not theft, but you go to jail anyway). According to New York law, not only the finder, but also Gizmodo committed a misdemeanour - they should have given the phone to the police within ten days from buying it.
But don't concentrate too much on the word "theft". "Theft" is what it is called in California, but I can guarantee that not returning lost property will be some kind of crime, often under a different name, in any civilised and many uncivilised countries.
Why is /. wasting our time on this? It's not at all surprising.
Oh, yeah, yet another baseless opportunity to dump on Apple.
Boohoo, Apple has chosen to have one less PR outlet humping their leg. Wah.
Were it the government refusing to talk to an outlet that paid a whistleblower for information, I would have a problem with it.
It's a PRIVATE COMPANY refusing a PRESS PASS to a group that apparently PAID FOR STOLEN PROPERTY, then tried to put Apple on the hot seat to get it back. Pardon me if I feel like Gizmodo is getting pretty much what they deserved. They played a dangerous game and lost at it. Call the fucking wahmbulance.
the legitimacy of almost any news organization out there these days is rather questionable, even really big ones like Faux...
The "news" outfit that's willing to pay for an iPhone prototype of murky origins is whining because they don't want to pay for a WWDC ticket?
Blog about it in a way that publishes faster than Apple can act.
Instant publicity either way.
Apple's disinvitation becomes worthless, and Gizmodo still gets the story.
Waiting for folks to irrationally modbomb in 3,2,1...
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Oh please. Because they thought it might have belonged to IBM or Microsoft?
Or a Chinese knockoff company.
Yeah, imagine wanting to verify the owner before handing it over.
Under California law, you mustgive the phone to the bartender for safekeeping. Return it to its owner - or surrender it to the police.
Under California laww, you are legally a caretaker of the phone - you hold it in trust for its owner.
You cannot disassemble the prototype on your workbench.
You cannot call in a professional photographer for a commercial photo session.
Demanding money or services from the owner for its return is extortion, plain and simple.
Apple had already privately confirmed it.
That outcome results in 'Apple planned the whole thing for PR and Gizmodo is in bed with Apple' Gizmodo is then painted as part of Apple's PR machine. They can do it publicly.
I think anyone who reads my comments, and no I'm not vain enough to think that people do, knows I'm not a fan of Apple's business practices or attitude, but you have to have a World Heavy Weight Championship Belt in Officially Missing the Point to bring up a "journalistic ethics" complaint against Apple in this particular soap opera.
If Jason Chen or the Gawker media group had even a smattering of "Journalistic ethic" in them, they wouldn't have purchased a stolen phone off someone, written an article about ripping the phone apart, followed up by an article humiliating the Apple engineer that lost it to 'prove its real', then attempt to make Apple publicly announce it's their phone before giving it back.
IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did
Wtf are you talking about? Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS and all the other legitimate major news organizations pay for their stories. Remember when CNN paid for a photo of the guy who stopped the underwear bomber? Every "non-legitimate" news organization followed it for weeks complaining about double standards.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Gizmodo might be in trouble since 60% of what they cover is Apple. Here is a funny fact though. Apple is only 10% of the market share for computers and 25% for mobile phones. Why the fuck do they get so much coverage? The majority of people don't fucking care. Find something worth while to cover.
The joke is on you if you think Gizmodo publishes 'reviews' with utter objectivity. In fact, the site exists just because of completely pro-apple blog posts, and they have banned users repeatedly for criticizing anything anti-apple.
I am with you and it makes sense, but you can't go on applying it to all the shills too. Just because they are 'bloggers' does not make them impartial. Especially Gizmodo.
More rational people, even those who may not completely agree with Apple's decision, will at least understand where it's coming from.
Yes, we do know where it's coming from - the almighty Lord Jobs is pissy that someone found out about his closely guarded "secret" (really, is he dumb enough to think we don't know a new update to every iDevice is coming each year with minor improvements?). Jobs has proven time and again that he's an arrogant prick who wants to force everyone to do as he says. This is nothing more than a childish temper tantrum from a childish CEO who has a fixation on making sure everyone knows how powerful he is.
IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property.
Actually, they frequently do. Also, the iPhone was found not stolen. If I leave my phone at a bar and you take it, it's my own goddamn fault for being irresponsible and leaving it there.
And, yes, according to California law, the iPhone prototype was stolen.
As any rational person knows, the law is not the same as justice. There have been plenty of examples of unjust laws all over the world, and especially in the US (Jim Crow laws, slavery, laws requiring escaped slaves to be taken back to their owners, the DMCA, etc).
I'm not even going to entertain any debate about that.
Ah, so you're one of those people who blindly follows the law as opposed to using your brain? Wake up and think a little, you'd be amazed at how many unjust laws exist to cause certain people to profit at others expense.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
hear hear, I too think Red Dead Redemption is great and more importantly, my girlfriend enjoys playing it as well.
She's very finicky in her gaming choices, and while she was let down with the "morality" in GTA IV after getting hooked on GTA III, she doesn't seem to have a problem with the morality in Red Dead Redemption and enjoys the gameplay.
However, no game or movie or any other product should ever expect bad reviews across the board.
They should look forward to bad reviews that offer solid criticism on game play and character/story development and use that to try to make better games.
From both personal experience and anecdotal evidence I lost my faith in Gizmodo a long time ago. Their policy of banning commenters for disagreeing with their contributors is just one of the ways they ensure their opinion is always reflected as the truth on Gizmodo.
I'd prefer to get trolled by 100 /b/tards than see a site with just pure arsekissing & cocksucking by commenters.
I hope you were joking.
This kind of shit is par for the course today, and it's the reason it is hard to trust journalists these days. Most so-called reviews out there - especially larger sites - are essentially paid-for ads.
It's quite hilarious that you got +4 mods for whining that not allowing "journalists" to a keynote (IOW a PR event) would force them to write reviews that are like ads - when the reason for their kicking was them writing a review just to sell more adds.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I know this is probably going to come as a shock to you, but the reason it's been getting rave reviews is because people actually fucking like it. It's cool if you don't, I hate some of the most acclaimed games (and movies, and music for that matter) of all time. That's just because it doesn't fit me, not because everyone else got paid to pretend to like it.
Uh...that would be fine, except that particular reviewer didn't like it, and it's his right to have an opinion, and his job to write about it. However, Rockstar responded by trying to get him to write a more favorable review. That's incredibly unethical, and it seems to me that if the game is as great as you say, they could afford some critics disliking it and survive it just fine. When the reviewer in question pointed out Rockstar's unethical behavior by publishing their e-mail, he got fired. So I guess the people he works for don't want to end whatever perks they get from Rockstar by exposing their tactics. Which is again, bullshit.
It might very well be that you're right, and the rave reviews are there because the game is awesome. The point is that when Rockstar pulls this shit, there's no way to tell if that's true because you can't tell if any one positive review is being honest or dishonest.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
I trust my national PC games magazine (yes, there's only one - the others are for consoles). They had one edition where they gave 35% in a review, right next to the game's advertisement. And in general, I agree with their reviews after playing the games.
On th other hand, we're a small country, so we may not have a market important enough to deserve such "attentions".
Dilbert RSS feed
Gizmodo asked for no money or services from the owner, just a signed and notarized letter stating that the device was owned by Apple. Gizmodo needed proof that Apple was the true owner of the device.
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
He said someone had committed a felony, not that they had been convicted for it. Let Gizmodo try to sue him for that. They'll lose, given all the evidence is that they did indeed commit a felony.
Besides, before a libel case went through, someone no doubt will have been convicted for the felony.
Heh, you make me laugh with your impotent rage.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Given that Gizmodo knew the name of the actual Apple engineer who was the keeper of the device, why would you day they needed paper confirmation from Apple?
I mean we know from the email that Gizmodo sent to Apple the fact that they only wanted that confirmation "for journalistic purposes". But it would be fun to find out what sort of nonsense you've managed to cook up to convince yourself that Gizmodo was in the right.
It seems like an odd moral system that allows purchasing stolen property, but avoids participation in marketing.
Then again it seems like an odd moral system of so many on slashdot that support the thief rather than the victim.
"Want to get modded down? Promote liberty, personal responsibility, or sound economic policy."
AKA, "libertarianism". The autism of politics.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
No, a legitimate news organization just makes its stories up.
Wait, wait--you're saying that Fox is a legitimate news organization, then? Who knew...
This ain't rocket surgery.
As any rational person knows, the law is not the same as justice. There have been plenty of examples of unjust laws all over the world, and especially in the US (Jim Crow laws, slavery, laws requiring escaped slaves to be taken back to their owners, the DMCA, etc).
Please tell me that you aren't really comparing the laws concerning a stolen cell phone with the Fugitive Slave Act. Please. Because I'd really prefer to believe that I'm dealing with the "rational person" who just claimed that rational people know the law is not the same as justice.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Apple couldn't give a rats ass how many times Gizmodo appears on Google. It doesn't make the slightest difference to them. It's just pretty obvious that you don't invite someone who stole from you to an event you organise. Particularly when the criminal investigation is still ongoing.
He said someone had committed a felony, not that they had been convicted for it.
It's called innocent until proven guilty.
Let Gizmodo try to sue him for that.
I doubt they would, but they could.
They'll lose, given all the evidence is that they did indeed commit a felony.
Putting your psychic predictions aside, precedent says otherwise. Ever wonder why every single news story uses 'alleged'?
Besides, before a libel case went through, someone no doubt will have been convicted for the felony.
You would be willing to bet that he would be convicted before a civil suit is filed? That can take years. If a suit was filed today, the lawyer fees start today.
An unjust law is an unjust law. It doesn't matter if it's about slavery or if it's about creating a false "crime" simply because one person is irresponsible with their own property.
If a person, who you have no way of knowing who they are, leaves an object in a public place, then it is not a crime for you to take that item as long as you are willing to give it back to them if they ask for it and can reasonably prove that it is theirs. That is in no way comparable to theft, which is intentionally taking something from it's rightful owner.
Or do you try to claim that picking up a $5 bill from the sidewalk is "theft" too?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
It would be as if you used all of the $20s in that suitcase.
And then returned them all after you photographed them.
Toby McCasker was sacked for a number of reasons, one of which was his decision to post a private email on his Facebook page. This email was not referring to a game review. He should not be considered a credible source of information on this matter.
As a reviewer you don't go around posting emails sent by the game publishers that are intended to be private, that reflects badly both on you and your employer. Some of the circumstantial information we got on him suggests he might just be a self-centered douche-bag.
- These characters were randomly selected.
I wish Apple would just disappear. They've been guilty of pretentious douchebaggery since I had my C64 and they were claiming that the Apple 2 was better.
The thing is, he was just stating his opinion. Maybe he should have said something like this: "In my opinion, Gizmodo is in no way a journalistic enterprise, and furthermore they most likely have committed at least one Felony in the course of their "reporting"."
Toby McCasker was sacked for a number of reasons, one of which was his decision to post a private email on his Facebook page. This email was not referring to a game review. He should not be considered a credible source of information on this matter.
As a reviewer you don't go around posting emails sent by the game publishers that are intended to be private, that reflects badly both on you and your employer. Some of the circumstantial information we got on him suggests he might just be a self-centered douche-bag.
The private e-mail in question is as follows, according to the article Moryath linked to:
This is the biggest game we’ve done since GTA IV, and is already receiving Game of the Year 2010 nominations from specialists all around the world.
Can you please ensure Toby’s article reflects this – he needs to respect the huge achievement he’s writing about here.
Exposing that is the ethical responsibility of anyone who reads it.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
What makes you think that YOU have ANY right to touch it at all when it's not yours?
If you leave your car by the side of the road, is it OK for me to take it away and only give it back if you manage to find me and ask for it?
I haven't been this shocked since Woodward and Bernstein were taken off of President Nixon's Christmas card list.
Cars have locks on them for a reason - to keep people from taking them. That's also why houses and bank deposit boxes have locks on them - to keep people from taking what's inside them. If you don't want someone to take your phone / book / any other possession, don't leave it sitting in a public place.
I've left things at restaurants or in a classroom when I was in college - sometimes I came back later and they were there (which is great), other times they weren't. Who did I blame when they were gone? Myself, because I was the one who left it there.
Take some goddamn responsibility for your actions and, more importantly, your mistakes. Don't try to make it a crime and ruin someone else's life because you messed up and left your phone laying in a cafe.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Wait, so you're saying that the people who used rainbow-logo Macs are not gay?
*Head explodes*
Remember when some tool from Gizmodo went around CES turning off all the TVs and displays with a master IR remote? Legit news organization my ass. I wouldn't want them around my event either. They're the sort of immature douchebags that would set off a fire alarm in the middle of the presentation just so they could get some hits by posting about it.
Yeah, but we're not talking about a journalist giving a bad review of a product, and the company coming down on them. We're talking about a journalist who very possibly purchased stolen goods belonging to the company that is now coming down on them. Let's not get carried away making this what it is not. This is not an squeaky clean journalist getting hurt.
On one hand, he apparently believes in personal responsibility and economic liberty, yet believes that Steve Jobs and Apple may not have the right to prosecute Gawker/Chan?
Apple's behavior has nothing to do with their business or the future of their business and everything to do with Steve Jobs being childish and prone to severe anger issues. Trying to sue someone who finds a phone is bullshit - take it out on the idiot employee who lost the damn phone.
Jason Chen and Gawker Media acquiring stolen property
Lost != stolen. When you lose a book because you forgot about it and left it on a plane, do you call the police and report is stolen? No. If you leave your cell phone on a plane, do you call the cops and report it stolen? No. You might call the airline and see if they can find it, but you sure as hell don't report it as a theft because there was no theft, only you not keeping track of your belongings.
How is it that Gawker/Chen are being personally responsible.
How is it that they were being irresponsible? I've yet to see anything to show that they were in any way acting irresponsibly. If this had been a major news source (say the NY Times) who'd obtained this or if it was Apple somehow getting a MS prototype, they wouldn't be criticized in any way for this. The only reason that this guy is getting all this shit is because Apple is the "perfect" company and can't be criticized in any way.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Like Slashdot, you mean?
Well, yeah, but I was thinking more main stream No one who matters reads Slashdot.
This ain't rocket surgery.
They are increasingly taking the most evil policy choices they can. It's beyond good business.
And any in the Open Source community who keep backing them. Realize you are backing the most closed company in tech.
Could not agree more.
Paying for articles has a long history, much as cops and other law enforcement pay for confidential informants (either via "deals" to avoid prosecution or cash payments, or even protection) that in and of itself is not what is "wrong" with what gizmodo did.. it was crossing over a line.
Much in the same way that paying someone an extreme amount of cash to lie to a judge is 'crossing the line' in terms of confidential informants, i mean lets face it the bulk of the gadget blogging world is being "paid" with favors and products to hopefully generate favorable reviews/press.. which is fine (buyer beware and all that jazz) That does not make it "ok" to buy stolen property, and attempt to extort or leverage your possession of that stolen property for a scoop.
If Giz had been a "real journalistic enterprise" such as a newspaper or tv news etc.. they would have met with the guy who had it.. taken as many pictures as possible and published the article without taking posession of the device, and then once that was done said "no we cannot reveal our sources, as we are a news organization".. and they would have been fully on the side of the light, and in fact could have gotten tons of mileage out of apple pressuring them for info, and perhaps even getting taken to court by apple to reveal those sources.
Instead they chose to take the low road in hopes of parlaying it into webhits and got burned. Given what we know about the case, it would not surprise me at all to find out that gizmodo never tried to get press credentials for WWDC but rather tried to play the wounded victim by implying that apple wouldn't let them in. (or waiting too long to ask so that they knew that there would be no more "room" making apples decision moot.
Any mature and competent journalist knows that they are at risk of being dis-invited from future press conferences and "media events" if they report unfavorably about a company, refuse to honor "embargoed" news, or otherwise piss off that company. It's what happens. It's one of the factors that gets weighed when deciding whether to run a story, and you do it – or don't do it –depending on whether the action is worth enduring the re-action. When Gizmodo ran the "iPhone 4" story, they knew there would be consequences. If they weren't prepared to be dis-invited to WWDC, if maintaining "access" was important enough to them, they wouldn't have run the story. Obviously it wasn't. And it was their choice.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Except that they were now no longer legal tender (closest I can get to Giz breaking the phone before returning it). I'd be pissed if that happened....
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
yup exactly why i gave up... same goes for BoingBoing...
advocating free speech (just for the free publicity it seems) while censoring/mocking those who have a different viewpoint... a bit too much for my taste...
I thought Steve was the master of the authorities in that area of California.
Don't try to make it a crime? If you take something that doesn't belong to you then you have committed a crime. Full stop. If you purchase something knowing that it was probably stolen then you have also committed a crime, one we uncreatively call "receiving stolen property." Both of these apply in the Case of the Purloined Prototype.
If someone breaks into your house and steals all your property, we aren't going to blame you for having inadequate security. That includes if "breaking in" means "walking in the front door that you left unlocked." We might think you're an idiot, but that doesn't shift the onus of the crime off the, er, criminals.
Elsewhere in the past on Slashdot, I've seen it argued that if you leave your house unlocked, and someone takes your things, it's you're own fault and your insurance company won't care.
It's somewhat like the difference between "joyriding" and "grand theft auto."
[How these oranges of statements and opinions apply to the Apples in this argument is left as an exercise for the reader.]
Kid-proof tablet..
Oregon law obviously doesn't apply, but California law. California law is a bit unusual in that it calls all kinds of things "theft" that have different names elsewhere. For example, if you rent a car, and don't return it, and the rental car company asks you to return it, and you keep it for another eleven days, then by California law it will be assumed that this was theft. The important one in this case is that when you find someone's lost property, and take it, and then neither return it to the owner nor hand it over to the police, then California law calls this theft.
The way this is written always causes confusion among the feeble-minded.
Indeed it does. Unfortunately, perhaps you should have checked the law before making this statement.
California law has two statutes covering lost property. One statute allows injured parties to sue for compensation or return of property, and requires that found property over a certain value be handed to the police, as you say. The criminal statute only requires a reasonable effort be made to return it.
The 90's called, they want their ""x" called, they want their "y" back" back.
(Enjoy the recursion.)
AKA, "libertarianism". The autism of politics.
I thank you for that, sir. It made me laugh out loud.
This ain't rocket surgery.
I will have to make sure and get my Apple news from Gizmodo in the future.
Small point .. but I will make it just the same.
They BOUGHT stolen property.
Fencing is the purchase for the purpose of re-sale (generally tried in a legitimate marketplace, which would have been impossible with this prototype.)
Ouch
Paying for articles has a long history [...] and of itself is not what is "wrong" with what gizmodo did.
While you're right that checkbook journalism does have a long history, it's none the less considered to be unethical by professional journalists, most of whom would say that paying for the iPhone story was indeed just as wrong as any other part of what Gizmodo did.
This ain't rocket surgery.
I agree. And if you RTFA the guy actually posted a company to company internal email on facebook. Tell me why he shouldn't be fired exactly? Regardless or his stance on what to do about the letter he shouldn't make company info public. He betrayed his company who may well have been supporting this type loaded emails and company nudges. He should have stuck to his guns, reported the game as he liked. If his editor was refusing to print it then he cold quit and then let the email "slip" out without his name plastered on it in the form of a facebook page. What a moron!
While were on RDR...
It looks awful, the story is lame and the only cool feature are the bugs. (Flying deer, dogs with shotguns and riding a lady like a horse.)
If that is the game of the year then simply nothing has been produced worth while this year. Though Battlefield Bad Company 2 has more entertainment value. (Mostly I enjoyed blowing up everything, but it sadly feels like they re-skinned and tweaked the engine)
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
The 1990's called, the want their joke back. .. infinite loop?
As a matter of pure interest I decided to read some RDR reviews.
I skipped several sites simply because they were mainstream and probably never gave a bad review in the life.
Nearly every review followed this same formula. RDR doesn't compete with said element from GTA IV or other game, but you should appreciate it anyway.
The reviews are more like excuses why X element is kinda lack luster, but if you look at it differently it isn't so bad.
I suppose money can buy you love and happiness.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Didn't the guy who originally found the prototype call up Apple, and they didn't want it back?
At least that's the story i've heard. Assuming this is true, i don't see an issue with him selling the device.
Didn't the guy who found it made a reasonable effort by calling up Apple, asking them if they want it back?
Apple's poor information policy, of course, prevented the guy or gal on the switchboard knowing what a prototype looked like, that one was lost and that someone tried to return a legit device - but that's purely Apple's fault.
It's an informal discussion; opinions are often phrased that way.
Lost != stolen. When you lose a book because you forgot about it and left it on a plane, do you call the police and report is stolen? No. If you leave your cell phone on a plane, do you call the cops and report it stolen? No. You might call the airline and see if they can find it, but you sure as hell don't report it as a theft because there was no theft, only you not keeping track of your belongings.
IANAL but these people are:
https://ssl.perfora.net/smartlegalforms.com/guide.asp?level=2&id=620
I found a wallet on a counter in a hardware store. Can I keep it?
No. The law requires you to give mislaid items to the person operating or employed by the hardware store. The wallet has been mislaid rather than lost, and the owner or operator of the premises is the rightful custodian until the wallet owner comes to claim it.
The "idiot employee" who lost it returned to the bar the next day and asked if anyone had reported finding a missing iPhone. The barkeeper said "no". Why? Because the guy who found it didn't tell anyone. Because the guy who took it home stole it instead of giving it to the bartender or at least notifying the bartender.
Didn't the guy who found it made a reasonable effort by calling up Apple, asking them if they want it back?
No "reasonable effort" would have been to notify the establishment at which the phone was lost that they had in their possession a 'found' phone.
If they had made that minimal effort or... done the legally correct action of simply *GIVING* the phone to the barkeeper in the first place then the next morning the Apple employee would have dropped by before work and picked up the phone he forgot on the bar.
Taking it home and not telling anyone isn't making a minimal effort.
If I can BMW's customer service line and tell them I found a super secret BMW prototype the guy in India isn't going to be trained or have any method of getting a hold of the CEO than you or I. Apple is so insular that most Apple employees don't even know what the new iPhone looks like.
And what do you think happens to things in the lost and found if no one claims them after a few days? Oh, that's right, the employees take them.
And
The wallet has been mislaid rather than lost
is the most bullshit excuse ever to try to blame someone when someone else is irresponsible with their property.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
If you take something that doesn't belong to you then you have committed a crime.
Taking from someone is entirely different from picking something up that is sitting there without an owner. If I leave a bottle of Coke on your door are you seriously going to claim it's theft if you drink it? Of course not. This is nothing but Apple fanboys who are pissed that the Lord Jobs isn't as good at keeping things secret as you want to believe he is.
If someone breaks into your house and steals all your property, we aren't going to blame you for having inadequate security. That includes if "breaking in" means "walking in the front door that you left unlocked."
Actually the overwhelming majority of people WOULD blame you for being a moron and leaving the door unlocked. As another person stated, there's no guarantee that your insurance company will cover it if you leave the door unlocked. However, someone walking in to your house (even if the door is unlocked) isn't even close to picking up something that's left on a table or on the ground. You claiming that taking a phone left in a bar is theft is like the morons who try to claim downloading an mp3 is theft.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
And it's the trolls with mod-points like you who have taken slashdot from a place where intelligent people could have discussions to a site that's not much better than /b/.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I call bullshit on your reference to Rockstar "getting a journalist fired". It was Zoo Weekly that fired him. And if true, it was Zoo Weekly that accepted cash for positive reviews. It was Zoo Weekly that had a lack of morals. You can't fault Rockstar for wanting to pay for positive advertisements, just as you can't fault Rockstar for being upset about a negative review. Next time apply blame where blame is due--on Zoo weekly.
Camping on quad since 1996.
And what do you think happens to things in the lost and found if no one claims them after a few days? Oh, that's right, the employees take them.
So since employees after XXX days can legally take them, or if employees steal them before the legally mandated waiting period is up, it's ok for you or I to steal it? I'm sorry. I didn't realize "But officer if I didn't steal that unlocked car, someone else surely would have!" was a legally defensible position.
At the VERY LEAST the finder should have *notified* the bar owner that he had the phone and how to contact him.
As to "After a few days". In this case that's a moot point. The VERY NEXT DAY the owner of the iPhone returned to the bar and asked if anyone had found a mislaid iPhone. So unless the bartender stole the phone himself that very night the rightful owner, no matter how 'irresponsible' they were would have gotten their property back.
What's bullshit is saying that someone being forgetful means you can steal their property. I hope you set something down for a second turn around and it disappears. Should have kept it chained to your wrist!
Either way. Gizmodo purchased it knowing that either random guy at the bar or if it had been a employee that stole it... that it was stolen. So who stole it is irrelevant in this instance since Jason Chen purchased said stolen property.
I read the comment and I sense some crazy persons out here are almost ready to immolate the guy who reportedly "stole" the prototype in a bar.
Now just a little fictional tale I would like to share with you, it's kinda of a gamebook or a choose your own adventure book if you will.
You in a bar, with a friends drinking beers. You had a couple of pints and a couple of nerd arguments about [insert geeky topics] when all of a sudden you see the obnoxious guy with 2 chicks and 3 grammes of alcohol in each arm leaving the bar, forgetting something on the table. So you go over there to see and you SEE and Hold in your hand a prototype iPhone 4G.
Now tell me : what do you do ?
Shall you call upon the aforementioned drunk idiot to hand him over his prototype while both of you pray to steve ?
Or shall you keep it and intend to toy with it up until it is remotely locked ?
Quick think fast, the guy is moving away and it could get locked any time soon !
I hope at least some of you will think about it twice now before virtually sentencing the poor bastard to death.
Yeah, it's a problem, been one for a while now.
But what's with that dude posting an email from Rockstar? I'm not defending the email as such, it is bullshit. Posting it on ones Facebook profile is a very stupid thing to do though. Had he spent a little effort to anonymize that drivel he might have would have gotten away with plausible deniability..
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
Calling a tier 1 support line (probably located in Manila) and saying "we have your top secret prototype" probably isn't going to get the response you intended, unless your intended response was "it's not ours" so you can sell it.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Hehe yeah, that iPhone prototype could be anybody's!
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
Clones from Chinese knockoff companies are very easily identified as such. Plus they have less of a need for own prototypes (I don't know how far developed that particular prototype was).
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
Actually, it's trolls like you who are breaking Slashdot. Not that one person makes much difference. You're adding to the breakage because you're allowed to post more than people can down-mod you.
I mean, your post history is there for everyone to see, and it's not a pretty record - you obviously have morality and empathy issues.
So Apple's internal communication policies suck. Not his fault.
There's a drawback to everything being hush-hush.
No no, the parent's anecdote only said there is at least one person at Rockstar with a sense of entitlement that supersedes his or her sense of ethics, and at least one gaming journalist who's extremely stupid.
Extrapolating from those facts is left as an exercise for the reader, the game in question has nothing to do with it though.
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
Quite likely you'll find that the localised copy is written in one place by the employees of one company, and that the advertising is sold (and revenue received) by another company. True, both companies are themselves owned by an uber-company, but the system is designed to reduce conflicts of interest between the editorial side of the publication and the advertising side of the publication.
If you're in a "small country", then it's fairly possible that the two companies are based in different countries. The local editorial content (reviews, consumer advocacy, blah) is generated by a fairly small staff, but the advertising, quite likely the printing, and possibly some of the more international content comes from the multinational uber-company.
Contrary to the cynicism that a lot of other readers punt, this structure has been widely adopted in the print media for decades, in no small part because over the longer term advertisers and editorial staff both recognise that customers tend to re-visit publications that put a high value on their editorial independence. This is not to deny that clashes do happen - they do - but to stress that more mature media have developed techniques for reducing the frequency and severity of such clashes, while recognising that they are inevitable and actually good for the publication in the longer run.
It's likely that 17,348 separate SlashDotters will reply and regale me with tales of their miserable experiences. None of them will have got as far as reading this, but I'll waste electrons writing it nonetheless : firstly, a significant part of the computer press is not particularly "mature", especially parts that have come from web back into print media. This applies to both publications and individual "journalists". Secondly, I'm describing the situation I know in Europe - I don't know (or care much) about the situation in other countries media - if you don't like the media you get in in your home country, either import stuff that you do like, or move out. If you don't have those options, then you've likely got bigger problems.
(Caveat - I learned a lot about journalistic ethics and the "back room" organisation of news media from being friends with a British editor who spent a couple of decades in NZ and AU before returning to teach and practice journalism in Britain and Norway ; he tells me that the structures "down south" are broadly similar.)
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
It doesn't matter about the law here. It comes down to etiquette. Giz probably would have had a better deal for a scoop had they not torn it apart and posted the teardown online before they gave it back to Apple. You don't treat a company you want to be your friend that way. They should have known this was coming. Really they're just acting the victim because nothing since has brought them attention like this has.
You hold people's post in a webforum to the same standard as a newspaper?
Either you read very shoddy newspapers, or your everyday webbrowsing experience is a very very frustrating experience.
Be that as it may, communication has different modes, or levels, and it's a lot more productive to take the environment in which something was said into account when figuring out what was actually said.
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
I asked: "What makes you think that YOU have ANY right to touch it at all when it's not yours?" You give no answer. That's not unsurprising. I nearly didn't put the second question there it did cross my mind it would give you an opportunity to avoid the first.
You've noticed that people steal things. And you've noticed that in cases where things of value are planned to be left unattended they very often have locks on them. Given this is your only answer to my question about the car, one can conclude that it's perfectly OK if I take your car if you ever forget to lock it.
It's certainly a natural thing to blame yourself for being forgetful. But no one, even you, would not also place blame on the person that took your possessions as if they were his own. Surely you have the right to not have your property stolen from you?
Why, in your world, does the thief not also need to take responsibility for his actions?
I think we can all agree that whistleblowers are cowardly people who should be silenced at any cost and do not deserve to have jobs.
Until the police find you, idiot.
Or you hand it to the police as California civil law states, wait 60 days, and get it back legally if it isn't claimed by the owner.
Or you hand it back to the owner directly, get bought a beer, and actually feel good about your actions instead of a scummy anonymous troll who never washes, lives in their divorced mother's basement, and hears her bang a different dude every night whilst you masturbate over low bitrate porn videos.
It does have an owner. Unattended and ownerless in not the same thing. Well, not unless you have the morals of a thief.
The phone wasn't left on Hogan's door. He took it from a third party's premises. And the fact that you pick coke is just a matter of making the matter more petty. If you found a bottle of coke on your door, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a delivery, a gift, or deliberately discarded. And if it was none of those things, the value is so low that it'd be considered too petty to persue.
Again, the phone story doesn't match those circumstances in any way.
Which also doesn't match the circumstances in any way, not least because the act of copying a file doesn't deprive the original owner of that file.
Didn't take so long for you to give away the real reason for your support of the thief over the victim did it. The victim is someone/company you hate, therefore anything that hurts them is OK by you. And you'll twist your stated morality to accommodate. What a pathetic wretch of a human being you are.
My heart bleeds purple piss for them.
It's funny how Gizmodo are thrashing about looking for another dick to suck - since the whole stolen iPhone fiasco, their articles are noticeable more anti-Apple and more pro-Microsoft and pro-Google. It's funny/painful to watch.
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
Is it more or less unethical than apple itself? See here for instance - I suppose the early adopters as well as normal users of apple gadgetry should think twice about how cool their toys really are.
I think that Red Dead Redemption is the best game that has come out in a long time. It really got me hooked and I love it! However, it's very unethical of Rockstar to try to pressure reviewers into giving good reviews.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
A common problem, chinese knock-off companies building a superior product, and doing field testing in the USA. Looks like we really do have something to fear form these guys.
Is it more or less unethical than apple itself?
Ethics isn't an Olympic event. It doesn't matter which is "more" ethical. The example you're citing has no relevance to what we're talking about. In fact, the particular article you show, where everybody is given a significant raise, doesn't support your point very well. I think you were trying to blame Apple for suicides at a Foxconn manufacturing plant. Whether that's a fair accusation really isn't simple to answer, but regardless it doesn't make Gizmodo's behaviour any better.
ehh I think alot of "professional journalists" pay for stories, the thing is this case crosses a line that most people calling themselves journalists would not cross...
/create the story by the fact that the items of value change hands OR incite illegal activity.
But buttering up a source with dinner, etc is not unethical or unheard of even among "professional journalists". IMO its all about scale.. oddly enough thats how the law on the subject falls as well.. (i speak specifically about enticing someone to commit a crime via offering rewards/incentives). Its ok to discuss wanting something that someone else has.. its another entirely to do so with a known catburglar and imply/state that if it happens to come into the cat-burglar's possession that you would be happy to buy it from him.
Paying for stories follows a similar set of unwritten rules.. offering octomom a million dollars for the rights to her story.. is not unethical or illegal or even frowned upon EVEN by "serious journalists" every "exclusive" you see anywhere had some sort of quid pro quo exchange or understanding happen.. This is not just TMZ or "the insider", but the grey lady, the washington post, LA times, the major news networks etc.. they all do it.. and its fine.. As long as it doesn't color
Putting this all on "tabloids" and the sort of "celebrity gossip" shows like TMZ etc as "not real journalists" is not fair, or even true (outside of idealistic journalism students still in college)
No, the issue is that I have morality as opposed to your view where you think that you should be all powerful and control everyone's actions. A for empathy? Empathy plays no part in right or wrong and has no place in a serious discussion. It is a means of conning people into making the wrong decisions because "you're a bad person if you don't cry at this sob story that has no facts to support why you should do this". Using sob stories is the means of a person who has no ground to stand on.
I also find it amusing that, because I'm not a socialist moron, you try to claim I'm a "troll". Who's the one here who's had excellent karma for years? Right, that would be me - obviously not a troll. You on the other hand have an older account than mine, yet you still don't even rank a "good" karma - meaning that you have few, if any, posts that people have found worthwhile. The fact that I've had enough indisputably good points to earn excellent karma while refusing to submit to the socialist / communist hive-mind that is slashdot speaks volumes for the points I've made.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Now that Apple is the worlds largest tech company they probably will need to cut down a lot of secrete stuff nonsense. We all know there will be an other iPhone model. Or a new laptop even a new iPod... I think their last surprise was the Intel switch, other then that it was just normal upgrades. Even if apple says we are going to release a new iPhone at WWDC that will have a faster CPU and give some tech specs... It probably wont hurt Apple in the least. Even if it means selling the older models at a discount. Because right now Apple fans are waiting for the next upgrade to get a new version anyways.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The phone wasn't stolen until he sold it.
That's been covered a thousand times before.
Maybe you should think about it twice before assuming people don't know what they're talking about.
If you look at the relevant California law part of "reasonable effort" is giving it to the police, something that neither the person who found the device nor Gizmodo did:
California CIVIL CODE SECTION 2080-2080.10
2080.1. (a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the
property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the
property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more,
within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police
department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to
the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city
limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she
found or saved the property, particularly describing it. If the
property was saved, the affidavit shall state:
(1) From what and how it was saved.
(2) Whether the owner of the property is known to the affiant.
(3) That the affiant has not secreted, withheld, or disposed of
any part of the property.
(b) The police department or the sheriff's department shall notify
the owner, if his or her identity is reasonably ascertainable, that
it possesses the property and where it may be claimed. The police
department or sheriff's department may require payment by the owner
of a reasonable charge to defray costs of storage and care of the
property.
Sapere aude!
Not Apple! It looks like the DA is going after this, carefully but vigorously.
I am guessing Apple might like to make an example of the gizmo folks, and may have asked or applied some of its influence to the DA
Regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceedings, it would not be surprising at all, if Apple chooses to lob a ton of litigation at them, assuming they deem the expense worth it.
I assume the liability incurred by stealing a company's prototype, publishing trade secret information about it (illegally obtained trade secrets), and thereby seriously damaging the market for their existing product, resulting in tens or hundreds of millions in lost profits, may be huge.
For some reason I think Gizmo would have a hard time paying a $20 or $30 million judgement in Apple's favor
Most new hardware reviews, all read 100% identical. and I am certain that at least 90% of all the reviews are rehashes of the press releases and the "reviewer" never touched the device. Plus what is it with reviews that say they used the device for hours but only use the press release photos, never take their own. If they do that , then I give the reviewer 0% credibility. If a site (like Gizmodo) does this all the time, I give the entire place a 0% credibility.
I always wait for the real user reviews. Those actually have REAL content.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yet another fed up with BoingBoing. I would add that their censoring/mocking has an overwhelming stench of arrogance.
Many journalists were NOT invited.
Even Leo Laporte was not invitet.
it's only a gizmodo attempt at another "ME ME LOOK AT ME!!!!"
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Really? Can I buy that yet?
Remember, the world is full of scumbags that think a lost item is free for them to steal.
I'm not surprised by the guys response, it's a typical human scum-baggy though pattern.
My wife did a experiment for her Phyc classes in college...
They left wallets that looked real with a few dollars in cash and some fake ID info faked Credit cards and photos in public places and watched people. near 75% would open the wallet and take the cash from inside and put the wallet back or throw it on the floor. Less than 20% would take the wallet to the lost and found. the rest stole the wallets outright.
She lost a lot of respect for humanity with that project.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What about the daily Apple stories that go to other categories (Mobile, etc)?
It was more like this:
Me: Look everyone! This is Guy's suitcase of $20's!
Guy's Laywers: We want our suitcase back.
Me: Ok, but can you have Guy Himself tell the world it's his suitcase first?
mod me funny
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
California law is pretty straightforward about the fact that they don't play by "finders keepers, losers weepers" on the West Coast. Specifically, if you find someone's property, you're supposed to return it to them or turn it over to the police[1], you can't just do whatever you want with it. At the point at which the finder decided to sell it to the highest bidder, it becomes theft.
[1] - While not technically legit, nobody's gonna bust your chops if you just hand it over to the bartender or hostess and have the business hang onto it instead.
California law is a bit unusual in that it calls all kinds of things "theft" that have different names elsewhere. For example, if you rent a car, and don't return it, and the rental car company asks you to return it, and you keep it for another eleven days, then by California law it will be assumed that this was theft.
I'm sorry for the tangent, but what is this "usually" called? Because I'm pretty sure keeping a rental for like 2 weeks is going to get you into trouble anywhere.
This is the biggest game we’ve done since GTA IV, and is already receiving Game of the Year 2010 nominations from specialists all around the world.
Can you please ensure Toby’s article reflects this – he needs to respect the huge achievement he’s writing about here.
Exposing that is the ethical responsibility of anyone who reads it.
Hello, Devil's Advocate here, but couldn't he have just said (In his review) "On a side note: Despite being a total piece of shit in this reporter's opinion, RDR has inexplicably been nominated for GOTY. Go figure," and then launched into a withering commentary on the GOTY nomination process. All Rockstar asked for was a mention of their nomination, and that would have done it without painting them in any better light. Any journalist worth their salt should welcome the opportunity to oblige the letter of such a request while wiping their ass with the spirit of it. I don't think there is an "ethical responsibility" to alert the world that a company asked for a mention of their product's accolades. "Company X wants good press, asks for handout," shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone old enough to play a Rockstar game. If you want to shine a light on bad behavior, shine it on the people who granted the request: Where is the email from his boss telling him to turn in a fluff article or face termination? Does it even exist? That is the sort of behavior people need to be made aware of.
This is not about Apple's behavior. Gizmodo editors knowingly bought stolen property, refused to turn it over immediately, dissected it for their own commercial gain (and causing unknown damage), and tried to bater its return (ransom). I don't care who you are or what your motivations are, this is clearly unethical behavior. I've never seen Ars Technica do anything this greasy, so I'll continue to go there for tech reviews and avoid gizmodo.
Funny, I disagree with Gizmodo all the time and they haven't banned me yet. I took them to task several times for the way they hyped the iPad.
Maybe it's the way you do it?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Nobody mailed the wallets back to their supposed owners or tried to contact them via the info on the fake ID?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Well, considering it wasn't functional when Gizmodo got it, and it was in a older iphone case but didn't look right I would say that's enough reason to wonder who made it.
It's odd how they are banned from the event despite the fact that gizmodo is such an apple-lover-hugger. They should reconsider the god they pray to.
Red Dead doesn't allow you to play into your role though. You can literally slaughter an entire town, but walk up to the prostitute in game and he tells them he's married...
So I guess if your morals allow you to kill and drag innocent people through town as long as you don't commit adultery... whatever. I found it rather disappointing.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
It's called innocent until proven guilty.
That's kinda hard to claim when you actually admit to doing it, and have pictures of you doing it all over your website.
They had the Facebook page and contact info of the guy who actually lost it. A reasonable effort would have been contacting him and trying to return it. Calling AppleCare is not a reasonable effort.
That's kinda hard to claim when you actually admit to doing it, and have pictures of you doing it all over your website.
They admitted no crime and the pictures don't prove a crime.
Also, you don't get to decide if a crime was committed, the legal system does.
You hold people's post in a webforum to the same standard as a newspaper?
No.
Suggestion: actually read what I wrote.
Either you read very shoddy newspapers,
I have been known to occasionally read the crap put out by Newscorp, so you can draw your own conclusions.
It was remotely disabled by Apple before they got it. They tore some edges of the bills.
You're an idiot. Gizmodo paid for a stolen phone. Not just that, but a prototype phone full of trade secrets. They dismantled the phone, breaking it in the process. They then attempted to extort Apple before giving the phone back. These are all facts of public record, even fully admitted to by Gizmodo on their website.
And Apple can then add libel to the Gizmodo editors' rap sheet, and seek injunctions to take down gizmodo.com, in addition to the criminal charges?
The average person has to believe it could be true to be libel. Just ask Jerry Falwell.
Seriously, does anyone believe that a naked Steve Jobs coming out at WWDC as some promo for the iWall is in some way credible?
Steve Ballmer, on the other hand... ...nah, that's over the top even for him.
The property was never stolen in the common use of the term, any more than torrented DVD rips are. It was lost. While the law may have made it "stolen property" (and it isn't at all clear; only the criminal code section applies), it was never deliberately taken from anyone.
Then my work here is done!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
The 90's called, they want their "'x' called, they want their 'y' back" back.
(Enjoy the recursion.)
The recursion is broken. You didn't properly nest the quotes. :p
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Countersuggestion:
Instead of taking people's attention for granted, do something to capture it.
If you feel people don't read or understand what you are writing, it might be nice and comfy to blame them, but it's also pretty useless.
In the real world, people have things like reputation and academic titles to go on when deciding if and how to read something. That doesn't apply here, here, people only have content and it's presentation (which is an essential part of the content) to go on. Combined with an extremely large amount of messages to read.
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
They admitted no crime and the pictures don't prove a crime.
Bullshit. They said from day one they bought it from someone who "found" it at a bar, and those pictures definitely show them taking apart an iPhone 4. Their whole coverage of the thing was some damning evidence to be sure, and you'd have to be either an idiot or someone who really hates Apple or really loves Gizmodo to think otherwise.
If a major news source, like the NY Times (you know, a place where they actually care about journalistic integrity), the reporter who found it would have had to turn it in to Legal, who then would have turned it back over to Apple.
Its not like they denied credentials to the NYTimes.... there will be plenty of coverage of this event in the MSM, and I'm pretty sure Gawker/Gizmodo realized that it would be burning a very large bridge as the went ahead with the iphone story. The checkbook journalism is another strike against them, and doubly so for buying stolen property.
In general, Gizmodo has lost a lot of face, and they pretty much deserve it. This is going to be a good lesson to the up and coming journalism students/ soon-to-be-homeless
*sniff* I don't matter
This is the sig that says NI (again)
*sniff* I don't matter
There, there, don't feel so bad. I don't matter either--and I'm the one who posted the comment in the first place.
This ain't rocket surgery.
*dries tears* Thanks man, that makes me feel a lot better ;)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Hey, you're welcome. I'll buy you a beer next time you're in town.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Drinking a nice Belgian beer here right now called La Chouffe, really good herb beer :)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Sounds good to me.
You know, fifteen years ago I would have been embarrassed to offer someone from the Netherlands an American beer. Not any more. There are some outstanding beers brewed here now and my town, San Diego, hosts a number of very good craft breweries. Seriously, if you ever find yourself here, I will buy you a beer.
This ain't rocket surgery.
You know what, if I ever visit San Diego (or the USA for that matter) and I remember this, I will let you buy me a beer and I will bring this beer I just finished :)
(new bottles of course)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Of course it was deliberately taken from someone. Hogan didn't accidentally pick it up from the bar, nor accidentally sell it on. Yes, in the common use of the term, that's theft.
Deal. Best time to come in during the winter. The weather is great and all the people from Arizona who come here to escape the summer heat have gone home.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Countersuggestion:
Instead of taking people's attention for granted, do something to capture it.
If you feel people don't read or understand what you are writing, it might be nice and comfy to blame them, but it's also pretty useless.
In the real world, people have things like reputation and academic titles to go on when deciding if and how to read something. That doesn't apply here, here, people only have content and it's presentation (which is an essential part of the content) to go on. Combined with an extremely large amount of messages to read.
Well written, except you replied to my thread of messages without reading them fully. I know it may not capture your attention and I don't have a doctorate but when you chime in, you should ACTUALLY READ THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION.
Their whole coverage of the thing was some damning evidence to be sure, and you'd have to be either an idiot or someone who really hates Apple or really loves Gizmodo to think otherwise.
No, I just think you don't have all the evidence and you're not qualified to make any decision. We have a legal system for a reason, let it work.
It doesn't sound that farfetched to me...
If Slashdot posted it, along with a video of it, i'd probably believe it.
Now, if Gizmodo posted it, along with a video of it, I (1) would probably never see it, and (2) would doubt it, if I heard about it being a Gimodo posting.
But that's not because it's not a believable concept, it's just that I would only believe it from a news source I consider trustworthy.
The average person may consider Gizmodo trustworthy (not knowing about past fiascos)
I'm not even going to bother replying to your statement, because you'd just find another way to justify what that guy did. Honestly, he broke the law, and I'd be saying the same if it were a prototype for Microsoft, RIM, HTC, or even BMW under the same circumstances. You don't call an outsourcing firm who does tech support about a prototype device you found.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Reminds me of Supreme Commander 2. Its was 10.99 on stream this last weekend but the game has only been out a few months. All the revews I have read says it was good 80/100 and that its a good upgrade from the old version.
Its crap. The price drop even confirms this more than any IGN review can.
You just can't trust any reviews anymore:P
I hate Steve Jobs and Apple as much as the next rational human being, but I think you'll find that if you left your phone in a bar and I walked off with it, it would count as theft if I kept it.
"Finders keepers" is not how the law works, at least in the UK, and I would assume in the US too.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So if you happen to leave your car unlocked one day while you pop into a shop to buy a newspaper, and I steal your car, that's OK?
If you ;eave your back door on the latch while you mow the lawn, it's OK for me to sneak into your house and steal your TV?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
But it would be priceless to see Steve Jobs' face if they did it in the middle of his presentation.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I've got a modest proposal :
All Apple product release posts should focus primarily upon the latest tween toy trends like silly bandz.
For example, vajazzling discussion would have been the perfect accompaniment to the iPad release article here on slashdot.
I've observe this merger of topics keep discussions organized and focussed upon what matters most, and encourage slashdot users to submit and discuss accordingly.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Under California law, if you come into the possession of lost or stolen property, you have a legal duty to make reasonable efforts to return that property. If the phone was not stolen when it came into Brian Hogan's possession, then it became stolen when he refused to meet his obligations under the law, and attempted to sell it. Even if Brian Hogan had not succeeded in selling the phone, it would have still been stolen, as it was not his property to advertise for sale.