1) If they wiped the phone to protect private/confidential data it doesn't imply abandonment. They could, simply, have considered the information worth too much to risk it falling into the hands of the person that picked up/stole the phone.
2) Who says they had any clue where they lost the phone (assuming that the original story isn't a lie made up by the person who sold the phone to Gizmodo).
3) The newsworthiness of the article they purchased the phone to write is, solely, based on it being a real prototype 4G phone. They may have thought it possible that it was a fake, but they spent the money hoping it was real. In the event it was real, it would be unreasonable not to assume that it belonged to Apple.
4) That's certainly what the person who sold the, potentially, stolen property claimed when he sold it to them. If he had claimed it fell off the back of a truck, would you be stupid enough to just take his word for it?
There's nothing "creative" about the law being used here. These kinds of laws have been part of common law for a very long time. In fact, they're probably some of the oldest laws we have. And, for the last time, APPLE ISN'T DOING THIS, IT'S A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BEING CONDUCTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. Since you are, obviously, incapable of differentiating between a criminal case and a civil case I think it's, probably, a waste of time to try explaining this to you.
Hahaha, you don't seriously think that the phone was worth $5000 just because that's what Gizmodo payed for it do you? A pre-production product like that could be worth a MASSIVE amount of money when you take into account the economic harm it can do to Apple should their competition get a look at it and be able to emulate any new features before Apple even releases it to the public. It's called a trade secret for a reason, and can represent a huge amount of money for mass market products like cutting edge cell phones.
Yea, that's a nice opinion, but if California state law disagrees with you (which I've heard it does) then you're full of crap. My understanding is that, in most place in the U.S. you are responsible for taking it to the police and letting them search for the rightful owner. In some places, should they not be able to find the owner, it MIGHT revert back to you. In this case, it was, extremely, clear that this was the property of Apple. The reporter claims that the guy he purchased it from said he tried to contact Apple about it but they ignored him. That's second hand information with nothing suggesting it's not just a lie since common sense should tell you that Apple would want it back badly.
In this case, as far as I can see (I too am not a lawyer), the journalism laws don't apply here. Those laws seem to only protect journalist sources of information. He didn't receive information from his source, he purchased what seems to be stolen property. Information != property, especially if the law, directly, says "information".
Heck, they may not even be looking for evidence of the source (though they probably are). All they need to be doing is looking for evidence to nail HIM for knowingly purchasing stolen property. They outright admit they spent $5000 for the phone and the whole article is based on the premise that Apple didn't intend to loose possession of the phone.
If the judge says they can, then yes. Evidence is evidence, regardless of whether it's owned by the suspect or by someone else. If the police have a good enough reason to suspect that a friend of yours used your computer to commit a crime that they can get a judge to sign off on the warrant, then you, probably, won't be seeing you computer for a while. (disclaimer, IANAL)
Actually, from what I understand, California law states that it is illegal for someone to find something off the street, take it as their own, and then sell it (in other words, what I've heard is that there is no "finders keepers" right in California, at least if you don't bother to let the police look for the true owner first). Supposedly, it becomes extra illegal if you have good reason to believe that it's owned by someone else but don't try to return it (of which there is, supposedly, no evidence in this case). As should be common sense, since it's illegal to sell something you found if you have reason to believe it belongs to someone then it's also illegal to buy something from someone when you have reason to believe they aren't the legal owner. In this case, both the person selling it and Gizmodo had every reason to believe that the phone was the rightful property of Apple. In fact, the only reason their story could be considered newsworthy was if it had left the possession of Apple unintentionally. It seems, to me, like a slam dunk that Gizmodo broke the law. They're trying to defend themselves by claiming that they have a right to gather news from anonymous sources based on a previous court case but this is totally different from the case I heard about. In the previous case I heard mentioned, the news agency only received information, not property and didn't even pay money for it. As far as I can see, both of those are major differences that make comparing the two cases like comparing apples and oranges. We'll see how this goes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up spending some time in California "pound me in the ass" prison.
That's easy, the best seating arrangement is in a ring around my desk with their backs turned towards me so I can watch their monitors, at all times, and make sure they aren't doing anything other than coding. The best seats are backless stools with only one or two legs so they can't relax/loose focus without falling over.
Here's an interesting question. Lets say it were money that I had embezzled from my company and then invested wisely for a few years before they found out and had me charged with a crime. (I'm using embezzlement because it's closer to the present case than simple theft as embezzling implies that you were given the right to manage the money with the clear expectation that you would only use it for certain things but did other things with it to benefit yourself). Should I get to keep the returns I received on the money while it was in my possession? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that all that ill gotten gain would go back to the company I embezzled the money from. In this case, it would make perfect sense to me that the tribe should get full ownership of all the IP created from the use of the DNA and have the right to demand that all journals or other publications that printed anything based on the study of that DNA cease printing/distributing that information.
I have glasses (relatively large frames too) and have never had a problem getting the 3d glasses to fit over my normal frames. For home use, you could also get clip-ons.
Yes, it only works if you keep your eyes in a specific position relative to the screen. This is much easier for people playing a hand-held gaming system.
I think this guy is right. There should be a class on this. I even have a name suggestion:
Anthropology 150: The UFO Phenomenon as a Study in Mass Delusion
Re:Ah, so it is the bias, not the money you object
on
How Did Wikileaks Do It?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Personally, I may not agree with their interpretation of the issue but what makes them different (and, in my opinion, important) is that, regardless of any editorial they may add to the story, they always post all the original material they receive unedited. As long as they do that, I can view it myself and develop my own opinion. What the mainstream media and the military do is highly limit your direct access to the original evidence then tell you to "trust us" that they are giving you an honest description. As this case, and other such as the death of Pat Tillman, the military has proven that, as an organization, they are pathological liers that cannot be trusted.
Yes, we should redistribute the wealth and pass out the atoms. We can use nuclear fission to break them down so they go farther. It is Russia after all, they know all about redistribution of wealth.
When the communication industry started making use of highly limited public resources (bandwidth for wireless communications and public easements for wired communications) and started requiring monumental outlays of money to enter the market as a competitor. When those two thing happened, it broke what would, otherwise, have been a healthy open market and turned it into an, effective, cartel where the defacto inability of competitor to enter the market gave the companies involved the power to run rough-shod over the consumers. When did all this happen you might ask? From the very beginning. That's why the FCC was created in the first place and why it needs to keep existing.
While the rest of the industrialized world has long since passed us in telecommunications build-out, our present industries have spent decades chocking progress to squeeze as much money out of their, effectively, captive audience while they are dragged kicking and screaming through the process of upgrading their networks and lowering their prices by major incidents like the AT&T/iPhone fiasco and by, up until now, the FCC. Since telecommunications, like roadways and railroad lines, are core infrastructure components in modern society, this serves to put the rest of the entire US economy at a disadvantage to all the other countrys that have their telecommunication acts together.
I don't think sticking the severed finger in a microwave or oven constitutes "Hollywood methods". It's pretty intuitive and a lot faster/more convenient than a loud/long process of torturing someone.
I tend to think it's fair to collect it from people who are arrested, but only if it is destroyed automatically if they aren't convicted in a certain amount of time afterword. The problem is that the US government (along with state and local authorities have proven themselves incapable of deleting any data once hey have their hands on it).
Also, the number of Carribean pirates has dropped since the 1800's. Obviously, it's the lack of pirates that is causing global temperatures to increase.
Nah, you only get a Darwin award if you do society a favor by killing your dumb self off _before_ reproducing (thus taking your genes out of the pool). Not only does this situation, explicitly, require them to have had children, it also means that they have, directly, done society a dis-service by increasing the chances of other children getting sick because they're too stupid to get their child immunized.
Because, if it were true then the drug's manufacturer would be, directly, responsible for the child's medical condition and would have to compensate the parents.
Slashdot Mirror
1) If they wiped the phone to protect private/confidential data it doesn't imply abandonment. They could, simply, have considered the information worth too much to risk it falling into the hands of the person that picked up/stole the phone.
2) Who says they had any clue where they lost the phone (assuming that the original story isn't a lie made up by the person who sold the phone to Gizmodo).
3) The newsworthiness of the article they purchased the phone to write is, solely, based on it being a real prototype 4G phone. They may have thought it possible that it was a fake, but they spent the money hoping it was real. In the event it was real, it would be unreasonable not to assume that it belonged to Apple.
4) That's certainly what the person who sold the, potentially, stolen property claimed when he sold it to them. If he had claimed it fell off the back of a truck, would you be stupid enough to just take his word for it?
There's nothing "creative" about the law being used here. These kinds of laws have been part of common law for a very long time. In fact, they're probably some of the oldest laws we have. And, for the last time, APPLE ISN'T DOING THIS, IT'S A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BEING CONDUCTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. Since you are, obviously, incapable of differentiating between a criminal case and a civil case I think it's, probably, a waste of time to try explaining this to you.
Hahaha, you don't seriously think that the phone was worth $5000 just because that's what Gizmodo payed for it do you? A pre-production product like that could be worth a MASSIVE amount of money when you take into account the economic harm it can do to Apple should their competition get a look at it and be able to emulate any new features before Apple even releases it to the public. It's called a trade secret for a reason, and can represent a huge amount of money for mass market products like cutting edge cell phones.
"Losers weepers; finder's keepers.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law.
Abandoned property belongs to nobody."
Yea, that's a nice opinion, but if California state law disagrees with you (which I've heard it does) then you're full of crap. My understanding is that, in most place in the U.S. you are responsible for taking it to the police and letting them search for the rightful owner. In some places, should they not be able to find the owner, it MIGHT revert back to you. In this case, it was, extremely, clear that this was the property of Apple. The reporter claims that the guy he purchased it from said he tried to contact Apple about it but they ignored him. That's second hand information with nothing suggesting it's not just a lie since common sense should tell you that Apple would want it back badly.
In this case, as far as I can see (I too am not a lawyer), the journalism laws don't apply here. Those laws seem to only protect journalist sources of information. He didn't receive information from his source, he purchased what seems to be stolen property. Information != property, especially if the law, directly, says "information".
Heck, they may not even be looking for evidence of the source (though they probably are). All they need to be doing is looking for evidence to nail HIM for knowingly purchasing stolen property. They outright admit they spent $5000 for the phone and the whole article is based on the premise that Apple didn't intend to loose possession of the phone.
If the judge says they can, then yes. Evidence is evidence, regardless of whether it's owned by the suspect or by someone else. If the police have a good enough reason to suspect that a friend of yours used your computer to commit a crime that they can get a judge to sign off on the warrant, then you, probably, won't be seeing you computer for a while. (disclaimer, IANAL)
Actually, from what I understand, California law states that it is illegal for someone to find something off the street, take it as their own, and then sell it (in other words, what I've heard is that there is no "finders keepers" right in California, at least if you don't bother to let the police look for the true owner first). Supposedly, it becomes extra illegal if you have good reason to believe that it's owned by someone else but don't try to return it (of which there is, supposedly, no evidence in this case). As should be common sense, since it's illegal to sell something you found if you have reason to believe it belongs to someone then it's also illegal to buy something from someone when you have reason to believe they aren't the legal owner. In this case, both the person selling it and Gizmodo had every reason to believe that the phone was the rightful property of Apple. In fact, the only reason their story could be considered newsworthy was if it had left the possession of Apple unintentionally. It seems, to me, like a slam dunk that Gizmodo broke the law. They're trying to defend themselves by claiming that they have a right to gather news from anonymous sources based on a previous court case but this is totally different from the case I heard about. In the previous case I heard mentioned, the news agency only received information, not property and didn't even pay money for it. As far as I can see, both of those are major differences that make comparing the two cases like comparing apples and oranges. We'll see how this goes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up spending some time in California "pound me in the ass" prison.
That's easy, the best seating arrangement is in a ring around my desk with their backs turned towards me so I can watch their monitors, at all times, and make sure they aren't doing anything other than coding. The best seats are backless stools with only one or two legs so they can't relax/loose focus without falling over.
WHAT!? My employees love me!
Here's an interesting question. Lets say it were money that I had embezzled from my company and then invested wisely for a few years before they found out and had me charged with a crime. (I'm using embezzlement because it's closer to the present case than simple theft as embezzling implies that you were given the right to manage the money with the clear expectation that you would only use it for certain things but did other things with it to benefit yourself). Should I get to keep the returns I received on the money while it was in my possession? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that all that ill gotten gain would go back to the company I embezzled the money from. In this case, it would make perfect sense to me that the tribe should get full ownership of all the IP created from the use of the DNA and have the right to demand that all journals or other publications that printed anything based on the study of that DNA cease printing/distributing that information.
I have glasses (relatively large frames too) and have never had a problem getting the 3d glasses to fit over my normal frames. For home use, you could also get clip-ons.
Yes, it only works if you keep your eyes in a specific position relative to the screen. This is much easier for people playing a hand-held gaming system.
I think this guy is right. There should be a class on this. I even have a name suggestion:
Anthropology 150: The UFO Phenomenon as a Study in Mass Delusion
Personally, I may not agree with their interpretation of the issue but what makes them different (and, in my opinion, important) is that, regardless of any editorial they may add to the story, they always post all the original material they receive unedited. As long as they do that, I can view it myself and develop my own opinion. What the mainstream media and the military do is highly limit your direct access to the original evidence then tell you to "trust us" that they are giving you an honest description. As this case, and other such as the death of Pat Tillman, the military has proven that, as an organization, they are pathological liers that cannot be trusted.
Nonsense! That would never work.
Yes, we should redistribute the wealth and pass out the atoms. We can use nuclear fission to break them down so they go farther. It is Russia after all, they know all about redistribution of wealth.
When the communication industry started making use of highly limited public resources (bandwidth for wireless communications and public easements for wired communications) and started requiring monumental outlays of money to enter the market as a competitor. When those two thing happened, it broke what would, otherwise, have been a healthy open market and turned it into an, effective, cartel where the defacto inability of competitor to enter the market gave the companies involved the power to run rough-shod over the consumers. When did all this happen you might ask? From the very beginning. That's why the FCC was created in the first place and why it needs to keep existing.
While the rest of the industrialized world has long since passed us in telecommunications build-out, our present industries have spent decades chocking progress to squeeze as much money out of their, effectively, captive audience while they are dragged kicking and screaming through the process of upgrading their networks and lowering their prices by major incidents like the AT&T/iPhone fiasco and by, up until now, the FCC. Since telecommunications, like roadways and railroad lines, are core infrastructure components in modern society, this serves to put the rest of the entire US economy at a disadvantage to all the other countrys that have their telecommunication acts together.
I don't think sticking the severed finger in a microwave or oven constitutes "Hollywood methods". It's pretty intuitive and a lot faster/more convenient than a loud/long process of torturing someone.
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to sign up for your newsletter.
The only problem with their design is that you have to spend half an hour staring, directly, at the noon day sun in order to charge them up.
What about Bob?
Yes, it does for any problem more complex than your, over-simplified, example.
I tend to think it's fair to collect it from people who are arrested, but only if it is destroyed automatically if they aren't convicted in a certain amount of time afterword. The problem is that the US government (along with state and local authorities have proven themselves incapable of deleting any data once hey have their hands on it).
Also, the number of Carribean pirates has dropped since the 1800's. Obviously, it's the lack of pirates that is causing global temperatures to increase.
Nah, you only get a Darwin award if you do society a favor by killing your dumb self off _before_ reproducing (thus taking your genes out of the pool). Not only does this situation, explicitly, require them to have had children, it also means that they have, directly, done society a dis-service by increasing the chances of other children getting sick because they're too stupid to get their child immunized.
Because, if it were true then the drug's manufacturer would be, directly, responsible for the child's medical condition and would have to compensate the parents.