I used to teach. Stories like this make me want to rend my clothes, wear sackcloth, throw ashes in my hair and run through the streets of Austin screaming, "Repent, repent, for Judgement is at hand!"
When Geordi LaForge is taking Advanced Warp Field Theory at Starfleet Academy, when the Narn and the Centauri are running student exchange programs, it will still be "Newton's time."
When we get the Grand Unification Theory and we're about to Ascend beyond the Stargates we've planted all over, we're still going to teach Newton as a rough-and-ready method for most mundane physics and as a precursor for what came next.
Have you heard about this newfangled math called calculus?
BTW, I'm a Christian too, and excuse me as I go repent of the anger in my heart toward this comment, and beg your forgiveness for the snark in this reply.
[McCarthy is dragging yet another random name from the List, when Head Counsel for the Army Joseph Welch responds.]
"Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us. Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale and Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think that I am a gentle man but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me. "
When McCarthy tried to go on the attack once more, Welch stepped in again and famously rebuked:
" Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Where do you think your child will be living in 15 years? The problem with your "my-kid-will-be-one-eyed-in-the-land-of-the-blind" theory is that those blind people all get a vote on where to point the steering wheel. When they vote to drive the car off a cliff, your daughter and mine will be trapped in the car with them.
Sure, maybe her superior education will make her captain of the ship, but that's not gonna help her much when the crew starts setting explosives against the hull down in the hold because "metal ships are not mentioned in the Bible and are therefore an abomination before the Lord..."
You're arguing that an educated woman in Afghanistan is doing great because she's more employable than the Taliban.
Reasonable discussion isn't going to cut it any more. A woman who home-schooled her children because, and I'm quoting exactly here, sending them to public education would be "throwing them into the enemy's flames," i.e. damning them to Hell, has gotten some control over the Texas Board of Education. It's time to unleash the awesome power of ridicule.
Seriously. Look at the proposed changes from the article:
...sidelining Thomas Jefferson, who favoured separation of church and state, while introducing a new focus on the "significant contributions" of pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the civil war.
Study of Sir Isaac Newton is dropped in favour of examining scientific advances through military technology.
a suggestion that the anti-communist witch-hunt by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s may have been justified.
One curriculum amendment describes the civil rights movement as creating "unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes" among minorities.
...drop[ping] references to the slave trade in favour of calling it the more innocuous "Atlantic triangular trade"
Two years ago, [Dunbar] published a book, One Nation Under God, in which she argued that the United States was ultimately governed by the scriptures.
Dunbar says these are important steps to overturning what she believes is the myth of a separation between church and state in the US.
Among the advisers the board brought in to help rewrite the curriculum is David Barton, the leader of WallBuilders which seeks to promote religion in history. Barton has campaigned against the separation of church and state. He argues that income tax should be abolished because it contradicts the bible.
These are not the crackpot fringe. These are people in charge of educating the children of one of the country's largest populations, and who influence education thoughout the country.
We're beyond rational discussion here. Reasonable debate only works when both sides are intellectually honest. How about we begin with Harvard, Princeton, Caltech and MIT dropping all applications from students educated in Texas out of hand? I mean, surely no REAL American would want to send their kid to California or the bastions of the Liberal Elite to be educated?
The dispersant Corexit is itself toxic, which means BP is adding more poison to hide the first.
The one great advantage of Corexit, however, is that it makes the oil sink below view, so BP is literally hoping, like a naughty toddler, that out of sight means out of mind. A few weeks from now, when dead fish begin piling up on the shore and people ask "What's up with all the stinking fish?" you can depend on Pat Robertson to blame the homosexuals, Sarah Palin to blame the liberals and Fox news to report on the new terrorist attack on the Gulf.
And we'll believe it.
But, Dear God, I hope not. As much as I hate to say it, I think the previous vicious AC poster is right -- killing the Gulf of Mexico might be the only thing that gets our attention and forces us to make better choices.
The dispersant Corexit is itself toxic, which means BP is adding more poison to hide the first.
The one great advantage of Corexit, however, is that it makes the oil sink below view, so BP is literally hoping, like a naughty toddler, that out of sight means out of mind. A few weeks from now, when dead fish begin piling up on the shore and people ask "What's up with all the stinking fish?" you can depend on Pat Robertson to blame the homosexuals, Sarah Palin to blame the liberals and Fox news to report on the new terrorist attack on the Gulf.
And we'll believe it.
But, Dear God, I hope not. As much as I hate to say it, I think the previous vicious AC poster is right -- killing the Gulf of Mexico might be the only thing that gets our attention and forces us to make better choices.
"The San Francisco Bay Area, also commonly known as the Bay Area, is a metropolitan region that surrounds the San Francisco and San Pablo estuaries in Northern California. It encompasses the metropolitan areas of San Francisco (12th largest in the country) and San Jose (31st largest in the country), as well as four other smaller, surrounding metropolitan areas. "
But yeah, I get your point. You think Oakland shouldn't enjoy the same protection of the Law that Marin does.
One, that makes you a lousy American and a low human being, and Two, fortunately the Supreme Court disagrees with you:
"Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building, it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists...it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status."
Lewis Powell, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court Justice
It's not that "Life isn't fair." It's that people like you make it unfair.
We don't accept "secret" evidence in this country. If you make a complaint to the police, and they get a warrant based on that complaint, then both the complaint and warrant should be a matter of public record, as the judge just affirmed.
Apple, legally, isn't allowed to demand the return of "stolen" property without publicly stating the phone is theirs.
Which is exactly why the judge unsealed the warrant.
Apple is still allowed to lie to the public about it.
[Gizmodo] can't base their refusal to return the phone to Apple on a statement that they know is false.
Yeah, here's our problem. If Apple is allowed to lie, then so is the publication. If Apple can lie and so the phone is not theirs, then the publication can lie and say they take Apple at their word. The phone is not Apple's.
Of course, here's the real problem between you and me:
Apple is still allowed to lie to the public about it.
When did we lose the battle so badly that we don't even think corporations have an obligation to be truthful?
Corporations, enjoying special tax considerations and the corporate veil that are given to them at the expense of the public, do not have the right to lie to the same people they owe their very existence to.
"Apple is still allowed to lie to the public about it," is the sort of thinking that floods the Gulf of Mexico with oil.
Both people and corporations have an obligation to be truthful in their public lives.
Apple can tell Gizmodo privately that the phone is theirs, yet deny publicly that any such conversation took place, or that they lost the phone. That public denial does nothing in this case, because Gizmodo knew that the phone was Apple's, as shown by their actions and statements elsewhere. They can't justify keeping the phone on the basis of that public denial, because they know that the denial is false.
Yeah, except that when you're dealing with the press, there's no such thing as "off-the-record" unless the reporter agrees it is. Under your plan "publicly deny, privately demand," Apple is free to take the phone and then sue the publication for libel. Apple is well-known for aggressive, punitive lawsuits.
Apple's filing would go something like this. "By claiming we lost a billion dollar prototype, the publication is suggesting our R&D department is irresponsible and untrustworthy and is therefore harming our stock price..."
Since truth is the ultimate defense against libel, the publication is well within their rights to document all of their transactions with Apple, including the return of the phone. Cameras on.
"Here's the phone. Would you like us to give it to you?"
"Yes, give it here."
"Is this your property?"
"No, that's not ours."
"OK. Fair enough. We'll keep our shiny new phone."
Apple are perfectly within their rights to publicly deny that the phone is theirs, and privately tell you that the phone is theirs and demand that you return it.
You're arguing for the right to lie while initiating a legal proceeding, which is problematic at best. If corporations have a right to lie in a public forum, then NOTHING they say should be trusted and pretty much every other office should be filled with a regulator to prove every nickel and track every bit of industrial waste.
But I can see the argument that you have the obligation to return found property to the police.
This is a computer/tech crimes task force, investigating the possible theft, sale, and damage of a prototype of an electronic device that generates billions of dollars a year in revenue for the company involved.
A task force specifically created to investigate crimes against large corporations?
But you think theft(and this is, according to the law, theft-- even if Hogen didn't slip it out of the guys back pocket) shouldn't be enforced until... all violent crime is solved?
Funny, that's exactly what the cops told me. "We can't investigate the theft of your car, we're too busy chasing murderers."
They told a buddy of mine, "We can't investigate the burglary of your house, we're too busy chasing rapists."
They told a woman I know, while she was still in the emergency room, "We can't enforce your restraining order, we're too busy chasing murderers."
Following each excessive force complaint, the cops reflexively claim, "We don't have time to mess around and be polite. We're chasing killers."
So, yeah, the cops exactly argue they shouldn't investigate theft until all violent crime has been solved.
All the cops in your town could pay back your contributions to their salary by skipping morning coffee.
For Steve Jobs? Not so much.
For Apple? Even less
Justice is for those who can afford it?
"Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building, it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists...it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status."
Villians? Villians is a bit strong. Did they tie Pauline to the train tracks?
Here's my problem. Trade secrets are a game. If you don't patent and publish, then it's up to you to keep your mouth shut and your stuff under wraps. You fumble the ball, feel free to deny, equivocate, disinform, whatever you want, but play the game.
What has me unhappy with Apple right now is that they apparently have a pet police force at their beck and call. Cops in San Jose and San Francisco routinely, constantly cry that they don't have the resources to investigate violent crime. If you get robbed, raped or murdered around there, good luck. Maybe they'll send someone out, if they can squeeze you in. There are literally thousands of backlogged rape kits to be processed.
But, Holy Crap, if Apple loses a cell phone in a bar, the SWAT team is on the way!
It's not so much that I care about the iPhone. I'm angered at the vastly improper set of police priorities.
Reading the affidavit, the thing that disturbs me most is that Apple seems to have pet police detectives at their beck and call. The affidavit basically says "Apple wants to search this guy's place and take everything there, right down to any credit cards they find."
We can't even get the cops to investigate half of the violent crimes reported, but we're willing to call in SWAT to keep Steve Jobs' "Oh, and one more thing" moment in tact?
How about this? How about we let the police detectives focus on the mountain of unsolved violent crimes around San Francisco, and Steve, for your moment in the Sun, just hold up the phone and say, "Hey, look what we found in a bar!"
It'll be a big laugh, and some bloody victim will thank you for it.
Receipts are common and sensible when passing items of value. You don't want Apple coming back the day after you gave it to them saying "You still haven't given us the phone..."
Heinrich Kramer, the man most directly responsible for touching off witch panics in Europe from 1487 forward through both his personal actions and his witch-hunting text "Malleus Maleficarum."
19 men on September 11, 2001
The list could be lengthened and debated endlessly...
Slashdot Mirror
I used to teach. Stories like this make me want to rend my clothes, wear sackcloth, throw ashes in my hair and run through the streets of Austin screaming, "Repent, repent, for Judgement is at hand!"
Maybe Texas did, but they were wrong.
When Geordi LaForge is taking Advanced Warp Field Theory at Starfleet Academy, when the Narn and the Centauri are running student exchange programs, it will still be "Newton's time."
When we get the Grand Unification Theory and we're about to Ascend beyond the Stargates we've planted all over, we're still going to teach Newton as a rough-and-ready method for most mundane physics and as a precursor for what came next.
Have you heard about this newfangled math called calculus?
BTW, I'm a Christian too, and excuse me as I go repent of the anger in my heart toward this comment, and beg your forgiveness for the snark in this reply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_N._Welch
[McCarthy is dragging yet another random name from the List, when Head Counsel for the Army Joseph Welch responds.]
"Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us. Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale and Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think that I am a gentle man but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me. "
When McCarthy tried to go on the attack once more, Welch stepped in again and famously rebuked:
" Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
McCarthy had none. Apparently, neither do you.
Grasshoppa,
Where do you think your child will be living in 15 years? The problem with your "my-kid-will-be-one-eyed-in-the-land-of-the-blind" theory is that those blind people all get a vote on where to point the steering wheel. When they vote to drive the car off a cliff, your daughter and mine will be trapped in the car with them.
Sure, maybe her superior education will make her captain of the ship, but that's not gonna help her much when the crew starts setting explosives against the hull down in the hold because "metal ships are not mentioned in the Bible and are therefore an abomination before the Lord..."
You're arguing that an educated woman in Afghanistan is doing great because she's more employable than the Taliban.
Reasonable discussion isn't going to cut it any more. A woman who home-schooled her children because, and I'm quoting exactly here, sending them to public education would be "throwing them into the enemy's flames," i.e. damning them to Hell, has gotten some control over the Texas Board of Education. It's time to unleash the awesome power of ridicule.
Seriously. Look at the proposed changes from the article:
These are not the crackpot fringe. These are people in charge of educating the children of one of the country's largest populations, and who influence education thoughout the country.
We're beyond rational discussion here. Reasonable debate only works when both sides are intellectually honest. How about we begin with Harvard, Princeton, Caltech and MIT dropping all applications from students educated in Texas out of hand? I mean, surely no REAL American would want to send their kid to California or the bastions of the Liberal Elite to be educated?
The dispersant Corexit is itself toxic, which means BP is adding more poison to hide the first.
The one great advantage of Corexit, however, is that it makes the oil sink below view, so BP is literally hoping, like a naughty toddler, that out of sight means out of mind. A few weeks from now, when dead fish begin piling up on the shore and people ask "What's up with all the stinking fish?" you can depend on Pat Robertson to blame the homosexuals, Sarah Palin to blame the liberals and Fox news to report on the new terrorist attack on the Gulf.
And we'll believe it.
But, Dear God, I hope not. As much as I hate to say it, I think the previous vicious AC poster is right -- killing the Gulf of Mexico might be the only thing that gets our attention and forces us to make better choices.
The dispersant Corexit is itself toxic, which means BP is adding more poison to hide the first.
The one great advantage of Corexit, however, is that it makes the oil sink below view, so BP is literally hoping, like a naughty toddler, that out of sight means out of mind. A few weeks from now, when dead fish begin piling up on the shore and people ask "What's up with all the stinking fish?" you can depend on Pat Robertson to blame the homosexuals, Sarah Palin to blame the liberals and Fox news to report on the new terrorist attack on the Gulf.
And we'll believe it.
But, Dear God, I hope not. As much as I hate to say it, I think the previous vicious AC poster is right -- killing the Gulf of Mexico might be the only thing that gets our attention and forces us to make better choices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area
"The San Francisco Bay Area, also commonly known as the Bay Area, is a metropolitan region that surrounds the San Francisco and San Pablo estuaries in Northern California. It encompasses the metropolitan areas of San Francisco (12th largest in the country) and San Jose (31st largest in the country), as well as four other smaller, surrounding metropolitan areas. "
But yeah, I get your point. You think Oakland shouldn't enjoy the same protection of the Law that Marin does.
One, that makes you a lousy American and a low human being, and Two, fortunately the Supreme Court disagrees with you:
"Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building, it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists...it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status."
Lewis Powell, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court Justice
It's not that "Life isn't fair." It's that people like you make it unfair.
We don't accept "secret" evidence in this country. If you make a complaint to the police, and they get a warrant based on that complaint, then both the complaint and warrant should be a matter of public record, as the judge just affirmed.
Apple, legally, isn't allowed to demand the return of "stolen" property without publicly stating the phone is theirs.
Which is exactly why the judge unsealed the warrant.
Apple is still allowed to lie to the public about it.
[Gizmodo] can't base their refusal to return the phone to Apple on a statement that they know is false.
Yeah, here's our problem. If Apple is allowed to lie, then so is the publication. If Apple can lie and so the phone is not theirs, then the publication can lie and say they take Apple at their word. The phone is not Apple's.
Of course, here's the real problem between you and me:
Apple is still allowed to lie to the public about it.
When did we lose the battle so badly that we don't even think corporations have an obligation to be truthful?
Corporations, enjoying special tax considerations and the corporate veil that are given to them at the expense of the public, do not have the right to lie to the same people they owe their very existence to.
"Apple is still allowed to lie to the public about it," is the sort of thinking that floods the Gulf of Mexico with oil.
Both people and corporations have an obligation to be truthful in their public lives.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Apple can tell Gizmodo privately that the phone is theirs, yet deny publicly that any such conversation took place, or that they lost the phone. That public denial does nothing in this case, because Gizmodo knew that the phone was Apple's, as shown by their actions and statements elsewhere. They can't justify keeping the phone on the basis of that public denial, because they know that the denial is false.
Yeah, except that when you're dealing with the press, there's no such thing as "off-the-record" unless the reporter agrees it is. Under your plan "publicly deny, privately demand," Apple is free to take the phone and then sue the publication for libel. Apple is well-known for aggressive, punitive lawsuits.
Apple's filing would go something like this. "By claiming we lost a billion dollar prototype, the publication is suggesting our R&D department is irresponsible and untrustworthy and is therefore harming our stock price..."
Since truth is the ultimate defense against libel, the publication is well within their rights to document all of their transactions with Apple, including the return of the phone. Cameras on.
"Here's the phone. Would you like us to give it to you?"
"Yes, give it here."
"Is this your property?"
"No, that's not ours."
"OK. Fair enough. We'll keep our shiny new phone."
Are you fucking retarded?
Apparently Dangitman is having a hard day. :-)
Could someone grab him a blanket, a teddy and a nice warm spot of cocoa?
Apple are perfectly within their rights to publicly deny that the phone is theirs, and privately tell you that the phone is theirs and demand that you return it.
You're arguing for the right to lie while initiating a legal proceeding, which is problematic at best. If corporations have a right to lie in a public forum, then NOTHING they say should be trusted and pretty much every other office should be filled with a regulator to prove every nickel and track every bit of industrial waste.
But I can see the argument that you have the obligation to return found property to the police.
This is a computer/tech crimes task force, investigating the possible theft, sale, and damage of a prototype of an electronic device that generates billions of dollars a year in revenue for the company involved.
A task force specifically created to investigate crimes against large corporations?
How is that NOT a "pet police force?"
Aren't we?
But you think theft(and this is, according to the law, theft-- even if Hogen didn't slip it out of the guys back pocket) shouldn't be enforced until... all violent crime is solved?
Funny, that's exactly what the cops told me. "We can't investigate the theft of your car, we're too busy chasing murderers."
They told a buddy of mine, "We can't investigate the burglary of your house, we're too busy chasing rapists."
They told a woman I know, while she was still in the emergency room, "We can't enforce your restraining order, we're too busy chasing murderers."
Following each excessive force complaint, the cops reflexively claim, "We don't have time to mess around and be polite. We're chasing killers."
So, yeah, the cops exactly argue they shouldn't investigate theft until all violent crime has been solved.
All the cops in your town could pay back your contributions to their salary by skipping morning coffee.
For Steve Jobs? Not so much.
For Apple? Even less
Justice is for those who can afford it?
"Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building, it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists...it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status."
Lewis Powell, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Villians? Villians is a bit strong. Did they tie Pauline to the train tracks?
Here's my problem. Trade secrets are a game. If you don't patent and publish, then it's up to you to keep your mouth shut and your stuff under wraps. You fumble the ball, feel free to deny, equivocate, disinform, whatever you want, but play the game.
What has me unhappy with Apple right now is that they apparently have a pet police force at their beck and call. Cops in San Jose and San Francisco routinely, constantly cry that they don't have the resources to investigate violent crime. If you get robbed, raped or murdered around there, good luck. Maybe they'll send someone out, if they can squeeze you in. There are literally thousands of backlogged rape kits to be processed.
But, Holy Crap, if Apple loses a cell phone in a bar, the SWAT team is on the way!
It's not so much that I care about the iPhone. I'm angered at the vastly improper set of police priorities.
Reading the affidavit, the thing that disturbs me most is that Apple seems to have pet police detectives at their beck and call. The affidavit basically says "Apple wants to search this guy's place and take everything there, right down to any credit cards they find."
We can't even get the cops to investigate half of the violent crimes reported, but we're willing to call in SWAT to keep Steve Jobs' "Oh, and one more thing" moment in tact?
How about this? How about we let the police detectives focus on the mountain of unsolved violent crimes around San Francisco, and Steve, for your moment in the Sun, just hold up the phone and say, "Hey, look what we found in a bar!"
It'll be a big laugh, and some bloody victim will thank you for it.
This "something in return" was a legal letter...
Receipts are common and sensible when passing items of value. You don't want Apple coming back the day after you gave it to them saying "You still haven't given us the phone..."
You can't have it both ways. You can't publicly deny it's yours while simultaneously demanding the return of the phone.
"Hey, that thing you found? Give it to me."
"Is it your thing?"
"Shut up and give it to me."
"Look, if it's yours, just say so and you can have it. All you have to do is claim it. But I'm not handing it over just because you want it."
All Apple had to do was state this was their property, which is entirely reasonable. Until they do, they can't claim it's stolen property.
What I do know is that Apple's behavior has kicked me over to the Droid side of the fence.
I was just trying to say that when it rises to the level of national policy dictated from a sovereign, there's probably an ulterior motive
Absolutely.
The list could be lengthened and debated endlessly...