I guess it might be better than putting them in a landfill, but if that's the main reasoning behind this,
You may be onto something there. Japan is really short on landfills and graveyards, due to the astronomical cost of land over there. They're on an island, land's an extremely limited resource. It's no surprise they're really big on any recycling, even if it doesn't end up with the bonus of reclaiming energy.
Paper and plastic, the two main components of diapers,
Not exactly paper, and not much plastic.
SAP (Superabsorbent Polymer) is the expensive modern major ingredient. (from Wikipedia: "The largest use of SAP is found in personal disposable hygiene products, such as baby diapers, adult protective underwear and sanitary napkins") SAP actually locks away liquid instead of absorbing it, (you can't wring water out of SAP) and it costs a lot more than wood pulp, so the SAP-to-pulp ratio is usually a direct reflection on diaper quality/cost.
And if you want to get specific about it, iirc, there's very little plastic in a diaper (tapes, front panel, and elastics) - isn't vinyl the main material used in the backing? It's not latex for sure, since so many are allergic to it. The core of good diapers is somewhere around 50/50 SAP and wood pulp, which accounts for close to 100% of a diaper's weight. (until used of course!)
But to be more OT, I have no idea what the energy return is on burning SAP. Lots of "good ideas" for reclaiming garbage involve burning it, and that always comes back to what kind of emissions you're going to get from burning it. Not sure on SAP, but plastics sure burn nasty. (I'd expect SAP to be just about as bad since it's synthetic similar to plastic) And the diapers "contents" won't smell too good under the match either. The water content in diapers has to be a really high percentage, and that's really destructive to trying to burn things for energy since breaking H/O bonds takes away so much of the energy - which explains why they dry it into pellets before burning.
Oblig: We'll get to the bottom of this eventually.
Sufficient space difference to plausibly be two different people.
it's not so much the distance between the cards that's detectable
it's the fact that two students are going to exactly the same classes in exactly the same order.
AND not only that but they're always arriving within (less than) a few seconds of each other (and in the same order probably) but I could go on and on about the unlikely patterns that would create, which when combined would have an inescapable conclusion.
And this is all completely ignoring that one of the two is probably showing up for all the wrong classes. Attendance is not merely being IN a class, but being in the correct class.
all one has to do is walk into a classroom with 10 RFID-enabled cards in their pocket
I was just thinking about that, it should be fairly easy to catch that sort of shenanigans. Just a matter of matching up timing on the cards to identify when the same two cards got to the same 7 classes at exactly the same time.
must have adults in at least a 1:6 adult to child ratio
That sounds like an excellent compromise for allowing the kids to have reasonably safe large dose of fun.
I'll admit having 30 kids from your class running around on a playground with only one teacher supervising is probably getting a little unmanageable. 6:1 is probably a bit cagey though but isn't outrageous.
SOOO tired of "oh noes Little Timmy is gonna bump his knee on that, need more padding!" parents.
Quit taking the fun out of being a kid. Having fun as a kid is inherently a little risky. All these nuts trying to apply "five 9's" to public safety on playgrounds need to go live in a bubble somewhere and stay out of everyone else's lives.
The day they try to take trees out of the park because a kid may climb them and fall and get hurt, I'm gonna flip out.
BD include coupon for a player?? Umm, wont you have one already if you've bought the disk?
I don't recall seeing just a plain DVD available for purchase. I think if you wanted Avatar, you had to buy the box that had the BluRay and the DVD in it. So there probably are quite a few people buying it for the DVD, and once they see the movie, considering how much better it may look on bluray.
I'd call it really smart marketing. Although, the player they were pushing didn't look very special, and most of us by now have been burned at least once by the mail-in-rebate game so hard to tell how many takers they've got. IMHO anyone that buys an actual dedicated bluray player instead of a PS3 isn't thinking things through very well. Not only are you buying from the company that made the standard and is almost guaranteed to be at the top of the curve well into the future, but it's a game station and media server as well, for another $100. I don't even own a PS3 game and I'm quite happy with mine. Wouldn't surprise me if the player they were pushing didn't even have network connectivity. (making the required continuous firmware updates a pain)
if you have a quality product, the knock-offs can't compete.
In an ideal world, maybe. (depending on the market) The problem is not focused on competing in the sales market so much as it is in the R&D arena. R&D is outrageously expensive, and has a very high probability at any time of generating zero return for all the money you dump into it. The whole idea of patent is to allow you a chance to recoup your investments when your R&D pays off. If you eliminate patents, it stifles innovation because companies start spending more time doing "market research" (corporate espionage and trying to reproduce the competition's products) and it ends up in somewhat of a "Race to the Bottom in terms of amount of R&D done because the profit margin for copying is much higher than innovating. In the end, everyone is watching everyone else like a hawk and nobody's making anything original.
Trademarks are somewhat involved with this because they help the innovators to reap additional benefits from their R&D by improving the value of their brand. Without trademarks and patents, brands lose their meaning. Just ask yourself how many things you buy based on brand. Not just technology... think even about the grocery store. Half of what you put in your cart is probably chosen by brand. How would you like to lose that choice? You wouldn't lose the choice, but you'd lose the meaning, as every brand of beans would taste the same.
The concept of patent and trademark itself is a very good idea, it's just implemented with laws made in a totally different world. (era) As with so much of today's laws, they are so screwed up from assumptions made 200 years ago that they are beyond fixing and just need to be thrown out and start from scratch with modern circumstances taken fully into account. People keep trying to "fix" them, but its like trying to fix a building with a bad foundation. If it's too broken you just have to knock the building down and put up a new one.
People that say "we need to get rid of patents!" only have it half right.
Well right now is the perfect opportunity to rag on the competition (Apple) for not including a feature that the public wants ("has been trained to believe they need"?) This may very well come to bite goggle on the butt the first time a worm winds its way through the droid market. They're just betting that they'll have gotten their money's worth out of the hype they're creating now by the time it comes full circle. I'd tend to think "not if, WHEN", but people have been saying that about Apple's worm and virus resiliance for quite some time now -- if you focus hard enough on it I guess it's possible to be reasonably bulletproof?
So it's quite possible that google is playing android development very cagey, planning it carefully to avoid security holes in the design itself. (sort of, you know, the opposite of microsoft's apparent development philosophy) If that is the case, they may have made a good gamble and come out a winner. (not necessarily overall, but at least they'll get a positive result)
Time will tell I guess. Either way, you have two somewhat competing philosophies that are both trying to make tough decisions that in the end will help the users. I'm all for that, regardless of who wins. They can squabble amongst themselves all they want as long as I come out a winner as a result.
if that does happen, and it's somewhat likely, google will end up with some egg on their face.
And if they're feeling REALLY ballsy, they'll put an adobe PDF viewer on the 'droid too.
Flash, Adobe Reader, and Word/Excel have really been the document exploits of choice for quite some time. Anyone have any hard numbers on percent of document exploits? (Explorer needs an Honorable Mention here I think too)
Normally I'd say "sandbox it", but the flash VM just doesn't work that way. True, properly implemented, it can't get outside the VM's sandbox, but do you really want flash apps stealing data from each other? I think google is going to find there's too much opportunity for evil. Unless they can pull off a new instance for each applet, which is going to be all kinds of trouble.
I never went to the theaters, I don't need to be a part of that much of a circus. I had an (impressively good quality) screener a few days after it was out and that sold me on getting the bluray when it came out.
I bought it the day it was released, but found that I was unable to feed it to my playstation because the BD+ DRM was too new for my ripper to support. The solution of course was to find the appropriate torrent and download the unprotected MKV file. Ahh 1080p on the 53" is nice. My laptop doesn't have the muscle to decode and scale down 1080p on the fly at that bitrate (the mkv is 19gb) so I transcoded it down to a more reasonable 720p so I can watch it on my computer when I feel like it.
See what's wrong with all this, all you hollywood people? The only reason I am having anywhere near the experience I want with your product is because the pirates are delivering me a better product than you are. Figure it out. I just happen to be one of the people that supports you despite your insulting business methods. You have very little right to complain about the other % of us that just cut you completely out of the picture.
Interestingly enough, I haven't even bothered to put the bluray in the PS3, so I don't even know if it will play properly. It was only out of its case long enough to rip (43gb?) to hard drive in a vane attempt to transcode. Nice touch including the DVD, and the coupon for a discount on a bluray player, interesting angle to get people to get a bluray player.
I look at it quite simply. I have control over my equipment, you have control over yours. You don't want me to have control over your equipment, and I don't want you to have control over mine. Provide the equipment I need, or if you choose to let me provide it, expect to yield control.
A previous job (mostly desktop support) I worked I brought my own laptop, loaded for bear. One of the owners suggested maybe there was a liability issue with that and asked me to enumerate all the hardware and software I brought in of my own that he could look into replacing it with "company owned equipment". I'm sure part of it is he wanted to have a little more control over the hardware I was using. My (fair) estimate came in around 15k iirc. (admittedly, quite a lot for a laptop bag full of stuff, but accurate) He never brought up the issue again, and I was content to continue using my own familiar laptop etc however I decided to. Dollar signs are usually the only effective logic with control freaks. (not that I'd quite classify him as one, but the basic theory holds)
Vaporware is the ultimate refining of the process of "Overpromise, Underdeliver".
In other words, when you promise everything, and deliver nothing.
Though the basic premise of overpromise/underdeliver has always a basic theme in I.T in general. You're making promises you know you can't deliver, to an audience that is in no position of expertise to question what you say, and in their dependent state, has to believe you, and has no choice but to accept whatever you happen to actually deliver. (a process also known more commonly as "I.T. Consultant")
I can practically guarantee the guy never called the apple employee, and never once tried to find him in the phone book.
From the sparse details it sounds like he may have tried to call one of the generic numbers like the applecare line to see if someone had registered it as lost. (Apple does keep track of stolen and lost computer SNs) Though it's very true that the person he talked to may have had no way of handling this specific situation, and may have simply denied the possibility of any 4G iphone that could possibly be lost anywhere. (particularly if he was trying to give a description of the phone which looks strikingly different than a 3G -- I'd say it looks more like an imac)
But then we'd need to talk with lawyers to determine to what extent a person has to go to for it to be considered reasonable effort to return lost property. There's got to be a specific point where the courts say "you tried hard enough". Technically, the simple puzzled answer he may have gotten from someone at the applecare 800 number may have legally sufficed, even though it wasn't really reasonable to expect that channel to have worked. (which may simply be chalked up to a "just because you're big and inefficient doesn't make you an exception to the rules the rest of us have to follow")
(while I like the Get A Mac suggestion, perhaps something more windows-zealot-friendly...)
or get something like Deep Freeze and have it simply restore the HD to factory every 2am. And use network home folders and shares for documents.
Then you have ONE place to run the malware/av software on, the server's shares, at 2am while all the machines on the floor are reimaging themselves for tomorrow.
(there's no point in suggesting something that they're unlikely to try even if you can make a good case for it or in fact are offering a very competitive suggetsion)
OH, so Apple gave (or sold) him the phone, it's Gray's property?
While I'd LOVE to be able to say I know for fact this isn't the case, I can't. But do you really believe that Apple didn't issue (loan) him the phone to beta test, and it remained Apple's property, to be returned when that round of tests was complete?
I'd love to place a wager with someone that Grey didn't own that phone. That phone was almost certainly Apple's property. Besides, Apple allegedly came to get it from him, if it was Grey's, then it would be more sensible (legally) for Grey to come to collect it. Which he didn't. If I lose my car keys and Jim finds them on the street and goes public, Ford (or my Dealership for that matter) doesn't show up at Jim's door asking him to return the keys to them.
Besides all that, it'd be stupid for Apple to gift the phone to him in the first place before testing was complete. It's quite likely that the phones were issued out, and when testing was complete they may have had the option to take possession of them at that time. It'd be an important thing for Apple to maintain ownership of the phones during the entire test period while they wanted to maintain absolute say as to their use. For example, if Apple had found out he was flashing around his phone in the bar or leaving it in his unlocked car etc, they may have demanded it back... something that would have less teeth to it if Grey now owned it. I'm sure they had Grey sign an NDA, but it'd be more powerful to also maintain ownership of it during that time.
didn't he say he tried to call apple and they denied it was theirs?
If that's the case, wouldn't it make that entire snippet of code irrelevant?
Makes me wonder what the legal status of an object is if it's abandoned in the public, and the owner denies being the owner? Doesn't it then at that instant become nobody's property, and "finders keepers"?
last i read, he tried to contact apple to return it and they denied it was theirs.
That fact alone is probably going to be the key to what legal actions get taken where. (hope he recorded the call or something of the like)
If the actual owner of the item denies it's theirs, that makes it impossible to return to the owner, which would seem to satisfy the requirements before taking ownership of lost property?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess it might be better than putting them in a landfill, but if that's the main reasoning behind this,
You may be onto something there. Japan is really short on landfills and graveyards, due to the astronomical cost of land over there. They're on an island, land's an extremely limited resource. It's no surprise they're really big on any recycling, even if it doesn't end up with the bonus of reclaiming energy.
What type of air pollution are you concerned about?
most plastics have highly toxic emissions when burned
What exactly does plastic, dried feces, and urine smell like when you burn it? Could this heat be used for cooking?
well, burning urine smells like ...
like some laws of physics being broken.
Paper and plastic, the two main components of diapers,
Not exactly paper, and not much plastic.
SAP (Superabsorbent Polymer) is the expensive modern major ingredient. (from Wikipedia: "The largest use of SAP is found in personal disposable hygiene products, such as baby diapers, adult protective underwear and sanitary napkins") SAP actually locks away liquid instead of absorbing it, (you can't wring water out of SAP) and it costs a lot more than wood pulp, so the SAP-to-pulp ratio is usually a direct reflection on diaper quality/cost.
And if you want to get specific about it, iirc, there's very little plastic in a diaper (tapes, front panel, and elastics) - isn't vinyl the main material used in the backing? It's not latex for sure, since so many are allergic to it. The core of good diapers is somewhere around 50/50 SAP and wood pulp, which accounts for close to 100% of a diaper's weight. (until used of course!)
But to be more OT, I have no idea what the energy return is on burning SAP. Lots of "good ideas" for reclaiming garbage involve burning it, and that always comes back to what kind of emissions you're going to get from burning it. Not sure on SAP, but plastics sure burn nasty. (I'd expect SAP to be just about as bad since it's synthetic similar to plastic) And the diapers "contents" won't smell too good under the match either. The water content in diapers has to be a really high percentage, and that's really destructive to trying to burn things for energy since breaking H/O bonds takes away so much of the energy - which explains why they dry it into pellets before burning.
Oblig: We'll get to the bottom of this eventually.
Sufficient space difference to plausibly be two different people.
it's not so much the distance between the cards that's detectable
it's the fact that two students are going to exactly the same classes in exactly the same order.
AND not only that but they're always arriving within (less than) a few seconds of each other (and in the same order probably) but I could go on and on about the unlikely patterns that would create, which when combined would have an inescapable conclusion.
And this is all completely ignoring that one of the two is probably showing up for all the wrong classes. Attendance is not merely being IN a class, but being in the correct class.
full body scanners of course.
all one has to do is walk into a classroom with 10 RFID-enabled cards in their pocket
I was just thinking about that, it should be fairly easy to catch that sort of shenanigans. Just a matter of matching up timing on the cards to identify when the same two cards got to the same 7 classes at exactly the same time.
I see some wearing helmets for walking round
You're talking normal kids, not "specials" ? that's just crazy
I say "don't childproof the world, worldproof the child", but that's not the point I was trying to deliver...
must have adults in at least a 1:6 adult to child ratio
That sounds like an excellent compromise for allowing the kids to have reasonably safe large dose of fun.
I'll admit having 30 kids from your class running around on a playground with only one teacher supervising is probably getting a little unmanageable. 6:1 is probably a bit cagey though but isn't outrageous.
SOOO tired of "oh noes Little Timmy is gonna bump his knee on that, need more padding!" parents.
Quit taking the fun out of being a kid. Having fun as a kid is inherently a little risky. All these nuts trying to apply "five 9's" to public safety on playgrounds need to go live in a bubble somewhere and stay out of everyone else's lives.
The day they try to take trees out of the park because a kid may climb them and fall and get hurt, I'm gonna flip out.
BD include coupon for a player?? Umm, wont you have one already if you've bought the disk?
I don't recall seeing just a plain DVD available for purchase. I think if you wanted Avatar, you had to buy the box that had the BluRay and the DVD in it. So there probably are quite a few people buying it for the DVD, and once they see the movie, considering how much better it may look on bluray.
I'd call it really smart marketing. Although, the player they were pushing didn't look very special, and most of us by now have been burned at least once by the mail-in-rebate game so hard to tell how many takers they've got. IMHO anyone that buys an actual dedicated bluray player instead of a PS3 isn't thinking things through very well. Not only are you buying from the company that made the standard and is almost guaranteed to be at the top of the curve well into the future, but it's a game station and media server as well, for another $100. I don't even own a PS3 game and I'm quite happy with mine. Wouldn't surprise me if the player they were pushing didn't even have network connectivity. (making the required continuous firmware updates a pain)
if you have a quality product, the knock-offs can't compete.
In an ideal world, maybe. (depending on the market) The problem is not focused on competing in the sales market so much as it is in the R&D arena. R&D is outrageously expensive, and has a very high probability at any time of generating zero return for all the money you dump into it. The whole idea of patent is to allow you a chance to recoup your investments when your R&D pays off. If you eliminate patents, it stifles innovation because companies start spending more time doing "market research" (corporate espionage and trying to reproduce the competition's products) and it ends up in somewhat of a "Race to the Bottom in terms of amount of R&D done because the profit margin for copying is much higher than innovating. In the end, everyone is watching everyone else like a hawk and nobody's making anything original.
Trademarks are somewhat involved with this because they help the innovators to reap additional benefits from their R&D by improving the value of their brand. Without trademarks and patents, brands lose their meaning. Just ask yourself how many things you buy based on brand. Not just technology... think even about the grocery store. Half of what you put in your cart is probably chosen by brand. How would you like to lose that choice? You wouldn't lose the choice, but you'd lose the meaning, as every brand of beans would taste the same.
The concept of patent and trademark itself is a very good idea, it's just implemented with laws made in a totally different world. (era) As with so much of today's laws, they are so screwed up from assumptions made 200 years ago that they are beyond fixing and just need to be thrown out and start from scratch with modern circumstances taken fully into account. People keep trying to "fix" them, but its like trying to fix a building with a bad foundation. If it's too broken you just have to knock the building down and put up a new one.
People that say "we need to get rid of patents!" only have it half right.
Are you kidding me? /tmp is TEMPORARY! It's transient - that's the whole point!
so windows should be storing restore points in such a place? talk about "that's the whole point"...
Well right now is the perfect opportunity to rag on the competition (Apple) for not including a feature that the public wants ("has been trained to believe they need"?) This may very well come to bite goggle on the butt the first time a worm winds its way through the droid market. They're just betting that they'll have gotten their money's worth out of the hype they're creating now by the time it comes full circle. I'd tend to think "not if, WHEN", but people have been saying that about Apple's worm and virus resiliance for quite some time now -- if you focus hard enough on it I guess it's possible to be reasonably bulletproof?
So it's quite possible that google is playing android development very cagey, planning it carefully to avoid security holes in the design itself. (sort of, you know, the opposite of microsoft's apparent development philosophy) If that is the case, they may have made a good gamble and come out a winner. (not necessarily overall, but at least they'll get a positive result)
Time will tell I guess. Either way, you have two somewhat competing philosophies that are both trying to make tough decisions that in the end will help the users. I'm all for that, regardless of who wins. They can squabble amongst themselves all they want as long as I come out a winner as a result.
if that does happen, and it's somewhat likely, google will end up with some egg on their face.
And if they're feeling REALLY ballsy, they'll put an adobe PDF viewer on the 'droid too.
Flash, Adobe Reader, and Word/Excel have really been the document exploits of choice for quite some time. Anyone have any hard numbers on percent of document exploits? (Explorer needs an Honorable Mention here I think too)
Normally I'd say "sandbox it", but the flash VM just doesn't work that way. True, properly implemented, it can't get outside the VM's sandbox, but do you really want flash apps stealing data from each other? I think google is going to find there's too much opportunity for evil. Unless they can pull off a new instance for each applet, which is going to be all kinds of trouble.
I never went to the theaters, I don't need to be a part of that much of a circus. I had an (impressively good quality) screener a few days after it was out and that sold me on getting the bluray when it came out.
I bought it the day it was released, but found that I was unable to feed it to my playstation because the BD+ DRM was too new for my ripper to support. The solution of course was to find the appropriate torrent and download the unprotected MKV file. Ahh 1080p on the 53" is nice. My laptop doesn't have the muscle to decode and scale down 1080p on the fly at that bitrate (the mkv is 19gb) so I transcoded it down to a more reasonable 720p so I can watch it on my computer when I feel like it.
See what's wrong with all this, all you hollywood people? The only reason I am having anywhere near the experience I want with your product is because the pirates are delivering me a better product than you are. Figure it out. I just happen to be one of the people that supports you despite your insulting business methods. You have very little right to complain about the other % of us that just cut you completely out of the picture.
Interestingly enough, I haven't even bothered to put the bluray in the PS3, so I don't even know if it will play properly. It was only out of its case long enough to rip (43gb?) to hard drive in a vane attempt to transcode. Nice touch including the DVD, and the coupon for a discount on a bluray player, interesting angle to get people to get a bluray player.
I look at it quite simply. I have control over my equipment, you have control over yours. You don't want me to have control over your equipment, and I don't want you to have control over mine. Provide the equipment I need, or if you choose to let me provide it, expect to yield control.
A previous job (mostly desktop support) I worked I brought my own laptop, loaded for bear. One of the owners suggested maybe there was a liability issue with that and asked me to enumerate all the hardware and software I brought in of my own that he could look into replacing it with "company owned equipment". I'm sure part of it is he wanted to have a little more control over the hardware I was using. My (fair) estimate came in around 15k iirc. (admittedly, quite a lot for a laptop bag full of stuff, but accurate) He never brought up the issue again, and I was content to continue using my own familiar laptop etc however I decided to. Dollar signs are usually the only effective logic with control freaks. (not that I'd quite classify him as one, but the basic theory holds)
Or remote in from home to a work machine.
Although if they're both serious and intelligent about this, they would not allow it
Vaporware is the ultimate refining of the process of "Overpromise, Underdeliver".
In other words, when you promise everything, and deliver nothing.
Though the basic premise of overpromise/underdeliver has always a basic theme in I.T in general. You're making promises you know you can't deliver, to an audience that is in no position of expertise to question what you say, and in their dependent state, has to believe you, and has no choice but to accept whatever you happen to actually deliver. (a process also known more commonly as "I.T. Consultant")
And if I recall correctly, after three generations of hamsters being fed on that modified soy, they were 100% incapable of reproducing.
ya but what about the fourth generation huh?
I can practically guarantee the guy never called the apple employee, and never once tried to find him in the phone book.
From the sparse details it sounds like he may have tried to call one of the generic numbers like the applecare line to see if someone had registered it as lost. (Apple does keep track of stolen and lost computer SNs) Though it's very true that the person he talked to may have had no way of handling this specific situation, and may have simply denied the possibility of any 4G iphone that could possibly be lost anywhere. (particularly if he was trying to give a description of the phone which looks strikingly different than a 3G -- I'd say it looks more like an imac)
But then we'd need to talk with lawyers to determine to what extent a person has to go to for it to be considered reasonable effort to return lost property. There's got to be a specific point where the courts say "you tried hard enough". Technically, the simple puzzled answer he may have gotten from someone at the applecare 800 number may have legally sufficed, even though it wasn't really reasonable to expect that channel to have worked. (which may simply be chalked up to a "just because you're big and inefficient doesn't make you an exception to the rules the rest of us have to follow")
(while I like the Get A Mac suggestion, perhaps something more windows-zealot-friendly...)
or get something like Deep Freeze and have it simply restore the HD to factory every 2am. And use network home folders and shares for documents.
Then you have ONE place to run the malware/av software on, the server's shares, at 2am while all the machines on the floor are reimaging themselves for tomorrow.
(there's no point in suggesting something that they're unlikely to try even if you can make a good case for it or in fact are offering a very competitive suggetsion)
OH, so Apple gave (or sold) him the phone, it's Gray's property?
While I'd LOVE to be able to say I know for fact this isn't the case, I can't. But do you really believe that Apple didn't issue (loan) him the phone to beta test, and it remained Apple's property, to be returned when that round of tests was complete?
I'd love to place a wager with someone that Grey didn't own that phone. That phone was almost certainly Apple's property. Besides, Apple allegedly came to get it from him, if it was Grey's, then it would be more sensible (legally) for Grey to come to collect it. Which he didn't. If I lose my car keys and Jim finds them on the street and goes public, Ford (or my Dealership for that matter) doesn't show up at Jim's door asking him to return the keys to them.
Besides all that, it'd be stupid for Apple to gift the phone to him in the first place before testing was complete. It's quite likely that the phones were issued out, and when testing was complete they may have had the option to take possession of them at that time. It'd be an important thing for Apple to maintain ownership of the phones during the entire test period while they wanted to maintain absolute say as to their use. For example, if Apple had found out he was flashing around his phone in the bar or leaving it in his unlocked car etc, they may have demanded it back... something that would have less teeth to it if Grey now owned it. I'm sure they had Grey sign an NDA, but it'd be more powerful to also maintain ownership of it during that time.
didn't he say he tried to call apple and they denied it was theirs?
If that's the case, wouldn't it make that entire snippet of code irrelevant?
Makes me wonder what the legal status of an object is if it's abandoned in the public, and the owner denies being the owner? Doesn't it then at that instant become nobody's property, and "finders keepers"?
last i read, he tried to contact apple to return it and they denied it was theirs.
That fact alone is probably going to be the key to what legal actions get taken where. (hope he recorded the call or something of the like)
If the actual owner of the item denies it's theirs, that makes it impossible to return to the owner, which would seem to satisfy the requirements before taking ownership of lost property?
Not clicking on dancing bunnies
But we can still click on the dancing puppies, right?