So when the pilot falls asleep the plane crashes, brilliant.
I have several friends who are airline pilots. Hand flying an airliner at altitude takes a good deal of concentration, so they are not going to fall asleep. They will actually be enganged in the flying of the plane like they really ought to be, IMHO.
Says the paralegal who doesn't understand basic criminal law?
Uh, just to be clear, I'm the one factoring in that criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not just there's a question here like you were saying, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions were unreasonable. This is why it's clear that you a) don't do trial work, and b) haven't ever touched anything in the criminal realm.
Don't feel too bad. Real lawyers have to go through three years of school to learn the law. I'm sure you'd understand it better if you did that, too.
You should know that this made me laugh really, really hard, and I do appreciate that. I know it's not your intent, but you really are what, first year? second year? All the arrogance... none of the experience. Come back when you have some.
(Pro Tip: if you want to play the condescending, @hole attorney card, you probably shouldn't get into a pissing match with a paralegal. Online.)
Step away from the fanboism for a moment. He found a phone. He did not seek or steal a phone, he found a phone. He tried to return the phone to its rightful owner. THEY REFUSED IT. I realize this is teh internets and you can smugly throw around phrases like "mental state" with smug assurance that you know what they mean, but just because all the other fanbois agree with you doesn't mean you actually know what you're talking about.
I have been a litigation paralegal for a decade now, have sat through and particpated in well over two dozen trials, many of which were criminal, and actually know what "goes to his mental state" means. But you want to play lawyer so...
CAL. PEN. CODE 485
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.
I even put the relevant part in bold for ya. He. Contacted. Apple. They. Said. They. Didn't. Want. It. TWICE
Now, will you please just go back to fondling your iPad and stop pretending you know WTF you're talking about?
I doubt many people will view the original taker as innocent considering he didn't give it to the bar, didn't call the bar later, didn't leave it with the police, and TRIED TO RETURN IT TO THE OWNER TWICE!!!then instead sold it to someone for $5000.
Fixed that for you, see, that's the important bit on intent.
We should all take their word for it. After all, they have no reason to fudge the timeline, leave out details/damaging correspondence, or even make the whole thing up.
Then I suggest you find the inconsistancies. If they were making it up there likely wouldn't be areas that they claim no knowledge of. In fact, if they were making up the timeline and fudging the whole thing, they would have done a better job of it. Apple got bit by their own paranoia. There is little else here except that they are trying to retaliate because of it.
Link to the report, please... or are you a.s.s.u.m.i.n.g.?
It is an assumption on my part that the Police did not get involved without Apple complaining to them. I understand your assumption is that the police took it upon themselves to go and get a search warrant for a journalists computer over a phone that had been lost and was already returned to its owner?
You seriously think these are equally likely assumptions? Really?
Finally, would your response be the same if this was Microsoft?
This isn't not contacting the owner. This is actually contacting the owner and being told to go pound sand. Gizmodo has done an excellent job of laying all of this out on their site. Whether you believe them is up to you, but you should at least read their documentation. First.
I studied criminal law in California in college. There is no crime without intent. If you do not intend to deprive someone of their property indefinitely, then you are not committing a crime. If I find your wallet and contact you, twice, and you REFUSE to accept it back, how am I now a thief? You have KNOWINGLY abaonded your property, the same as if you threw it away. The crux of your argument is that you can drop something, have someone try and return it, and after refusing it back, charge them with a crime. Is that really the world in which you want to live?
If it was a Microsoft prototype there would be none of this defensive posturing. Simply put, this is just another large corporation abusing its position in the community because it got caught with its pants down.
There are actually quite a few stories on Gizmodo about this entire chain of events and I would invite you to read them. The person who found the phone tried to return it to Apple. Twice. And was rebuffed both times. Then he gave it to Gizmodo in exchange for the bounty and the story was published. Apple asked for it back and Gizmodo promtly returned it.
Where is the crime? If anything this is going to come squarely back on Apple for filing a false police report. On the civil side, Gizmodo is not going to have any difficulty in finding good, pro bono legal representation to make Apple hurt as well.
The US is certainly not known for its Geography skills, so I ahve to ask... But isn't Finland almost all rural? When I think of Finland I think of near endless steppes. Of course I also live in Portland Oregon, and of the 3 million in the state, almost 2 million live within 50 miles of Portland. The rest being very rural, if not government land, with the odd small city scattered about. So I understand having a dense population in a small part of an area, with a much larger area with a much smaller population.
Let's be perfectly clear here. Suicide is irrational. There was de facto something else wrong with this girl.
True. But my understanding from a Criminal Justice class years ago, is that the victim is accepted as is. So if you rob a bank and the teller has a heart attack and dies because of a congenital heart defect, you're still on the hook. You undertook an illegal act and are repsonsible for the consequences, even if they are not immediately forseeable.
We're talking the reality of politics. The pendulum is awlays swinging, and this time it is swinging away from the large, faceless corporations and their lobbyists. I'm not saying that the Government should be doing it, I'm pointing out that the industry's practices were a hugely contributing factor in it. There are consequences for anything out of balance whther you are talking about your diet or business practices. Eventually it will catch up with you.
Greed is subjective and absolutely should not even be a part of the discussion.
Except that it has now become a political issue. I'm not saying it should be, or it shouldn't, I'm simply pointing out that it is. Which means that greed, as it is subjectively associated with insurance companies, does matter. If the image of insurance companies was one of always trying to help people, their customers by the way, instead of doing weverything they could to avoid paying out, then this would not have nearly the support it does.
Businesses are amoral entities.
Businesses across all spectrums spend billions of dolars on advertising every year trying to portray themselves in a favorable light. You don't get to constantly broadcast that you're my friend and will be there when I'm in need and then turn around when you don't follow through, shrug your shoulders and go, "Meh. We're a business and hence amoral." You get to do one or the other, not both.
Greed doesn't factor into the equation.
In theory, sure. But as the old saying goes, "In theory there is no difference between theory and reality. In reality, there is."
For reference, on average, Health Insurance companies are running about a 3.5% profit margin.
And LoTR lost money. As did all the Spiderman movies. I spent a lot of time in my middle paralegal years working on litigation in opposition to Insurance Companies, and I simply do not find anything they say as the least bit credible. Bitter and/or cynical? Sure, but, believe me, it was well earned.
You do realize that if insurance companies do not discriminate against pre-existing conditions, they cannot possibly stay in business.
I'm not disagreeing with your logic, but wanted to point out that by so over-reaching in their denial claims the insurance industry brought this upon themselves. Had they been more reasonable and less greedy, it would not have been far less of an issue.
I absolutely agree. This is not something for popular culture as much as for those few enthusiasts who would appreciate it for what it is. A NetFlix exclusive perhaps?
Slashdot Mirror
So when the pilot falls asleep the plane crashes, brilliant.
I have several friends who are airline pilots. Hand flying an airliner at altitude takes a good deal of concentration, so they are not going to fall asleep. They will actually be enganged in the flying of the plane like they really ought to be, IMHO.
Ban the auto-pilot. Problem solved!
Says the paralegal who doesn't understand basic criminal law?
Uh, just to be clear, I'm the one factoring in that criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not just there's a question here like you were saying, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions were unreasonable. This is why it's clear that you a) don't do trial work, and b) haven't ever touched anything in the criminal realm.
Don't feel too bad. Real lawyers have to go through three years of school to learn the law. I'm sure you'd understand it better if you did that, too.
You should know that this made me laugh really, really hard, and I do appreciate that. I know it's not your intent, but you really are what, first year? second year? All the arrogance... none of the experience. Come back when you have some.
(Pro Tip: if you want to play the condescending, @hole attorney card, you probably shouldn't get into a pissing match with a paralegal. Online.)
Oh you are very clearly a lawyer but, just as clearly, you're not a trial attorney.
If your reply is any indication of your work, that's probably a good thing.
I have been a litigation paralegal for a decade now, have sat through and particpated in well over two dozen trials, many of which were criminal, and actually know what "goes to his mental state" means. But you want to play lawyer so...
I even put the relevant part in bold for ya. He. Contacted. Apple. They. Said. They. Didn't. Want. It. TWICE
Now, will you please just go back to fondling your iPad and stop pretending you know WTF you're talking about?
I doubt many people will view the original taker as innocent considering he didn't give it to the bar, didn't call the bar later, didn't leave it with the police, and TRIED TO RETURN IT TO THE OWNER TWICE!!! then instead sold it to someone for $5000.
Fixed that for you, see, that's the important bit on intent.
We should all take their word for it. After all, they have no reason to fudge the timeline, leave out details/damaging correspondence, or even make the whole thing up.
Then I suggest you find the inconsistancies. If they were making it up there likely wouldn't be areas that they claim no knowledge of. In fact, if they were making up the timeline and fudging the whole thing, they would have done a better job of it. Apple got bit by their own paranoia. There is little else here except that they are trying to retaliate because of it.
Link to the report, please... or are you a.s.s.u.m.i.n.g.?
It is an assumption on my part that the Police did not get involved without Apple complaining to them. I understand your assumption is that the police took it upon themselves to go and get a search warrant for a journalists computer over a phone that had been lost and was already returned to its owner?
You seriously think these are equally likely assumptions? Really?
Finally, would your response be the same if this was Microsoft?
This isn't not contacting the owner. This is actually contacting the owner and being told to go pound sand. Gizmodo has done an excellent job of laying all of this out on their site. Whether you believe them is up to you, but you should at least read their documentation. First.
I studied criminal law in California in college. There is no crime without intent. If you do not intend to deprive someone of their property indefinitely, then you are not committing a crime. If I find your wallet and contact you, twice, and you REFUSE to accept it back, how am I now a thief? You have KNOWINGLY abaonded your property, the same as if you threw it away. The crux of your argument is that you can drop something, have someone try and return it, and after refusing it back, charge them with a crime. Is that really the world in which you want to live?
If it was a Microsoft prototype there would be none of this defensive posturing. Simply put, this is just another large corporation abusing its position in the community because it got caught with its pants down.
There are actually quite a few stories on Gizmodo about this entire chain of events and I would invite you to read them. The person who found the phone tried to return it to Apple. Twice. And was rebuffed both times. Then he gave it to Gizmodo in exchange for the bounty and the story was published. Apple asked for it back and Gizmodo promtly returned it.
Where is the crime? If anything this is going to come squarely back on Apple for filing a false police report. On the civil side, Gizmodo is not going to have any difficulty in finding good, pro bono legal representation to make Apple hurt as well.
If art is something at which you cannot "win," than that nixes almost every reality show out of the pond right there.
I am OK with this.
I have 100/10 fiber to the house in rural Finland
The US is certainly not known for its Geography skills, so I ahve to ask... But isn't Finland almost all rural? When I think of Finland I think of near endless steppes. Of course I also live in Portland Oregon, and of the 3 million in the state, almost 2 million live within 50 miles of Portland. The rest being very rural, if not government land, with the odd small city scattered about. So I understand having a dense population in a small part of an area, with a much larger area with a much smaller population.
I'd rather perish in a Democracy than survive in a Dictatorship, no matter how benevolent.
Let's be perfectly clear here. Suicide is irrational. There was de facto something else wrong with this girl.
True. But my understanding from a Criminal Justice class years ago, is that the victim is accepted as is. So if you rob a bank and the teller has a heart attack and dies because of a congenital heart defect, you're still on the hook. You undertook an illegal act and are repsonsible for the consequences, even if they are not immediately forseeable.
Speed costs money; how fast do you want to go?
How many Library of Congresses can I get to the Furlong for three-fitty?
Yes. And you don't want to be anywhere near them at bath time, either. I'm still paying the therapy bills for that one.
A guinea pig for example, is a vegetarian iirc?
Typically yes, but if they go carnivore on you it is scary as Hell. Do NOT miss two feedings in a row.
Earthquake-Resistant!
True dat. We've had enough earthquake issues without now taunting them.
True. If it weren't a stupid decision it wouldn't be an issue.
We're talking the reality of politics. The pendulum is awlays swinging, and this time it is swinging away from the large, faceless corporations and their lobbyists. I'm not saying that the Government should be doing it, I'm pointing out that the industry's practices were a hugely contributing factor in it. There are consequences for anything out of balance whther you are talking about your diet or business practices. Eventually it will catch up with you.
Greed is subjective and absolutely should not even be a part of the discussion.
Except that it has now become a political issue. I'm not saying it should be, or it shouldn't, I'm simply pointing out that it is. Which means that greed, as it is subjectively associated with insurance companies, does matter. If the image of insurance companies was one of always trying to help people, their customers by the way, instead of doing weverything they could to avoid paying out, then this would not have nearly the support it does.
Businesses are amoral entities.
Businesses across all spectrums spend billions of dolars on advertising every year trying to portray themselves in a favorable light. You don't get to constantly broadcast that you're my friend and will be there when I'm in need and then turn around when you don't follow through, shrug your shoulders and go, "Meh. We're a business and hence amoral." You get to do one or the other, not both.
Greed doesn't factor into the equation.
In theory, sure. But as the old saying goes, "In theory there is no difference between theory and reality. In reality, there is."
For reference, on average, Health Insurance companies are running about a 3.5% profit margin.
And LoTR lost money. As did all the Spiderman movies. I spent a lot of time in my middle paralegal years working on litigation in opposition to Insurance Companies, and I simply do not find anything they say as the least bit credible. Bitter and/or cynical? Sure, but, believe me, it was well earned.
You do realize that if insurance companies do not discriminate against pre-existing conditions, they cannot possibly stay in business.
I'm not disagreeing with your logic, but wanted to point out that by so over-reaching in their denial claims the insurance industry brought this upon themselves. Had they been more reasonable and less greedy, it would not have been far less of an issue.
Why the fuck are you looking for medical advise on twitter?
Restless Thumb Syndrome?
I absolutely agree. This is not something for popular culture as much as for those few enthusiasts who would appreciate it for what it is. A NetFlix exclusive perhaps?
I'd provide a citation but I remember reading that off the back of a Topps Galaxy Star Wars card when I was a kid.
This is Slashdot. That is a citation!