I can't find the article right now, but apparently the area being drilled into is the oceanic equivalent of the Yellowstone super caldera and nuking it could potentially set off one of those nasty "extinction event" scenarios the movies tell us only Pierce Brosnan, Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, Tommy Lee Jones, and beautiful women can survive.
You obviously haven't used many modern copiers. Of the three on my floor, all of them are more computers with heavy duty printers attached than dumb scanner/printer combos. All have hard drives which store frequently printed documents, the 'OS' (which in some cases is a customized version of Windows), and the temp files necessary to do their 'job'.
The problem is that your average paper pusher still thinks of a copier as a low tech mimeograph rather than realize exactly how complicated and 'multi-featured' the modern copier has become and don't realize they need to treat their copier the same way they would treat their other computers.
"California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. 2080.3."
That's what the law says. Is that what happened? No? Then maybe you shouldn't crack wise.
496. (a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year. However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that this action would be in the interests of justice, the district attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of the property does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), specify in the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a misdemeanor, punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both pursuant to this section and of the theft of the same property.
(b) Every swap meet vendor, as defined in Section 21661 of the Business and Professions Code, and every person whose principal business is dealing in, or collecting, merchandise or personal property, and every agent, employee, or representative of that person, who buys or receives any property of a value in excess of nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) that has been stolen or obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, under circumstances that should cause the person, agent, employee, or representative to make reasonable inquiry to ascertain that the person from whom the property was bought or received had the legal right to sell or deliver it, without making a reasonable inquiry, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.
Every swap meet vendor, as defined in Section 21661 of the Business and Professions Code, and every person whose principal business is dealing in, or collecting, merchandise or personal property, and every agent, employee, or representative of that person, who buys or receives any property of a value of nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) or less that has been stolen or obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, under circumstances that should cause the person, agent, employee, or representative to make reasonable inquiry to ascertain that the person from whom the property was bought or received had the legal right to sell or deliver it, without making a reasonable inquiry, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) Any person who has been injured by a violation of subdivision (a) or (b) may bring an action for three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees.
(d) Notwithstanding Section 664, any attempt to commit any act prohibited by this section, except an offense specified in the accusatory pleading as a misdemeanor, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.
496a. (a) Every person who, being a dealer in or collector of junk, metals or secondhand materials, or the agent, employee, or representative of such dealer or collector, buys or receives any wire, cable, copper, lead, solder, mercury, iron or brass which he knows or reasonably should know is ordinarily used by or ordinarily belongs to a railroad or other transportation, telephone, telegraph, gas, water or electric light company or county, city, city and county or other political subdivision of this state engaged in furnishing public utility service without using due dil
Actually since the source is protected by California law, they are actually probably going after Chen himself for receipt of stolen goods. While the phone might have been lost, the stories have made it fairly apparent that the seller had not followed the legal requirements for attempting to get it back to it's owner. If he hadn't and Chen was aware of this when he was buying/bidding for the phone, then that makes him knowingly receiving stolen goods.
You do realize there are people who open their networks on purpose, right? That's the problem, it's impossible to tell the people who have because they are negligent from the people who do because they don't care if you share their connection.
Beyond the already more than capable refutations of your statement that the two other responses have provided. I would like to point out that had he not stood his ground and fought for this, no one would have evidence of the police making false statements regarding the illegal refusal to provide evidence that the police were engaged in. No one would have had any proof that the police weren't following their policy in regards to retention and destruction of evidence. And the police personal involved would still be able to claim ignorance on a point of law that had already been explicitly defined by their own state's judicial system.
So, that whole "just let the poor cops muddle though their job, they are only human" argument kinda falls flat on it's face.
No, ONE person smacked ONE person in the face with a ball, and he wasn't either party.
Not only wasn't he of that group, but the one who did the douchebaggery, didn't get arrested. The person they arrested for THAT (as opposed to refusing to show ID, and thus making it an illegal arrest) also didn't do anything.
The guy IS a fucking hero. Not because of what happened before, but because he was willing to fight the fight all the way to the end instead of simply caving because it was too much trouble.
Yes they do and have, but that's less the "OMG Ponies" forced rebuild of an engine for every game and more "Hey! Isn't this cool, we've added new code to a three year old game!"
Here's the thing though, is that really the case or is it just the developer's version of a dick measuring contest.
I can tell you right now I enjoy playing Team Fortress 2 as much as or more than I have any of the games I've purchased since then. And while Valve has tweaked stuff on the engine as time has gone by, for the most part they've just added more content and tweaked balance, not completely redid portions to pull out the "Shiny".
In fact, Valve is pretty much the anti-thesis of your statement. Half-Life's GoldSrc engine and it's derivatives lasted far longer than they had any right to by the "Add shiny shit to make it sell" mantra. And so has the Source engine.
It's entirely possible to make a good game, a sellable game, without needing to be on the bleeding edge. The problem isn't that you HAVE to be on the bleeding edge, it's that many companies use being on the bleeding edge as filler for the stuff they are actually missing.
Apple might be able to pull a PDF viewer/writer out of their ass, but I seriously doubt they'd be able to do squat about replacing Photoshop in any sort of meaningful way. The best they'd be able to come up with is to steal Gimp's code and attempt to morph that.
That isn't the point. Yes, it's fairly obvious that Apple knew that the guy lost the prototype even before the article went up given the remotely bricked the phone.
But posting the guy's name and picture, humiliating someone. Is that how you'd want YOUR name to become famous on the 'net'? For being so unlucky as to lose company property on your birthday outing? Maybe he'll keep his job, maybe he won't.
It's like being Steve Bartman, only having his professional life being impacted rather than his personal life.
Seriously, given how many companies do Facebook checks on their new employees for potentially embarrassing info, what do you think this guy's future interview are going to look like?
I spend most of my time reading http://www.engadget.com/ and http://arstechnica.com/ depending on whether I want 'gossip' news or 'newspaper' news. Engadget was created by the original founder of Gizmodo, so to me it's a fairly close match minus the over the top Apple slant.
That isn't to say that they don't go pro-Apple sometimes, but it's far less "I love Apple and here are some of the reasons why you are an idiot if you don't" than Gizmodo's articles are.
The engineer didn't break confidentiality, he lost a prototype of a phone while out getting pissed on his birthday. That said no one talks to Gizmodo anyway, they are the ass end of tech blogs, about the only reason to go read them is if you are low on your daily kissup articles to Apple. The really amazing thing about this whole story is not that an Apple employee lost a prototype, it's that the tech blog that broke the story is the same one that spends most of it's time jizzing over Apple products to the point that you have to wonder if half the writers aren't working directly for Apple's marketing department.
Because they are assholes and exposing him lends credence to their story, the story that pulled in so many hits that the entire Gawker group of blogs had to turn off comments for most of the day to handle the load being generated. The story that most of the non-Gizmodo sites were calling bullshit on because no one thought that it'd be plausible that they could come into possession of one of the phones in the way that they explained. The story that is likely to get get someone on their staff in trouble for being in possession of stolen goods, industrial espionage, and etc.
And, since they've realized this, they are doing their best to cover their asses by doing everything they can now to look like they were simply attempting to get it back to him rather than paying $5k to get an exclusive look at it.
Google hasn't and didn't break the law. Orphaned works, prior to the GBS were treated by Google the same way they treated non-orphaned works, they were indexed to be search-able.
The majority of what is being done in the Google Book Settlement is NOT what Google was originally planning on doing. However it is what they were able to get the people heading the class action to agree to once they set down at the table.
And you are right, I think, in that there was no other way for this to come about than other then Google being involved in a class action. But you are wrong, I sincerely believe, in assuming that just because Google got sued for the little that they were doing, that what they were doing was wrong or illegal.
People have squabbles over what constitutes fair use all the time and gotten it taken to court all the time and invariably one group walks out disappointed and the other walks out happy. And it's not always the guy that owns the copyrights that is the one that's happy. Fair use has no concrete definition and while there are guidelines that are supposed to be used in deciding if a use is fair or not, the reality is these things are almost always 100% subjective decisions that depend more on who the judge is, and how well the lawyers make their case rather than if it's really 'fair'.
That comment is so full of bullshit, I'm not even certain where to start.
Wait, I know, lets start at the start:
What did Google actually do originally
Google went to select libraries and asked their permission to scan in the works that the libraries had access to.
Google intended to make the works which were in the public domain available online for free
Google intended to make the works which were still covered under copyright search-able, just as a website is, and include them in Google's index. THIS SHOULD BE COVERED BY FAIR USE
What has Google already made available online
The only items you can currently view in full on Google's site are the books they have PERMISSION to display, either from the copyrights holder or by virtue of the book being in the public domain
Books Google does not have permission to display in full are in some cases search-able (depending on whether the copyright holder has told Google block the book or not
What is evil about what they were originally working on? Where is the blatant disregard for copyright that you are stumping on about? The fact that the GBS greatly expands their plans and what they are doing is not because that is what they were originally planning, it's because that's what the lawyers were able to AGREE upon when they sat down at the table!
Slashdot Mirror
"Whoosh!" ^_^
I can't find the article right now, but apparently the area being drilled into is the oceanic equivalent of the Yellowstone super caldera and nuking it could potentially set off one of those nasty "extinction event" scenarios the movies tell us only Pierce Brosnan, Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, Tommy Lee Jones, and beautiful women can survive.
And I'm not a beautiful woman.
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
You obviously haven't used many modern copiers. Of the three on my floor, all of them are more computers with heavy duty printers attached than dumb scanner/printer combos. All have hard drives which store frequently printed documents, the 'OS' (which in some cases is a customized version of Windows), and the temp files necessary to do their 'job'.
The problem is that your average paper pusher still thinks of a copier as a low tech mimeograph rather than realize exactly how complicated and 'multi-featured' the modern copier has become and don't realize they need to treat their copier the same way they would treat their other computers.
That's because the problem in those cases were not the cartridge but the connector in the console.
"California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. 2080.3."
That's what the law says. Is that what happened? No? Then maybe you shouldn't crack wise.
(I am not) The Law
496. (a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has
been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting
theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained,
or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling,
or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to
be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a
state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.
However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that
this action would be in the interests of justice, the district
attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of
the property does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950),
specify in the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a
misdemeanor, punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year.
A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted
pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both
pursuant to this section and of the theft of the same property.
(b) Every swap meet vendor, as defined in Section 21661 of the
Business and Professions Code, and every person whose principal
business is dealing in, or collecting, merchandise or personal
property, and every agent, employee, or representative of that
person, who buys or receives any property of a value in excess of
nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) that has been stolen or obtained in
any manner constituting theft or extortion, under circumstances that
should cause the person, agent, employee, or representative to make
reasonable inquiry to ascertain that the person from whom the
property was bought or received had the legal right to sell or
deliver it, without making a reasonable inquiry, shall be punished by
imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more
than one year.
Every swap meet vendor, as defined in Section 21661 of the
Business and Professions Code, and every person whose principal
business is dealing in, or collecting, merchandise or personal
property, and every agent, employee, or representative of that
person, who buys or receives any property of a value of nine hundred
fifty dollars ($950) or less that has been stolen or obtained in any
manner constituting theft or extortion, under circumstances that
should cause the person, agent, employee, or representative to make
reasonable inquiry to ascertain that the person from whom the
property was bought or received had the legal right to sell or
deliver it, without making a reasonable inquiry, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(c) Any person who has been injured by a violation of subdivision
(a) or (b) may bring an action for three times the amount of actual
damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and
reasonable attorney's fees.
(d) Notwithstanding Section 664, any attempt to commit any act
prohibited by this section, except an offense specified in the
accusatory pleading as a misdemeanor, is punishable by imprisonment
in the state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.
496a. (a) Every person who, being a dealer in or collector of junk,
metals or secondhand materials, or the agent, employee, or
representative of such dealer or collector, buys or receives any
wire, cable, copper, lead, solder, mercury, iron or brass which he
knows or reasonably should know is ordinarily used by or ordinarily
belongs to a railroad or other transportation, telephone, telegraph,
gas, water or electric light company or county, city, city and county
or other political subdivision of this state engaged in furnishing
public utility service without using due dil
Actually since the source is protected by California law, they are actually probably going after Chen himself for receipt of stolen goods. While the phone might have been lost, the stories have made it fairly apparent that the seller had not followed the legal requirements for attempting to get it back to it's owner. If he hadn't and Chen was aware of this when he was buying/bidding for the phone, then that makes him knowingly receiving stolen goods.
You do realize there are people who open their networks on purpose, right? That's the problem, it's impossible to tell the people who have because they are negligent from the people who do because they don't care if you share their connection.
Beyond the already more than capable refutations of your statement that the two other responses have provided. I would like to point out that had he not stood his ground and fought for this, no one would have evidence of the police making false statements regarding the illegal refusal to provide evidence that the police were engaged in. No one would have had any proof that the police weren't following their policy in regards to retention and destruction of evidence. And the police personal involved would still be able to claim ignorance on a point of law that had already been explicitly defined by their own state's judicial system.
So, that whole "just let the poor cops muddle though their job, they are only human" argument kinda falls flat on it's face.
Did you miss the part where the guy in the article spent half a year fighting the charges before the prosecutor simply dropped them?
There was a lot of dishonesty going on, more than "oh you can't see the evidence".
No, ONE person smacked ONE person in the face with a ball, and he wasn't either party.
Not only wasn't he of that group, but the one who did the douchebaggery, didn't get arrested. The person they arrested for THAT (as opposed to refusing to show ID, and thus making it an illegal arrest) also didn't do anything.
The guy IS a fucking hero. Not because of what happened before, but because he was willing to fight the fight all the way to the end instead of simply caving because it was too much trouble.
Yes they do and have, but that's less the "OMG Ponies" forced rebuild of an engine for every game and more "Hey! Isn't this cool, we've added new code to a three year old game!"
Here's the thing though, is that really the case or is it just the developer's version of a dick measuring contest.
I can tell you right now I enjoy playing Team Fortress 2 as much as or more than I have any of the games I've purchased since then. And while Valve has tweaked stuff on the engine as time has gone by, for the most part they've just added more content and tweaked balance, not completely redid portions to pull out the "Shiny".
In fact, Valve is pretty much the anti-thesis of your statement. Half-Life's GoldSrc engine and it's derivatives lasted far longer than they had any right to by the "Add shiny shit to make it sell" mantra. And so has the Source engine.
It's entirely possible to make a good game, a sellable game, without needing to be on the bleeding edge. The problem isn't that you HAVE to be on the bleeding edge, it's that many companies use being on the bleeding edge as filler for the stuff they are actually missing.
Apple might be able to pull a PDF viewer/writer out of their ass, but I seriously doubt they'd be able to do squat about replacing Photoshop in any sort of meaningful way. The best they'd be able to come up with is to steal Gimp's code and attempt to morph that.
That isn't the point. Yes, it's fairly obvious that Apple knew that the guy lost the prototype even before the article went up given the remotely bricked the phone.
But posting the guy's name and picture, humiliating someone. Is that how you'd want YOUR name to become famous on the 'net'? For being so unlucky as to lose company property on your birthday outing? Maybe he'll keep his job, maybe he won't.
It's like being Steve Bartman, only having his professional life being impacted rather than his personal life.
Seriously, given how many companies do Facebook checks on their new employees for potentially embarrassing info, what do you think this guy's future interview are going to look like?
I spend most of my time reading http://www.engadget.com/ and http://arstechnica.com/ depending on whether I want 'gossip' news or 'newspaper' news. Engadget was created by the original founder of Gizmodo, so to me it's a fairly close match minus the over the top Apple slant.
That isn't to say that they don't go pro-Apple sometimes, but it's far less "I love Apple and here are some of the reasons why you are an idiot if you don't" than Gizmodo's articles are.
The engineer didn't break confidentiality, he lost a prototype of a phone while out getting pissed on his birthday. That said no one talks to Gizmodo anyway, they are the ass end of tech blogs, about the only reason to go read them is if you are low on your daily kissup articles to Apple. The really amazing thing about this whole story is not that an Apple employee lost a prototype, it's that the tech blog that broke the story is the same one that spends most of it's time jizzing over Apple products to the point that you have to wonder if half the writers aren't working directly for Apple's marketing department.
Because they are assholes and exposing him lends credence to their story, the story that pulled in so many hits that the entire Gawker group of blogs had to turn off comments for most of the day to handle the load being generated. The story that most of the non-Gizmodo sites were calling bullshit on because no one thought that it'd be plausible that they could come into possession of one of the phones in the way that they explained. The story that is likely to get get someone on their staff in trouble for being in possession of stolen goods, industrial espionage, and etc.
And, since they've realized this, they are doing their best to cover their asses by doing everything they can now to look like they were simply attempting to get it back to him rather than paying $5k to get an exclusive look at it.
Is that possibly the same document that forced you to buy a Windows machine?
A monopoly is a monopoly. Apple has one on the iPhone. Having a monopoly isn't illegal, using your monopoly illegally is.
Google hasn't and didn't break the law. Orphaned works, prior to the GBS were treated by Google the same way they treated non-orphaned works, they were indexed to be search-able.
The majority of what is being done in the Google Book Settlement is NOT what Google was originally planning on doing. However it is what they were able to get the people heading the class action to agree to once they set down at the table.
And you are right, I think, in that there was no other way for this to come about than other then Google being involved in a class action. But you are wrong, I sincerely believe, in assuming that just because Google got sued for the little that they were doing, that what they were doing was wrong or illegal.
People have squabbles over what constitutes fair use all the time and gotten it taken to court all the time and invariably one group walks out disappointed and the other walks out happy. And it's not always the guy that owns the copyrights that is the one that's happy. Fair use has no concrete definition and while there are guidelines that are supposed to be used in deciding if a use is fair or not, the reality is these things are almost always 100% subjective decisions that depend more on who the judge is, and how well the lawyers make their case rather than if it's really 'fair'.
The GBS has no exclusivity clauses in it. It does not prevent other companies from doing anything Google has done.
Psssst, he is him. Himself.
That comment is so full of bullshit, I'm not even certain where to start.
Wait, I know, lets start at the start:
THIS SHOULD BE COVERED BY FAIR USE
What is evil about what they were originally working on? Where is the blatant disregard for copyright that you are stumping on about? The fact that the GBS greatly expands their plans and what they are doing is not because that is what they were originally planning, it's because that's what the lawyers were able to AGREE upon when they sat down at the table!
No, they don't. It's been established fairly solidly in case law that thumbnails are fair use when used as results for search criteria.
Deviant Art's EULA is more likely to cover the fact that they actually sell prints of works you upload to them if you allow them to.