almost all modern netbooks run win 7. i have one, and as much as it pains people to hear this it actually works quite well. performance is acceptable and battery life is excellent.
While it is true that he recently recanted on music,
and, the only reason he did that was because amazon did it first. nothing trendsetting there, just apple scrambling too keep up with their competition.
Shared Source, Accessible Source, Viewable Source, mean the source can be viewed. Using Open Source in this fashion is incorrect and is an unethical PR word-play ploy by a proprietary company trying to cash in on what Open Source actually is.
"open source" means that the source is publicly available, and nothing else. anything else you read into it is because you are spending entirely too much time on slashdot.
i probably didn't read it because it was modded down as off topic, as you might expect as we are discussing a legal matter under the jurisdiction of the US/CA.
the idiot LEFT IT ON THE BAR. it was FOUND. when they purchased it, probably they didnt even know which idiot left it in the bar.
that is irrelevant. you may not sell property for which you are not the legal owner. it doesn't matter how you come into possession of the property. the issue is the guy that found it knew it wasn't his when he sold it, and that gizmodo knew the guy wasn't the rightful owner when they bought it from him. that's cut and dry.
if you are confused why the law works like that, consider a scenario: you are in a bar, with your wallet on a table. you get up to go to the bathroom, forgetting about your wallet. 10 seconds later you realize, and turn around to see a guy grab the wallet off the table and walk out the door.
did he commit a crime? according to you no. the worst that can happen to him is if you are lucky enough to have the police catch him in which case you get your wallet back. after all, prove that he didn't just "find" the wallet and with good intentions set off to locate the rightful owner.
4) Apple rebuffs finder and does not attempt to recover or claim the property (at this point how can it be considered stolen???)
you don't have to consider it stolen, you only need to consider yourself not the legal owner. you can't sell something you don't legally own. doesn't matter how you came into possession. you may want to make the claim that a confused conversation with a 1st level tech support rep constitutes legal transfer of ownership. good luck with that.
it doesn't matter. lost or stolen, you can't sell something that doesn't belong to you. period. end of story. at no point in time does legal ownership transfer from the loser to the finder.
why?
if the law wasn't like that, you'd have every thief claiming they "found" the goods in their possession. thief takes my wallet. it's now his word against mine that i didn't lose they wallet, and thereby making his possession of the wallet perfectly legal.
your are making it much more complicated than it is. under CA law, you may not sell something that you do not legally own, and you cannot buy something that is not legally owned by the seller. both are crimes.
If I find your wallet and contact you, twice, and you REFUSE to accept it back, how am I now a thief?
it doesn't matter how hard the seller tried to contact the legal owner. unless they had legal ownership transferred to them, then cannot sell it.
to answer your question, nobody would convict you of being a thief in that situation. but if you then spend the money in the wallet, you have broken the law.
i've lost my wallet a few times and have found it intact, with the $ missing. i honestly lost it, and someone honestly found it. but that doesn't give them the right to take my $ out of it.
He did his due dilligence, and got no response whatsoever. So nothing illegal happened here.
nope. he sold property that he did not own. that's illegal, period. at no point does ownership transfer to the "finder", no matter how long or hard he tried to contact the owner.
Finders keepers isn't the rule generally. Even small children are taught that.
and it's simple common sense. if people could get away with taking property they don't own by simply claiming that they found the property, it opens all sorts of loopholes.
suppose i'm at a bar and i get up to use the restroom. i leave my wallet on the table. 10 seconds after getting up i realize this, and turn around to see a person picking up my wallet and walking out the door. i call the police and they catch him, but he claims he found the wallet, and they have to let him go?
the galaxy is full of natural resources. if you have mastered inter-stellar travel you can get to all of them... mining asteroids or non-habitable planets is not a problem. same with energy. aliens don't need planet-based fossil fuels. they have nuclear fission of course and can mine the raw materials for that from gas giants which are again plentiful.
further, if they have figured how to live for tens or hundreds of years, the time required to cross inter-stellar distances, in space habitats, they aren't interested in our "habitable" planet. earth is most likely toxic by their standards.
so, there's not a practical reason for them to subjugate us. that leaves the possibility that they are just violent for the sake of violence. that's extremely unlikely though, as they managed as a species to survive together long enough on their planet to develop space travel.
that all being said, there's still a small chance that whatever aliens find us would for some reason do us harm. there is also of course a good chance they would do us *good*. a species that possess the technology for inter-stellar travel could gift us even their simplest technologies and can get humanity over this bump in the road we are facing now. for example, nuclear fission reactors would give the world clean, plentiful energy.
considering how humanity is going and it's chances of survival, alien contact would be an incredible bit of luck for us now.
not practical. anytime anyone walks by your house with a wifi phone the alarm would be going off. anytime your neighbor turns on their PC the alarm would be going off.
yeah he didn't say that actually. in a nutshell, he said that in the age of the patriot act where the government can access any electronic record, if you are doing something illegal, you had better not be doing it in the internet.
the know an SSID and and approximate location. they have no way of mapping that SSID to an exact address and therefore they also can't map it to a name. they aren't collecting anything about you as individual.
Yeah, but if Apple uses it's existing monopoly (ARM - assuming the deal goes through) to put the squeeze on other smartphone providers in an attempt to dominate the smartphone market, they're going to get smacked down
in the 5 years it will take regulators to smack them down, apple will dominate the smart phone market. they get some fine, and perhaps have to settle with other manufacturers. a good deal, because that's a one-time payment as opposed to the vast, ongoing income they get from ruling the world of smart phones.
compare it to AMD vs. intel. AMD may end up receiving a large settlement, but nothing is going to make them competitive with intel, as they were before intel started it's anti-competitive practices.
Assuming the worst case scenario, Apple buys ARM, gets it past the regulators, then takes their new found power and starts abusing it; is it really all that bad?
1. there are plenty of legal things apple can do to give themselves an advantage. the simplest one is increasing license costs. they don't have to increase them exorbitantly to give themselves an advantage.
2. no one is close to competing w/ ARM. that gives apple a HUGE head start while the other chip manufacturers scramble to fill the spot... and while other smart phones flounder with inferior chips.
3. even if they did something illegal and eventually got smacked down by regulators, in the 5 years it takes the courts to do anything apple will have squashed the competition. sort of like intel and AMD. intel may have to settle with AMD, but it will never get AMD back to it's glory days. intel knew damn well it was being anti-competitive and that it was illegal. it turned out to be a good decision for them.
like you said, it wouldn't be anything so blazen as not renewing licenses. considering how tight the competition is w/ smart phones, and slight advantage in their favor is going to multiplied in the market. there are many legal ways to give themselves an advantage if they owned ARM.
i have a relative that works in the US in a similar job... putting chips onto circuit boards. i don't know what we are comparing it to, but it looks like about the same conditions. it's clean, well lit... nothing unsafe about the environment. compared to a nice cubicle with a special-ordered ergo chair, etc it isn't that great but most folks in the US aren't doing any better.
since they are all sleeping, it seems more like they are having a group nap time than that they all happened to fall asleep at the same time and management hadn't noticed yet.
i'm just speaking about what's revealed in the picture. 15 hour work days don't sounds great. i can't say i understand how $0.52 translates into chinese currency.
i am fairly certain that "finders keepers" isn't the law of the land.
it's illegal to purchase goods from someone who is not the rightful owner of those goods. it doesn't matter if the finder stole it or found it. he knows it doesn't belong to him. it's illegal for him to sell it.
let me set up a scenario to help you. you are sitting in a bar. you are a little drunk, and you get up to go to the bathroom. halfway there you realize you left your iphone on the table. you turn around and see a guy snatch it off the table and walk out the door.
did you steal it? how do you know that he didn't just see an empty table with an iphone, and "find" your iphone? maybe he did. imagine a world where as long as we don't pay attention we can take whatever we want and claim that we found it?
but anyway, don't take my word for it. i encourage you to go around town today testing your theory and "find" all sorts of things you like. better square away your bail money first.
also if he contacts and old customer and tells them they are being fraudulently billed, it's really up to them at that point to take action. if they can't take the time to investigate if they are actually receiving a service what they are being billed, that's up to them.
does anyone think that $5k was a little cheap? not that i personally think it's money well spent, but considering the hype over new apple products and the ad revenue that can be generated from a scoop like this, i would have expected more.
Slashdot Mirror
almost all modern netbooks run win 7. i have one, and as much as it pains people to hear this it actually works quite well. performance is acceptable and battery life is excellent.
While it is true that he recently recanted on music,
and, the only reason he did that was because amazon did it first. nothing trendsetting there, just apple scrambling too keep up with their competition.
Shared Source, Accessible Source, Viewable Source, mean the source can be viewed. Using Open Source in this fashion is incorrect and is an unethical PR word-play ploy by a proprietary company trying to cash in on what Open Source actually is.
"open source" means that the source is publicly available, and nothing else. anything else you read into it is because you are spending entirely too much time on slashdot.
http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/
i probably didn't read it because it was modded down as off topic, as you might expect as we are discussing a legal matter under the jurisdiction of the US/CA.
this happened in the united states, right? your point is?
they can state anything they want, but we're looking at the facts.
1. they paid $5000
2. they took apart the device, most probably damaging it
3. they profited immensely from that purchase
case closed.
he did purchase stolen goods though. good enough.
there's two crimes here ... they just have not located the 2nd perp yet. hence the search warrant and seizure of the gizmodo author's computer.
the idiot LEFT IT ON THE BAR. it was FOUND. when they purchased it, probably they didnt even know which idiot left it in the bar.
that is irrelevant. you may not sell property for which you are not the legal owner. it doesn't matter how you come into possession of the property. the issue is the guy that found it knew it wasn't his when he sold it, and that gizmodo knew the guy wasn't the rightful owner when they bought it from him. that's cut and dry.
if you are confused why the law works like that, consider a scenario: you are in a bar, with your wallet on a table. you get up to go to the bathroom, forgetting about your wallet. 10 seconds later you realize, and turn around to see a guy grab the wallet off the table and walk out the door.
did he commit a crime? according to you no. the worst that can happen to him is if you are lucky enough to have the police catch him in which case you get your wallet back. after all, prove that he didn't just "find" the wallet and with good intentions set off to locate the rightful owner.
see the problem?
4) Apple rebuffs finder and does not attempt to recover or claim the property (at this point how can it be considered stolen???)
you don't have to consider it stolen, you only need to consider yourself not the legal owner. you can't sell something you don't legally own. doesn't matter how you came into possession. you may want to make the claim that a confused conversation with a 1st level tech support rep constitutes legal transfer of ownership. good luck with that.
sigh ...
it doesn't matter. lost or stolen, you can't sell something that doesn't belong to you. period. end of story. at no point in time does legal ownership transfer from the loser to the finder.
why?
if the law wasn't like that, you'd have every thief claiming they "found" the goods in their possession. thief takes my wallet. it's now his word against mine that i didn't lose they wallet, and thereby making his possession of the wallet perfectly legal.
your are making it much more complicated than it is. under CA law, you may not sell something that you do not legally own, and you cannot buy something that is not legally owned by the seller. both are crimes.
If I find your wallet and contact you, twice, and you REFUSE to accept it back, how am I now a thief?
it doesn't matter how hard the seller tried to contact the legal owner. unless they had legal ownership transferred to them, then cannot sell it.
to answer your question, nobody would convict you of being a thief in that situation. but if you then spend the money in the wallet, you have broken the law.
i've lost my wallet a few times and have found it intact, with the $ missing. i honestly lost it, and someone honestly found it. but that doesn't give them the right to take my $ out of it.
He did his due dilligence, and got no response whatsoever. So nothing illegal happened here.
nope. he sold property that he did not own. that's illegal, period. at no point does ownership transfer to the "finder", no matter how long or hard he tried to contact the owner.
Finders keepers isn't the rule generally. Even small children are taught that.
and it's simple common sense. if people could get away with taking property they don't own by simply claiming that they found the property, it opens all sorts of loopholes.
suppose i'm at a bar and i get up to use the restroom. i leave my wallet on the table. 10 seconds after getting up i realize this, and turn around to see a person picking up my wallet and walking out the door. i call the police and they catch him, but he claims he found the wallet, and they have to let him go?
i don't think so.
you are not allowed to sell property that is not yours, and you aren't allowed to buy property that doesn't belong to the seller. pretty simple.
the galaxy is full of natural resources. if you have mastered inter-stellar travel you can get to all of them ... mining asteroids or non-habitable planets is not a problem. same with energy. aliens don't need planet-based fossil fuels. they have nuclear fission of course and can mine the raw materials for that from gas giants which are again plentiful.
further, if they have figured how to live for tens or hundreds of years, the time required to cross inter-stellar distances, in space habitats, they aren't interested in our "habitable" planet. earth is most likely toxic by their standards.
so, there's not a practical reason for them to subjugate us. that leaves the possibility that they are just violent for the sake of violence. that's extremely unlikely though, as they managed as a species to survive together long enough on their planet to develop space travel.
that all being said, there's still a small chance that whatever aliens find us would for some reason do us harm. there is also of course a good chance they would do us *good*. a species that possess the technology for inter-stellar travel could gift us even their simplest technologies and can get humanity over this bump in the road we are facing now. for example, nuclear fission reactors would give the world clean, plentiful energy.
considering how humanity is going and it's chances of survival, alien contact would be an incredible bit of luck for us now.
not practical. anytime anyone walks by your house with a wifi phone the alarm would be going off. anytime your neighbor turns on their PC the alarm would be going off.
yeah he didn't say that actually. in a nutshell, he said that in the age of the patriot act where the government can access any electronic record, if you are doing something illegal, you had better not be doing it in the internet.
the know an SSID and and approximate location. they have no way of mapping that SSID to an exact address and therefore they also can't map it to a name. they aren't collecting anything about you as individual.
Yeah, but if Apple uses it's existing monopoly (ARM - assuming the deal goes through) to put the squeeze on other smartphone providers in an attempt to dominate the smartphone market, they're going to get smacked down
in the 5 years it will take regulators to smack them down, apple will dominate the smart phone market. they get some fine, and perhaps have to settle with other manufacturers. a good deal, because that's a one-time payment as opposed to the vast, ongoing income they get from ruling the world of smart phones.
compare it to AMD vs. intel. AMD may end up receiving a large settlement, but nothing is going to make them competitive with intel, as they were before intel started it's anti-competitive practices.
Assuming the worst case scenario, Apple buys ARM, gets it past the regulators, then takes their new found power and starts abusing it; is it really all that bad?
1. there are plenty of legal things apple can do to give themselves an advantage. the simplest one is increasing license costs. they don't have to increase them exorbitantly to give themselves an advantage.
2. no one is close to competing w/ ARM. that gives apple a HUGE head start while the other chip manufacturers scramble to fill the spot ... and while other smart phones flounder with inferior chips.
3. even if they did something illegal and eventually got smacked down by regulators, in the 5 years it takes the courts to do anything apple will have squashed the competition. sort of like intel and AMD. intel may have to settle with AMD, but it will never get AMD back to it's glory days. intel knew damn well it was being anti-competitive and that it was illegal. it turned out to be a good decision for them.
like you said, it wouldn't be anything so blazen as not renewing licenses. considering how tight the competition is w/ smart phones, and slight advantage in their favor is going to multiplied in the market. there are many legal ways to give themselves an advantage if they owned ARM.
i have a relative that works in the US in a similar job ... putting chips onto circuit boards. i don't know what we are comparing it to, but it looks like about the same conditions. it's clean, well lit ... nothing unsafe about the environment. compared to a nice cubicle with a special-ordered ergo chair, etc it isn't that great but most folks in the US aren't doing any better.
since they are all sleeping, it seems more like they are having a group nap time than that they all happened to fall asleep at the same time and management hadn't noticed yet.
i'm just speaking about what's revealed in the picture. 15 hour work days don't sounds great. i can't say i understand how $0.52 translates into chinese currency.
i am fairly certain that "finders keepers" isn't the law of the land.
it's illegal to purchase goods from someone who is not the rightful owner of those goods. it doesn't matter if the finder stole it or found it. he knows it doesn't belong to him. it's illegal for him to sell it.
let me set up a scenario to help you. you are sitting in a bar. you are a little drunk, and you get up to go to the bathroom. halfway there you realize you left your iphone on the table. you turn around and see a guy snatch it off the table and walk out the door.
did you steal it? how do you know that he didn't just see an empty table with an iphone, and "find" your iphone? maybe he did. imagine a world where as long as we don't pay attention we can take whatever we want and claim that we found it?
but anyway, don't take my word for it. i encourage you to go around town today testing your theory and "find" all sorts of things you like. better square away your bail money first.
also if he contacts and old customer and tells them they are being fraudulently billed, it's really up to them at that point to take action. if they can't take the time to investigate if they are actually receiving a service what they are being billed, that's up to them.
does anyone think that $5k was a little cheap? not that i personally think it's money well spent, but considering the hype over new apple products and the ad revenue that can be generated from a scoop like this, i would have expected more.