You apparently did not read the Gizmodo stories actually says is that the guy called the help desk of the employer of the person who lost the phone. How is that a reasonable attempt to return it. he was not told to pound sand.. The Apple care people had no idea what he was talking about.
He never once just called Apple and asked to be connected to Gray..He did know his name. He did what he did so people like you would think he tried to return it. Unfortunately for Gizmodo and the thief, most people are more perceptive.
Calling the help desk of the employer of the person who lost the phone is not a reasonable effort to return it. You don't think it is either, you are just trying to be contrary. He knew the persons name..Never made a single attempt to try and contact him, nor did he leave his own contact information with the bar. (Which would have had the phone returned since Gray contacted the bar several times).
I believe I addressed the need to keep it on current media, which is considerably less effort than what is required to preserve any film negatives in use today.
You can work on them, but are they undamaged by age. Glass is not widely used for photographic negatives today:) Current materials may not hold up as well. I have never suggested anyone keep their photographs on 40 year old media. The routine migration of archived data is..umm..routine here in 2010. The are many corporations that have digital archives that stretch back more than 30 years, yet none of them are stored on 30 year old media.
If you are truly concerned about the survival of your photography through the catastrophic loss of all technical knowledge, you may be over thinking the problem, but your are free to print negatives or prints of your digital photographs (with admittedly similar results to scanning film photographs)
The only care needed for digital media is to maintain two copies and maintained on current formats as technology progress and it will be exactly the same in 1000 years as it is today. You simply can not say the same thing for film.
To even have a usable negative more than 100 years old requires careful preservation under strict environmental controls. You can not make a loss-less copy of film so you will always have some danger of fire, heat or water damage wherever you end up storing it.
I can very inexpensively find two hosting providers today providing tier 1 storage and backups to alternate media for pennies a gigabyte. My only remaining requirement is to ensure my media does not go obsolete, which frankly is a once every 15-20 year concern and easily managed.
There is a reason there has been a massive effort to digitize pictures and movies over the past few years. Film has a limited life span. Yes it can be extended with painstaking attention, but it will eventually degrade.
You seriously think it is easier to back up film? That film will not degrade over time. It is much easier to maintain a backup of a digital photo for ever than permantly preserving a film negative.
There are 100 million iDevices, the only reckless behavior for a mobile developer would be not developing for them.
If your business is writing games that violate the developers agreement, than yes you should not develop for the iPhone exclusively, or even bother at all.
If you are a new developer in the mobile space and want to focus on one platform and you do not make porn apps and are not trying to interfere with core functionality, the only reasonable choice is the iphone/ipod touch/ipad...
What mobile platform are developers large and small making more money on? (Rhetorical).......It is in fact a privilege. Does it help Apple yes, does it help developers yes.
Your knowledge of the law is umm poor at best. We are not a nation of Finders / Keepers. There is a specific process to be followed in California and it was not (We know this because it takes more than 90 days from find to sell).
Gizmodo had a responsibility after learning how the phone was acquired to ensure the actual steps required in California. They did not, those steps were not followed and they broke the law.
And then you went to prison for grand theft auto, since all that matters is whats actually in the law. The law is written the way it is because it provides a verifiable and known process to ensure the person losing the item has a reasonable time to find the item.
If he had the phone and followed the proper procedure under California law and then decided to sell it, that would be one thing. He did not do that (the time line presented does not allow for it).
California is a State with a 90 day waiting period. My source is the laws of the state of California. (The Sacremento police department has a nice page with a full description of the state law if you feel like looking it up).
Funny ho wyou asked for a source but then made a wild claim as to what the laws are in 30 states without a single source.
You are right in the end though. The facts are in this case, in California. The source stole the phone, Gizmodo knew the circumstances under which it was acquired. It was their responsibility to understand those circumstances constituted a theft. Gizmodo knowingly received stolen merchandise and paid $5000 for it. The company will try to say whoever did it was acting on their own and throw them under the legal bus. Maybe they were.
Than you need to research California law. Both the seller and Gizmodo committed felonies in the state of California. It is not ambiguous at all. The law clearly states the procedure that must be followed regarding found items before the finder may legally take possession of them. Giz's sources clearly did not follow these procedures. He stole the phone and Gizmodo knowingly received stolen property (by their own admission).
Of course then that would defeat the purpose because no one would see your cartoons. If you had said: F*CK apple I am going to convert my web site to something that will work on every platform, I would be with you. Going to Android would be silly.
Or you could make a link to his web page on your home screen...As long as he chose to make a web page that uses open web standards, you would be all set!
Slashdot Mirror
You apparently did not read the Gizmodo stories actually says is that the guy called the help desk of the employer of the person who lost the phone. How is that a reasonable attempt to return it. he was not told to pound sand.. The Apple care people had no idea what he was talking about.
He never once just called Apple and asked to be connected to Gray..He did know his name. He did what he did so people like you would think he tried to return it. Unfortunately for Gizmodo and the thief, most people are more perceptive.
Calling the help desk of the employer of the person who lost the phone is not a reasonable effort to return it. You don't think it is either, you are just trying to be contrary. He knew the persons name..Never made a single attempt to try and contact him, nor did he leave his own contact information with the bar. (Which would have had the phone returned since Gray contacted the bar several times).
I believe I addressed the need to keep it on current media, which is considerably less effort than what is required to preserve any film negatives in use today.
You can work on them, but are they undamaged by age. Glass is not widely used for photographic negatives today :) Current materials may not hold up as well. I have never suggested anyone keep their photographs on 40 year old media. The routine migration of archived data is..umm..routine here in 2010. The are many corporations that have digital archives that stretch back more than 30 years, yet none of them are stored on 30 year old media.
If you are truly concerned about the survival of your photography through the catastrophic loss of all technical knowledge, you may be over thinking the problem, but your are free to print negatives or prints of your digital photographs (with admittedly similar results to scanning film photographs)
The only care needed for digital media is to maintain two copies and maintained on current formats as technology progress and it will be exactly the same in 1000 years as it is today. You simply can not say the same thing for film.
To even have a usable negative more than 100 years old requires careful preservation under strict environmental controls. You can not make a loss-less copy of film so you will always have some danger of fire, heat or water damage wherever you end up storing it.
I can very inexpensively find two hosting providers today providing tier 1 storage and backups to alternate media for pennies a gigabyte. My only remaining requirement is to ensure my media does not go obsolete, which frankly is a once every 15-20 year concern and easily managed.
There is a reason there has been a massive effort to digitize pictures and movies over the past few years. Film has a limited life span. Yes it can be extended with painstaking attention, but it will eventually degrade.
We will talk again in 100 years ;)
I am sorry that I can not answer, but I did feel compelled to say this: How dare you ask questions relevant to the story!!
You seriously think it is easier to back up film? That film will not degrade over time. It is much easier to maintain a backup of a digital photo for ever than permantly preserving a film negative.
There are 100 million iDevices, the only reckless behavior for a mobile developer would be not developing for them.
If your business is writing games that violate the developers agreement, than yes you should not develop for the iPhone exclusively, or even bother at all.
If you are a new developer in the mobile space and want to focus on one platform and you do not make porn apps and are not trying to interfere with core functionality, the only reasonable choice is the iphone/ipod touch/ipad...
What mobile platform are developers large and small making more money on? (Rhetorical) .......It is in fact a privilege. Does it help Apple yes, does it help developers yes.
-1 reading Comprehension, try again? In any case, -2 knowing what a monopoly is.
You can join the developer program and install any app you want on your phone. You can do whatever you want.
Anyone may write any app they want for the iPhone. Join the developers program, get the SDK and progran away.
It would cost you $99 to do it. I could write an app that says Fuck You in a rainbow of colors and load it on my phone..
In fact I just did. My iPhone has an app that says Fuck you. Next version will have Audio.
I can load any app I want on my iPhone. No my iPhone is not jailbroken.
Your knowledge of the law is umm poor at best. We are not a nation of Finders / Keepers. There is a specific process to be followed in California and it was not (We know this because it takes more than 90 days from find to sell).
Gizmodo had a responsibility after learning how the phone was acquired to ensure the actual steps required in California. They did not, those steps were not followed and they broke the law.
Don't forget Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft. Wow developers should not work anywhere that makes software that people use!
That is because your reading comprehension is terrible. Back to grade school with you.
Actually the heart of the issue is the thief and the fence...
And then you went to prison for grand theft auto, since all that matters is whats actually in the law. The law is written the way it is because it provides a verifiable and known process to ensure the person losing the item has a reasonable time to find the item.
If he had the phone and followed the proper procedure under California law and then decided to sell it, that would be one thing. He did not do that (the time line presented does not allow for it).
California is a State with a 90 day waiting period. My source is the laws of the state of California. (The Sacremento police department has a nice page with a full description of the state law if you feel like looking it up).
Funny ho wyou asked for a source but then made a wild claim as to what the laws are in 30 states without a single source.
You are right in the end though. The facts are in this case, in California. The source stole the phone, Gizmodo knew the circumstances under which it was acquired. It was their responsibility to understand those circumstances constituted a theft. Gizmodo knowingly received stolen merchandise and paid $5000 for it. The company will try to say whoever did it was acting on their own and throw them under the legal bus. Maybe they were.
Than you need to research California law. Both the seller and Gizmodo committed felonies in the state of California. It is not ambiguous at all. The law clearly states the procedure that must be followed regarding found items before the finder may legally take possession of them. Giz's sources clearly did not follow these procedures. He stole the phone and Gizmodo knowingly received stolen property (by their own admission).
Of course then that would defeat the purpose because no one would see your cartoons. If you had said: F*CK apple I am going to convert my web site to something that will work on every platform, I would be with you. Going to Android would be silly.
Hey it is only 80million + devices versus um how many for android again?
Perhaps instead this will help him to use a more open format for displaying his cartoons and not one that requires an interpreter
There is a rule on defamation, the mistake the reviewer made was in consider defamation and ridicule to be the same thing.
Or you could make a link to his web page on your home screen...As long as he chose to make a web page that uses open web standards, you would be all set!