or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macslut

Citation please. Take a look at Lambert v. California, a close look at it as it pertains to ignorantia legis non excusat and mens rea. SCOTUS ruled specifically that this case wasn't an exception to ignorance as an excuse but rather it was a local ordinance that resulted in no action for the felon to be aware of the requirement. There was no intent of the defendant to commit an act that he didn't know was illegal. It's a subtle, but huge difference.This is precisely...
The bar stools don't have backs on them. There are two types of stools there. The standard round wooden top and a square cushion top (it's a very hard cushion). Both stools are such that you can't have an iPhone in your front or back pocket when wearing jeans...at least I can't and from the looks of everyone else, you couldn't with any pants. Everyone there has an iPhone with a few Blackberries and maybe the odd retard phone. It's a very serious beer bar with beer...
"There was no desire to joy ride" Taking it apart was definitely a joy ride. Look at their whole history of presentation. In no way was it, "does this phone belong to you?" It was all about profiting from hits as a result of leaking information about the stolen property they purchased."There is also scant evidence that the initial appropriation of the property was in any way solicited by Gizmodo." That doesn't really matter, however, Gawker had previously posted a...
It doesn't matter if it was an Apple prototype or fake knock-off. It also doesn't matter what Gizmodo thought in relation to this. According to Gizmodo, the "finder" saw the Facebook profile of the engineer who lost the phone. The "finder" or Gizmodo could've easily contacted the engineer through Facebook. But worse, they could've also given it to the bar manager, or at least notified the bar manager. They should've either taken or sent it to Apple, if they believed it...
This is a bit of a red herring, because I don't think it was a reasonable effort to return the phone by calling AppleCare, a tech support line. However, Gizmodo claims the "finder" received a case number from AppleCare. So to me the one thing that doesn't imply is that AppleCare said, "yes, we're authorized by Apple to grant you ownership of the phone. Do with it as you wish". If they gave a case number, more than likely it was a "We're just tech support, we're not...
I'm trying to catch up here. I'm still recovering from the beer from Gourmet Haus Staudt last night. Harliegh, what I don't understand is exactly what California Penal Codes you think Engadget violated. We have 485 and 496 for the theft and receiving of stolen goods, but those are for the "finder" and Gizmodo. Can you cite the law that Engadget broke, or are you just saying that what they did was morally wrong?
I'm posting this from the bar where the iPhone prototype was stolen. OMG, the beer is awesome. So are the pretzels. If you live anywhere around here, you MUST go to this place. It will change your life...even if you don't lose the next generation iPhone. Also, for what it's worth...if you were a phone thief, this place would keep you busy. There are iPhones, Blackberrys and whatnot all over the counters.
Hey, I know a place in Los Angeles that's filled with all kinds of high performance sports cars. And they're all lost. They're just sitting there with the keys in the ignition in a lot with a sign that says Valet Parking on it. I'll find one of those, maybe say a Ferrari, and then I'll call a Ferrari mechanic just to make sure it doesn't actually belong to anyone who wants it back. In the meantime, I'll drive it over so it can be disassembled and collect my $5,000.
Wow. Really? Wow! Ok, so you're not from California, or anywhere else where Finders Keepers isn't the law, but how did you make it this far without seeing anyone else citing California Penal Code Sections 485 and 496? Why would you post, "Finding lost property is never theft." as if you were stating a fact with no basis of actually knowing anything about what you were saying? Take a look at California Penal Codes Sections 485 and 496 and also Civil Code Section 2080 that...
I don't know...this time could be different! HP could merge Palm into their iPAQ lineup they acquired with the purchase of Compaq...oh wait, never mind! In the end, this helps Apple. HP could've gone with using Android or Windows 7 Phone Series.
New Posts  All Forums: