or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macslut

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.
One major point of law here that you're overlooking is that ignorance of the law is *never* an excuse. It's not going to work for Gizmodo any more than it will for the "finder". The only thing that could apply that would distinguish the two is if Gizmodo didn't know they were buying something that was stolen...not that they didn't know the law, but rather that they didn't know the "finder" wasn't the rightful owner of the property. Gizmodo claims they knew the "finder"...
next generation Palm anything That's some comedy gold right there.
30% with active service seems like a high number. 30% in use during the survey seems like a low number, depending upon how long the survey is. The active service number seems high because you could have sold your original iPhone for more than what a new one costs with subsidy.
Yeah, remember when Gizmodo went around the show floor at CES with a remote that turned off all the monitors? That was some Pulizter Prize winning journalism right there!!! Seriously though, yes bloggers are journalists when that's what they're engaged in actually doing. So if Gizmodo had legally obtained information, the police shouldn't have been able to search and seize in order to discover the source. However, in this case, the police were searching for evidence in...
It could have been a semi-targeted theft. iPhones are very popular here, sometimes almost freakishly so in some bars and restaurants. Someone may have seen the engineer using the phone and seen the screen (the new OS was on it), perhaps talked with him or overheard him say he was an engineer with Apple and then that person saw an opportunity to swipe the phone (from his jacket, pocket, etc...). Searching online for where to sell it wouldn't be that hard if the thief...
New Posts  All Forums: