or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macslut

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...
I can't speak for everyone in the court of public opinion, but here's why I think Gizmodo is guilty of douchebaggery and AI is not, as well as other sites and methods... First, there are all kinds of ways that AI and other sites get information...a lot is speculation, sometimes it's slip ups, piecing together public info like job postings or part orders, reviewing log files, finding EXIF or other metadata, or just general chatter. That's all well and good. It's also...
You might want to review your notes from criminal law regarding intent. Clearly Gizmodo intended to pay $5K for an iPhone that they knew did not belong to the seller. They didn't accidentally offer the seller $5K. Likewise the "finder" clearly intended to sell the phone as opposed to send it to Apple, or turn it into the police, or contact the engineer (the finder saw the engineer's Facebook profile on the phone), or take it to an Apple Store. Clearly the "finder"...
At least we've all been civil to ourselves. I'm enjoying this debate. I disagree with you on many points, but respect your point of view. The key point of where I'm disagreeing with you is that this isn't a "Is OJ guilty of murder" or "Did Tiger's wife cause the accident" or anything like that where people are bringing into the argument nothing but speculation based on their biases. If I were a juror and the defense quoted everything Gizmodo posted, the prosecution could...
That's covered in the Hit Whoring Idiotic Douchebag Felons™ What's really stupid here is that Gizmodo and the "finder" could have avoided violating sections 485 and 496 of the California Penal Code by following the processes in California Civil Code 2080 and along the way covering it as a story. In other words Gizmodo could've paid the finder $5K for exclusive rights to the story...shot video, taken pictures and all of that and then posted it on their site as "Hey, is...
The "finder" of the phone is claimed by Gizmodo as posted on their site, to have looked through the phone that night before it was wiped. That is how he supposedly saw his Facebook profile. It's also where the confusing 80GB came from.
What‽‽‽‽‽‽ Care to cite that?
It's not just being fired. I could understand that. It's being unemployed in the career you prepared for during the rest of your life because the Hit Whoring Idiotic Douchebag Felons™ outed you and there would be no way someone in this industry would hire you after doing the Google check for just a few seconds and seeing this. Also, we don't know all the details around the loss of the phone or his possession of it. There may be circumstances that make it more...
Really?Ok, consider every time I say stolen phone, what I mean is:The phone that Gizmodo claims, as posted on their site, purchased, as they claim as posted on their site, from someone as they claim as posted on their site, who they knew as they claim as posted on their site, stole the phone.Throw in a few more "Gizmodo claims as posted on their site"s if it makes you feel better.It's Gizmodo's own allegation against themselves.
I would really love to see that. Gray Powell had an accident that could've happened to most of us. I really feel for him and hope he comes out the other side of this for the better. I wrote to Steve saying that he should go on stage and say, "And now, to re-introduce the iPhone 4...Gray Powell!" Also with the previous thread, he should close the show with music by The Hit Whoring Idiotic Douchebag Felons™
New Posts  All Forums: