or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macslut

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...
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...
New Posts  All Forums: