Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Not quite sure what your point is here, 1 suicide in a population of 300 is a suicide rate of 1/300 and 3 suicides in a population of 900 is still a rate of 1/300, etc. We were talking about suicide _rates_, not raw numbers, and as I said, densely populated areas have lower suicide rates than the less densely populated ones, generally speaking. The phenomenon is undisputed among social scientists, though they do argue over the causes. This isn't to say that there aren't regional and cultural variations, though, so that for example the map shows that a region in the central midwest and another one in the central south have higher suicide rates almost irrespective of population density. If your point with the numbers is the same as Donne's that any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind..., then I am entirely with you on that. The rural/urban divide is a recent phenomenon (historically speaking), by the way. Prior to the 70s, rural and urban suicide rates were approximately equal, but since then they have greatly increased in rural areas while mostly holding steady in urban areas. You might have been trying to make another point with your example, that if a population of 300 has an underlying suicide rate of 1/3000, then you would only expect one suicide every 10 years on average, but the year that a suicide occurs the measured rate is 10 times greater than it really is. This kind of measurement error is accounted for in the map data. If you want, I can explain the ways I see (I am not a demographer and this is really offtopic), but suffice it to say that demographers know about this kind of measurement error and how to account for it. On May 1, 2010, at 6:39 PM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: From:Rev. Stewart Marshall revsamarsh...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: illegal search warrant? Actually I was half right. Note the fine print of the map: Based on death data from 2000 through 2006, this US map of the smoothed, county-level, age-adjusted suicide rates indicate that suicide rates are highest in the western and northwestern regions of the United States. There is also a notable pattern of high suicide rates among counties in the central areas of the midwest and southern regions and in central Florida. They may be lower in density but they are not the norm. The areas I was most familiar with (upper midwest) showed a lower suicide rate. Also statistics can be misleading. 1 suicide in an area of 300 is 1/300 of the population but it is still one. 10 suicides in a area of 10,000 is 1/1,000. Not as large a statistical number but it is in reality over 3 times as many suicides. I have dealt with the aftermath of suicide and it is never a fun topic nor easy to explain. Many things go into it. Stewart At 10:09 PM 4/30/2010, you wrote: Actually, the holiday suicide idea is a media-perpetuated falsehood: http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/suicide.asp And I posted about this yesterday, but somehow the post didn't make it to the list: Stewart was wrong about suicide increasing with population density. It's exactly the opposite. Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and DC are among the most densely populated states and have some of the lowest suicide rates, while Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana have some of the higher rates and are among the least densely populated. If you want to see it visually by county, look at the two maps here of the suicide rate and population density: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/suicide_map.html http://www.mapofusa.net/us-population-density-map.htm You'll see a very good correspondence between low population density and high suicide rates or between high population density and low suicide rates. And it's not just the US, it seems to be a worldwide phenomenon: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10398page=36 In China, the contrast between the rural and urban suicide rates is particularly extreme. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Stewart Marshall revsamarsh...@earthlink.net wrote: They have maintained for some time that they have a unique status within the USA. (You might have heard the sound bite of their current governor a few months ago proposing secession?) Of course this is all hogwash, but you know Texans bigger than snot and about as useful. My first thought is good riddance to that god forsaken hell hole, but I do know lots of nice people who have escaped Texas. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Rick Perry is an embarrassment to the state educational system. He said when Texas entered the union in 1845, it was with the understanding it could later pull out. In fact, as the historical website points out (and Texas Monthly reminds its readers quite often), the agreement was that Texas could split itself into 5 states of comfortable size if it wanted, not that it could secede. If Perry could spark two brain cells together, he'd recognize that his faulty understanding can't be reconciled with the history of the Civil War, which included Texas among those states that can't secede. As to the Republic of Texas bit, Texans are inordinately proud of the fact that they were an actual republic from 1836-45, between independence from Mexico and admission to the U.S. Some other states or parts of states were republics too at some point, but not for as long and with the same degree of recognition as Texas, I think. On May 2, 2010, at 12:00 AM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: Date:Sat, 1 May 2010 22:25:36 -0500 From:Stewart Marshall revsamarsh...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: illegal search warrant? They have maintained for some time that they have a unique status within the USA. (You might have heard the sound bite of their current governor a few months ago proposing secession?) Of course this is all hogwash, but you know Texans bigger than snot and about as useful. Stewart At 09:55 PM 5/1/2010, you wrote: They are a republic..just like the US. On May 1, 2010 7:44 PM, Stewart Marshall revsamarsh...@earthlink.net wrote: Lets correct things a little bit here. A small group/committee decided this for the whole state. Kind of dumb but that is how it works. Similar problem in my church body a small group decides what our publishing house should put out. Dont smear the whole state by this action. But also remember they usually refer to themselves as a republic. Such as the United States and the Republic of Texas. Stewart * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Most states are still republics to a point. Of course this depends on your view of what a republic is...I know one of the wacks on that TX board when they were reviewing their history books didn't want to include that the US was a republic, she felt it was misleading even if true. On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:29 AM, David K Watson davidkirkwat...@gmail.comwrote: Rick Perry is an embarrassment to the state educational system. He said when Texas entered the union in 1845, it was with the understanding it could later pull out. In fact, as the historical website points out (and Texas Monthly reminds its readers quite often), the agreement was that Texas could split itself into 5 states of comfortable size if it wanted, not that it could secede. If Perry could spark two brain cells together, he'd recognize that his faulty understanding can't be reconciled with the history of the Civil War, which included Texas among those states that can't secede. As to the Republic of Texas bit, Texans are inordinately proud of the fact that they were an actual republic from 1836-45, between independence from Mexico and admission to the U.S. Some other states or parts of states were republics too at some point, but not for as long and with the same degree of recognition as Texas, I think. On May 2, 2010, at 12:00 AM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: Date:Sat, 1 May 2010 22:25:36 -0500 From:Stewart Marshall revsamarsh...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: illegal search warrant? They have maintained for some time that they have a unique status within the USA. (You might have heard the sound bite of their current governor a few months ago proposing secession?) Of course this is all hogwash, but you know Texans bigger than snot and about as useful. Stewart At 09:55 PM 5/1/2010, you wrote: They are a republic..just like the US. On May 1, 2010 7:44 PM, Stewart Marshall revsamarsh...@earthlink.net wrote: Lets correct things a little bit here. A small group/committee decided this for the whole state. Kind of dumb but that is how it works. Similar problem in my church body a small group decides what our publishing house should put out. Dont smear the whole state by this action. But also remember they usually refer to themselves as a republic. Such as the United States and the Republic of Texas. Stewart * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On May 1, 2010, at 7:18 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: You cannot have oil drilling off-shore without without accidents, spills and likely occasional disastrous consequences. Ditto for nuclear. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On May 1, 2010, at 7:18 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: I know he was, and personally I disagreed with that political decision. I thought such a wide open proposition was a recipe for looming disaster, and so did many others, including, as you point out, at least some conservatives. He threw his implacable opposition a bone in the spirit of compromise. Now suddenly all the neocons have always been against drilling and accuse BHO of being in bed with the oil companies. Sure... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On May 1, 2010, at 10:31 PM, Stewart Marshall wrote: Dont smear the whole state by this action. Perhaps, if this were the only example of same. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
We'll just power everything off hamsters. On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: On May 1, 2010, at 7:18 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: You cannot have oil drilling off-shore without without accidents, spills and likely occasional disastrous consequences. Ditto for nuclear. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
BHO was all for drilling until the shit hit the fan. No, he was never all for drilling. He gave this to the Republicans in another one of his misguided attempts to be bipartisan or to get them to vote for something he wanted. When will he learn? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575214593564769072.html Not a bad article on the matter. On May 2, 2010 5:59 PM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote: We'll just power everything off ha... I will be a good ten or more years before any new off-shore drilling really would begin to make a dent in our oil supplies. Plus, haste to hurry things up will result in a lot more spills and other accidents that would occur otherwise. FWIW, a couple of days ago, another oil rig that was being towed in the gulf capsized and sank. I heard somewhere that Halliburton built the system that was supposed to have shut off the oil flow in the case of a situation such as took place in this gulf incident, but they cut corners in some manner by not providing a normally used additional shut-off fail safe valve. Steve * ** List info, subscript... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 9:04 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575214593564769072.html Not a bad article on the matter. Back in 2009 BP testified before a federal regulatory board about potential environmental damage that this particular exploratory rig could cause if anything went wrong. Although, as the WSJ article points out, there have been numerous blowouts and attendant oil spills, some quite major, involving exactly the same drilling methods used in this current episode, BP assured the federal panel that any accident that could threaten the shoreline or any animal life was virtually impossible. The board apparently agreed and we now have what we have. Too bad that most of these regulatory boards and agencies are usually heavily staffed with industry insiders who just love revolving doors. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Generally, people who live in NoVa don't consider themselves residents of Virginia and feel shamed when reminded. Is that the general or the particular? Don't consider themselves residents of Virginia? Well, Richmond doesn't think so. Don't be ashamed of being a Virginian, Tom, here's a nice warm bowl of grits and some frizzled ham for you, along with some Jeffersonian democracy. :-) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On May 1, 2010, at 5:52 AM, Eric S. Sande wrote: Don't be ashamed of being a Virginian, Tom, here's a nice warm bowl of grits and some frizzled ham for you, along with some Jeffersonian democracy. Back in the 18th century it was possible to be proud to be a Virginian. These days all we can be thankful for is that we are not Arizona. Though some of us aspire to that too. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On May 1, 2010, at 12:39 AM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: Also statistics can be misleading. Statistics can be misused or misinterpreted, but they are never misleading. They just are what they are. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Apr 30, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Jeff Miles wrote: I hate being stuck in the middle. I have to agree with you Mike. I'm a stanch liberal, but also a strong advocate of toting guns. For those who think guns kill people and not people kill people, by that logic we should ban cars. We should also ban all smoking, all alcohol and anything proven to be a carcinogen. How about explosives? Vats of acid? Tanks of nerve gas? Vials of neurotoxins? Jars of bubonic plague spores? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On May 1, 2010, at 1:19 PM, tjpa wrote: Back in the 18th century it was possible to be proud to be a Virginian. These days all we can be thankful for is that we are not Arizona. Though some of us aspire to that too Another example... http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9022692 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:32 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: Back in the 18th century it was possible to be proud to be a Virginian. These days all we can be thankful for is that we are not Arizona. Though some of us aspire to that too Another example... http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9022692 And the Governor of Virginia seys to hell with Obama's call to hold up on further offshore oil drilling until an investigation can be undertaken to determine if other oil rigs could suffer a fate similar to the one that has created the disaster off the Louisiana coast. Most other Drill Baby, Drill stepford types have zipped their lips following the oil rig debacle, but not Bob The Hair McDonnell. He and his idiot Attorney Generalissimo, Ken I've Stepped in it Again Cuccinelli, both of whom hail from allegedly enlightened Northern Virginia, continue the conga line dance with their hyper-conservative Tea Bagger constituents, all of whom say that gun owners make for a better America because guns made America what it is today. See: http://appleseedinfo.org/ For those All-American, gun loving sportsmen and sportswomen, trying to be good Americans and who might also happen to at least somewhat computer literate, this is for you: http://www.gearlog.com/2007/03/computer_hunting_kills_real_pr.php Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
And the Governor of Virginia seys... Don't get all bent out of shape, BHO was all for drilling until the shit hit the fan. There are quite a few conservatives that are, actually, pretty conservative WRT this. And were from the start. That's why Sarah Palin wasn't acceptable to us. I speak for no one but myself, but luckily in America you get to vote. And I'm not exactly wild about any of these self-serving politicos, I have to tell you that. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Eric S. Sande esa...@verizon.net wrote: Don't get all bent out of shape, BHO was all for drilling until the shit hit the fan. I know he was, and personally I disagreed with that political decision. I thought such a wide open proposition was a recipe for looming disaster, and so did many others, including, as you point out, at least some conservatives. Indeed, Mary Landreau of Louisiana said, about 6 months ago, that although some accidents and spills were probably going to happen if a lot of new off-shore drilling began to take place, those spills and accidents and the potential for disasters would probably be offset by the benefits to the states from said drilling. I do not know how a disaster such as we are now seeing will be offset by money made from the selling of oil. You cannot have oil drilling off-shore without without accidents, spills and likely occasional disastrous consequences. That's just the way it is, and no amount of hype and happy talk will make it any different. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Eric S. Sande esa...@verizon.net wrote: Generally, people who live in NoVa don't consider themselves residents of Virginia and feel shamed when reminded. Is that the general or the particular? Don't consider themselves residents of Virginia? Well, Richmond doesn't think so. What do those idiots know. Don't be ashamed of being a Virginian, Tom, here's a nice warm bowl of grits and some frizzled ham for you, along with some Jeffersonian democracy. Texas threw him out of the textbooks for being to liberal. :-) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 7:52 PM, John Duncan Yoyo johnduncany...@gmail.com wrote: Don't be ashamed of being a Virginian, Tom, here's a nice warm bowl of grits and some frizzled ham for you, along with some Jeffersonian democracy. Texas threw him out of the textbooks for being to liberal. Maybe it was actually because he had sex with a black woman. At any rate, Texas decided that they would include Phyllis Schlafly in history textbooks as an example of a great and influential American who we all should admire. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Lets correct things a little bit here. A small group/committee decided this for the whole state. Kind of dumb but that is how it works. Similar problem in my church body a small group decides what our publishing house should put out. Dont smear the whole state by this action. But also remember they usually refer to themselves as a republic. Such as the United States and the Republic of Texas. Stewart At 09:11 PM 5/1/2010, you wrote: Maybe it was actually because he had sex with a black woman. At any rate, Texas decided that they would include Phyllis Schlafly in history textbooks as an example of a great and influential American who we all should admire. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
They are a republic..just like the US. On May 1, 2010 7:44 PM, Stewart Marshall revsamarsh...@earthlink.net wrote: Lets correct things a little bit here. A small group/committee decided this for the whole state. Kind of dumb but that is how it works. Similar problem in my church body a small group decides what our publishing house should put out. Dont smear the whole state by this action. But also remember they usually refer to themselves as a republic. Such as the United States and the Republic of Texas. Stewart At 09:11 PM 5/1/2010, you wrote:Maybe it was actually because he had sex with a black woman... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
They have maintained for some time that they have a unique status within the USA. (You might have heard the sound bite of their current governor a few months ago proposing secession?) Of course this is all hogwash, but you know Texans bigger than snot and about as useful. Stewart At 09:55 PM 5/1/2010, you wrote: They are a republic..just like the US. On May 1, 2010 7:44 PM, Stewart Marshall revsamarsh...@earthlink.net wrote: Lets correct things a little bit here. A small group/committee decided this for the whole state. Kind of dumb but that is how it works. Similar problem in my church body a small group decides what our publishing house should put out. Dont smear the whole state by this action. But also remember they usually refer to themselves as a republic. Such as the United States and the Republic of Texas. Stewart At 09:11 PM 5/1/2010, you wrote:Maybe it was actually because he had sex with a black woman... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Apr 29, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote: Seen 'em, thanks. But you do realize that contrary to your statement what you suggest IS legal where you live. Generally, people who live in NoVa don't consider themselves residents of Virginia and feel shamed when reminded. I don't even own a 'coon hat. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
What does a criminal stealing an iPhone and another criminal buying the iPhone have anything to do with bleeding heart liberals? BTW, it has been decided yet if any criminal activity took place, but I guess we can exempt you from the jury. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 28, 2010, at 4:10 PM, tjpa wrote: On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:25 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: However, it is my position that they brought this upon themselves either through intent or through foolishness. In either case, they should shoulder the blame themselves in this instance instead of lashing out at others by causing the power of legal authorities to wreak retribution upon the silly individuals who were reveling in the thought that they had, if for only a little while, bested the mighty goliath. You bleeding-heart liberals make me sick. I don't buy the argument that it is society that is to blame for criminality. It is not all Apple's fault because they had the audacity to develop an attractive new product that people would be tempted to steal. I put the blame squarely on the criminal who took the device and the criminal who bought the stolen goods. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
I'm a strong Apple supporter. However, what they did by releasing these prototypes was just plain stupid. As to your comment below, this is crap. Bringing up the bible, Moses, the 10 commandments, Hitler, Nazis, is a cheap trick that if used means you've probably already lost the argument. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 28, 2010, at 7:16 PM, tjpa wrote: On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:54 PM, Stewart Marshall wrote: You tend to be so predictable Tom. I sure am. Those old tablets Moses was carrying still have some meaning to me. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Apples and oranges. Please excuse the pun. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 28, 2010, at 7:17 PM, David K Watson wrote: You can personally feel that Apple was foolish in how they let the phone be stolen, but that has absolutely no legal bearing on its theft. There are still people who are foolish enough to leave their car running and unlocked when they go into a convenience store, but if the car gets stolen, the thief can't plead this as an extenuating circumstance if he or she gets caught. On Apr 28, 2010, at 7:38 PM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: From:mike xha...@gmail.com Subject: Re: illegal search warrant? If I was a judge in this case my first query would be if this item is worth so much, money, market share..etc...why did you send some kid into a bar to leave it while he went out and took a leak in the alley? This super secret phone from Apple wasn't taken from Apple headquarters by a team of IMF agents, so I'd not let them prosecute like it was. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:25 PM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.comwrote: Why do you suggest that I am daring to oppose Apple? Is that something that I should be fearful of engaging in? I am not opposing them. However, it is my position that they brought this upon themselves either through intent or through foolishness. In either case, they should shoulder the blame themselves in this instance instead of lashing out at others by causing the power of legal authorities to wreak retribution upon the silly individuals who were reveling in the thought that they had, if for only a little while, bested the mighty goliath. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
You are assuming a lot. So far no one has been tried and convicted. Therefore, legally, no illegalities have occurred. When it's been deemed, tried and a jury says so, then you can rightfully claim illegalities occurred. I'll say the same to you that I said to Tipa, I guess you're excused from the jury. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 28, 2010, at 8:46 PM, mike wrote: I mean attempts before illegalities ensued. Maybe before at least Denton got Chen to do the iPhone autopsy. On Apr 28, 2010 8:43 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall popoz...@earthlink.net wrote: It has been referenced here online that the phone got returned. Stewart At 10:27 PM 4/28/2010, you wrote: I've seen nothing about any attempts to return the phone..any links rev? On Apr 28, 2010 6:5... * ** List info, subscri... Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Oz... ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a me... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
No, it's not. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:36 PM, t.piwowar wrote: On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:34 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: That is not a fair or accurate comparison. It is fair and accurate. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net wrote: No, it's not. This is one of those occasions where Top posting doesn't make sense It just makes it look like you are reenacting Monty Python's Argument Clinic Sketch. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net wrote: I'm a strong Apple supporter. However, what they did by releasing these prototypes was just plain stupid. As to your comment below, this is crap. Bringing up the bible, Moses, the 10 commandments, Hitler, Nazis, is a cheap trick that if used means you've probably already lost the argument. You can add the gun debate to that list. Godwin's law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
I'm not a lawyer or a jurist or even an avid fan of Matlock. Just a little armchair judgement. I do know what has ensued was unethical, and I don't think it was limited to Gizmodo. On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net wrote: You are assuming a lot. So far no one has been tried and convicted. Therefore, legally, no illegalities have occurred. When it's been deemed, tried and a jury says so, then you can rightfully claim illegalities occurred. I'll say the same to you that I said to Tipa, I guess you're excused from the jury. On Apr 28, 2010, at 8:46 PM, mike wrote: I mean attempts before illegalities ensued. Maybe before at least Denton got Chen to do the iPhone autopsy. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
It is a very conservative town. I live in the part of the state where many want to break the state in two. We'd have the liberal West Washington state and the conservative East Washington state. I think that would be horrible, giving us an odd number of states, unless we can all go along with Texas ceding from nation and bringing us back to an even number when Washington splits. BTW, glad Arizona took the focus off Northern Idaho. Wow, talk about communism. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 29, 2010, at 9:38 AM, tjpa wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 5:06 AM, Jeff Miles wrote: And how is this different then today? When I call in a crime I just get a case number for the insurance company. You must have a bunch of tea baggers running your city council. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
I hate being stuck in the middle. I have to agree with you Mike. I'm a stanch liberal, but also a strong advocate of toting guns. For those who think guns kill people and not people kill people, by that logic we should ban cars. We should also ban all smoking, all alcohol and anything proven to be a carcinogen. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 29, 2010, at 9:56 AM, mike wrote: That's why the murder rate in DC is one of the highest in the country. Places where people walk around with guns is safer than those places who don't. I see you've devolved into 'no facts for you' mode and will now not answer for any of your previous misstatements. Just keep tossing it on the wall and maybe some will stick. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:46 AM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:56 AM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: Additionally, it was at first denied by the San Mateo Police that Apple ever had any hand in the raid and search of the premises in question. We now know that to have been untrue, and a silly thing for the authorities to have said in the first place. At a minimum, Apple would have had to have filed a theft report, and since Apple already knew where the phone was alleged to be located, they would have provided that information to police. That is called having a hand in the execution of the search. I am not casting aspersions toward Apple Corp. in this instance, but I do wonder why the San Mateo Police were initially trying to hide the fact that Apple Corp. was involved in the execution of the search. Perhaps because Apple is a corporate partner (consultant) with them? In my town the names of crime victims and witnesses are not given out by the police. We also do not let people walk around the streets with loaded guns or let anyone with a card table freely sell firearms. Probably much different in your town. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Don't forget bathtubs! On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net wrote: I hate being stuck in the middle. I have to agree with you Mike. I'm a stanch liberal, but also a strong advocate of toting guns. For those who think guns kill people and not people kill people, by that logic we should ban cars. We should also ban all smoking, all alcohol and anything proven to be a carcinogen. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 29, 2010, at 9:56 AM, mike wrote: That's why the murder rate in DC is one of the highest in the country. Places where people walk around with guns is safer than those places who don't. I see you've devolved into 'no facts for you' mode and will now not answer for any of your previous misstatements. Just keep tossing it on the wall and maybe some will stick. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:46 AM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:56 AM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: Additionally, it was at first denied by the San Mateo Police that Apple ever had any hand in the raid and search of the premises in question. We now know that to have been untrue, and a silly thing for the authorities to have said in the first place. At a minimum, Apple would have had to have filed a theft report, and since Apple already knew where the phone was alleged to be located, they would have provided that information to police. That is called having a hand in the execution of the search. I am not casting aspersions toward Apple Corp. in this instance, but I do wonder why the San Mateo Police were initially trying to hide the fact that Apple Corp. was involved in the execution of the search. Perhaps because Apple is a corporate partner (consultant) with them? In my town the names of crime victims and witnesses are not given out by the police. We also do not let people walk around the streets with loaded guns or let anyone with a card table freely sell firearms. Probably much different in your town. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
It's not a fair comparison because a car left running (while stupid, and illegal in my town) has a high expectation of being reclaimed or returned to by the owner. A phone left and not claimed within a reasonable amount of time is considered abandoned. And I'd consider a reasonable amount of time on a prototype with what I'd imagine high corporate security concerns, about 5 minutes, maybe less. However, if this was truly an engineer who lost the phone, I have to cut them some slack. While engineers are mostly very intelligent, from my experience many lack lack common sense. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 29, 2010, at 9:57 AM, David K Watson wrote: That is not a fair or accurate comparison. How is it not a fair comparison? A running car in a convenience store parking lot has the presumption that the owner will return to it very quickly, while a phone that has been left unclaimed for a few hours does not, but that has no bearing on the actions of someone who takes either one knowing that it isn't theirs and eventually sells it to someone else who also knows this. Stripped to the bare essentials, we have: A) Guy takes physical possession of misplaced valuable item that is not his B) Well before he could think it reverts to him, guy sells item to someone who also knows the item is not his. On Apr 28, 2010, at 11:36 PM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: From:Rev. Stewart Marshall popoz...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: illegal search warrant? That is not a fair or accurate comparison. Stewart At 09:17 PM 4/28/2010, you wrote: You can personally feel that Apple was foolish in how they let the phone be stolen, but that has absolutely no legal bearing on its theft. There are still people who are foolish enough to leave their car running and unlocked when they go into a convenience store, but if the car gets stolen, the thief can't plead this as an extenuating circumstance if he or she gets caught. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Product testing? I'm thinking of the stealth fighter jet of the 80s'. I'm sure it was product tested and didn't need to be parked in the parking lot of a bar. Come on, common sense. The guy who lost the phone also lost his common sense. And so did Apple, in this instance. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 29, 2010, at 2:54 PM, mike wrote: Yes that's exactly what Steve said, zero product testing, none, zip...the phone should stay in the clean room up until delivered. To the rest of us Steve said you probably don't need to test your product in the lions den and maybe taking it to a grocery store, out on the street...maybe a five and dime shop could be enough. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:37 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 2:33 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: None of this whole affair is devoid of wrongness, in my humble opinion. I think it was wrongheaded for an Apple Corp. insider to take a highly secretive prototype iPhone into an establishment well known for being a watering hole that caters greatly to and is usually crammed with computer geeks You keep insisting that Apple should not do product testing. Where did you get such an idea? Microsoft? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
The fact that you didn't SEE the stealth fighter jet at the bar just means it was pretty stealthy. On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net wrote: Product testing? I'm thinking of the stealth fighter jet of the 80s'. I'm sure it was product tested and didn't need to be parked in the parking lot of a bar. Come on, common sense. The guy who lost the phone also lost his common sense. And so did Apple, in this instance. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 29, 2010, at 2:54 PM, mike wrote: Yes that's exactly what Steve said, zero product testing, none, zip...the phone should stay in the clean room up until delivered. To the rest of us Steve said you probably don't need to test your product in the lions den and maybe taking it to a grocery store, out on the street...maybe a five and dime shop could be enough. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:37 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 2:33 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: None of this whole affair is devoid of wrongness, in my humble opinion. I think it was wrongheaded for an Apple Corp. insider to take a highly secretive prototype iPhone into an establishment well known for being a watering hole that caters greatly to and is usually crammed with computer geeks You keep insisting that Apple should not do product testing. Where did you get such an idea? Microsoft? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
This is purely anecdotal, but aren't holidays the highest rate for suicide, regardless of population size. Of course trying to reinstall Windows probably should be lumped in there some place. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: I believe that statistics show that the suicide rate increases the higher density the population. Also during highly stressed conditions. Stewart At 05:22 PM 4/29/2010, you wrote: Do your research before you flap your gums. WRONG! Stewart At 05:11 PM 4/29/2010, you wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:56 PM, mike wrote: That's why the murder rate in DC is one of the highest in the country. Places where people walk around with guns is safer than those places who don't. Towns with pop 10 usually do have lower murder rates, prolly have higher suicide rates though. What about it? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Wow, you have some amazing insider information on what Apple is thinking and planning. So when are they going to leave a holographic G6 laying around? Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 29, 2010, at 7:11 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:37 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: You keep insisting that Apple should not do product testing. Where did you get such an idea? Microsoft? Let's not be silly or intentionally inaccurate when describing what another poster wrote. I never said that Apple Corp. should not do any product testing and you know I didn't. Apple WAS doing product testing in that very bar full of geeks who always check out what everybody else is using. The phone was intentionally left laying around, begging to be taken, because Apple Corp. was trying to find out how enticing their product was to jealous and inquisitive potential thieves. Apple Corp. was getting to be a bit apprehensive about whether or not their phone was the coolest and most sought after such device in the entire world these days. After all, they are getting some decent competition lately from other makers, and Apple's worry meter was beginning to deflect in the wrong direction according to their marketing department. Apple Corp. also wanted to test the effectiveness and threat level impact that the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team would have on citizens who would dare to breach the inviolate sanctity of the Steve Jobs Aura Emissions Sphere of Marketing Efficacy and Behavioral Attitude Adjustment Scheme of the Holy Black Turtle Neck Sweater Brigade. Cops usually do not smash down doors that will cost them more to replace than the item in question is worth, especially when said item had already been returned to its rightful owner. See Jon Stewart for more on this. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Those people aren't suicidal, they do have a higher tendancy to toss their computers through windows. On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net wrote: This is purely anecdotal, but aren't holidays the highest rate for suicide, regardless of population size. Of course trying to reinstall Windows probably should be lumped in there some place. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: I believe that statistics show that the suicide rate increases the higher density the population. Also during highly stressed conditions. Stewart At 05:22 PM 4/29/2010, you wrote: Do your research before you flap your gums. WRONG! Stewart At 05:11 PM 4/29/2010, you wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:56 PM, mike wrote: That's why the murder rate in DC is one of the highest in the country. Places where people walk around with guns is safer than those places who don't. Towns with pop 10 usually do have lower murder rates, prolly have higher suicide rates though. What about it? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Am not. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 30, 2010, at 2:15 AM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net wrote: No, it's not. This is one of those occasions where Top posting doesn't make sense It just makes it look like you are reenacting Monty Python's Argument Clinic Sketch. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
I'm a stanch liberal, but also a strong advocate of toting guns. For those who think guns kill people and not people kill people, by that logic we should ban cars. We should also ban all smoking, all alcohol and anything proven to be a carcinogen. This is not going to go anywhere, but just for the record, I don't buy that logic. Although all of these things can and kill, only one of them is intended and manufactured for that purpose. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
I agree. It's not going to go anywhere. On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Chris Dunford seed...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a stanch liberal, but also a strong advocate of toting guns. For those who think guns kill people and not people kill people, by that logic we should ban cars. We should also ban all smoking, all alcohol and anything proven to be a carcinogen. This is not going to go anywhere, but just for the record, I don't buy that logic. Although all of these things can and kill, only one of them is intended and manufactured for that purpose. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Like I said, you're excused. Nothing personal. But pre-knowladge and judgment pretty much dismisses you from the jury pool. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 30, 2010, at 8:58 AM, mike wrote: I'm not a lawyer or a jurist or even an avid fan of Matlock. Just a little armchair judgement. I do know what has ensued was unethical, and I don't think it was limited to Gizmodo. On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net wrote: You are assuming a lot. So far no one has been tried and convicted. Therefore, legally, no illegalities have occurred. When it's been deemed, tried and a jury says so, then you can rightfully claim illegalities occurred. I'll say the same to you that I said to Tipa, I guess you're excused from the jury. On Apr 28, 2010, at 8:46 PM, mike wrote: I mean attempts before illegalities ensued. Maybe before at least Denton got Chen to do the iPhone autopsy. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
And Windows. Shards of broken glass when the monitor is slammed against the wall can be a real b%#ch. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 30, 2010, at 10:06 AM, mike wrote: Don't forget bathtubs! On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net wrote: I hate being stuck in the middle. I have to agree with you Mike. I'm a stanch liberal, but also a strong advocate of toting guns. For those who think guns kill people and not people kill people, by that logic we should ban cars. We should also ban all smoking, all alcohol and anything proven to be a carcinogen. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 29, 2010, at 9:56 AM, mike wrote: That's why the murder rate in DC is one of the highest in the country. Places where people walk around with guns is safer than those places who don't. I see you've devolved into 'no facts for you' mode and will now not answer for any of your previous misstatements. Just keep tossing it on the wall and maybe some will stick. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:46 AM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:56 AM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: Additionally, it was at first denied by the San Mateo Police that Apple ever had any hand in the raid and search of the premises in question. We now know that to have been untrue, and a silly thing for the authorities to have said in the first place. At a minimum, Apple would have had to have filed a theft report, and since Apple already knew where the phone was alleged to be located, they would have provided that information to police. That is called having a hand in the execution of the search. I am not casting aspersions toward Apple Corp. in this instance, but I do wonder why the San Mateo Police were initially trying to hide the fact that Apple Corp. was involved in the execution of the search. Perhaps because Apple is a corporate partner (consultant) with them? In my town the names of crime victims and witnesses are not given out by the police. We also do not let people walk around the streets with loaded guns or let anyone with a card table freely sell firearms. Probably much different in your town. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Actually I was half right. Note the fine print of the map: Based on death data from 2000 through 2006, this US map of the smoothed, county-level, age-adjusted suicide rates indicate that suicide rates are highest in the western and northwestern regions of the United States. There is also a notable pattern of high suicide rates among counties in the central areas of the midwest and southern regions and in central Florida. They may be lower in density but they are not the norm. The areas I was most familiar with (upper midwest) showed a lower suicide rate. Also statistics can be misleading. 1 suicide in an area of 300 is 1/300 of the population but it is still one. 10 suicides in a area of 10,000 is 1/1,000. Not as large a statistical number but it is in reality over 3 times as many suicides. I have dealt with the aftermath of suicide and it is never a fun topic nor easy to explain. Many things go into it. Stewart At 10:09 PM 4/30/2010, you wrote: Actually, the holiday suicide idea is a media-perpetuated falsehood: http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/suicide.asp And I posted about this yesterday, but somehow the post didn't make it to the list: Stewart was wrong about suicide increasing with population density. It's exactly the opposite. Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and DC are among the most densely populated states and have some of the lowest suicide rates, while Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana have some of the higher rates and are among the least densely populated. If you want to see it visually by county, look at the two maps here of the suicide rate and population density: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/suicide_map.html http://www.mapofusa.net/us-population-density-map.htm You'll see a very good correspondence between low population density and high suicide rates or between high population density and low suicide rates. And it's not just the US, it seems to be a worldwide phenomenon: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10398page=36 In China, the contrast between the rural and urban suicide rates is particularly extreme. From:Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Subject: Re: illegal search warrant? This is purely anecdotal, but aren't holidays the highest rate = for suicide, regardless of population size. Of course trying to = reinstall Windows probably should be lumped in there some place.=20 Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=3D550968726 On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: I believe that statistics show that the suicide rate increases the = higher density the population. =20 Also during highly stressed conditions. =20 Stewart =20 =20 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Yeah...the headline should clue you in. Fact vs speculation...speculation usually, at least to the rest of us means 'this part may be BS but we'll say it anyway'. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:35 PM, t.piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Apr 28, 2010, at 11:36 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: It has been referenced here online that the phone got returned. Apple sent folks over to the guy's house to demand he give them back the phone. He didn't. Your account is pure fabrication. Gizmodo's iPhone Saga: Fact vs. Speculation - PCWorld http://www.pcworld.com/article/195185/gizmodos_iphone_saga_fact_vs_speculation.html/ * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
And how is this different then today? When I call in a crime I just get a case number for the insurance company. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 27, 2010, at 7:37 PM, t.piwowar wrote: On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:43 AM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: it may look like an easy win for a prosecutor who needs a run in the win column. So why should effective law enforcement be treated with such contempt? The Prosecutor's job is to prosecute and to win cases. What is wrong with that? Perhaps we should start a list of registered anarchists so that when your house catches fire we'll know not to send the fire department or when you get robbed we'll know not to send the police? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:56 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote: If I was a judge in this case my first query would be if this item is worth so much, money, market share..etc...why did you send some kid into a bar to leave it while he went out and took a leak in the alley? This super secret phone from Apple wasn't taken from Apple headquarters by a team of IMF agents, so I'd not let them prosecute like it was. I'm not really so sure he left it behind. I've heard this a few places that he may just as easily had his pocket picked. Real world testing includes carrying the thing around and using it as you would any other phone. This kid was doing that. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:35 AM, t.piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: Apple sent folks over to the guy's house to demand he give them back the phone. He didn't. Let's do get the facts straight. The PCWorld article you referenced was drawing upon another story that appeared in Wired Magazine. The representatives from Apple Corp, who went to the home of the person alleged to have been in possession of the phone, were not able to confront the person they were looking for. When they arrived, the individual they were interested in was not there. His roommate was, and it was he who answered the knock on the door. The Apple Corp. folks demanded that they be allowed to enter and search the house, but the roommate refused their demand because the person of interest was not present. I would have done the same thing in that situation. I would never let any officially unauthorized persons search through the belongings of someone who shared a house with me unless I had been specifically told by that individual to allow it. Those Apple representatives apparently never made another attempt to recover the phone at that address. Additionally, it was at first denied by the San Mateo Police that Apple ever had any hand in the raid and search of the premises in question. We now know that to have been untrue, and a silly thing for the authorities to have said in the first place. At a minimum, Apple would have had to have filed a theft report, and since Apple already knew where the phone was alleged to be located, they would have provided that information to police. That is called having a hand in the execution of the search. I am not casting aspersions toward Apple Corp. in this instance, but I do wonder why the San Mateo Police were initially trying to hide the fact that Apple Corp. was involved in the execution of the search. Perhaps because Apple is a corporate partner (consultant) with them? Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
I don't think you have the facts quite straight here. Here is Gizmodo's own account of how they got the phone: http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone According to this account, the phone was picked up at the bar by the person who was sitting next to Powell (the one who lost the phone) and not the bartender. While the phone was still working and before he knew it was something out of the ordinary, the guy who found the phone discovered Powell's identity and took the phone home. The next day, he realized the phone was a prototype, and the account says he contacted Apple about it, but strangely enough, he never tried to contact Powell, and apparently he didn't take it back to the bar to see if anyone had asked about it. Several weeks later, he sells it to Gawker media. After Gizmodo takes it apart and publishes an article about it, Apple asks for it back and they return it. So it wasn't found by a bartender, the person who found it discovered who it belonged to, he didn't make a very good faith effort to return it, and knowing it wasn't his he sold it to Gizmodo who also knew it wasn't his. He had some legal cover while he was making some kind of attempt to return the phone (however haphazard and clueless), but once he sold the phone to someone who also knew the phone wasn't his, both buyer and seller became crooks in the legal sense as well as ethically. The police decided to pursue this even after the phone was returned (either of their own volition or because Apple or Powell filed a complaint), and they had plenty of justification for doing so. Just because a stolen item is returned, it doesn't negate the fact that it was stolen to begin with. Whether the police were within the law in executing their warrant is a matter of dispute, but even if being a blogger makes Jason Chen a journalist, there is already some legal precedent that shield laws can't be used to enable journalists to hide their own criminal behavior. Details here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html On Apr 28, 2010, at 11:36 PM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: From:Stewart Marshall revsamarsh...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: illegal search warrant? Lousy analogy Tom. You act as if you have not read any of what has been written about this item. The fact is the item was left by absent minded techie at bar. Item was turned into bar tender who has no idea whose it is.(I wonder how many folks had been there that night and had phones?) Good faith attempts were made to return said item to Apple, but because of Apples own compartmentalization no one knew what they were talking about. I cant remember how the Gizmodo guy got it at that point but he did, he then did a review and took it apart analyzed etc. etc. When he had it back together and working he sent it back. It is only after the fact that they have raided the guys house and not charged him with anything. I wonder what the search warrant said? You have to lay part of the blame here at Apple for being careless with their tech stuff, and being a little paranoid. This is not the first time someone has lost a prototype and someone else got it to look at and review. This would make it one of the first times that the reviewer has been criminalized for someone elses careless behavior. Is the Gizmodo guy totally innocent here, I don't think so, but he saw a chance to be one of the first to see review and look at a prototype of Iphone. But I also see Apple going over the top here and making themselves look really really stupid and heavy handed. Especially since they had the phone back already. And I would venture to say if this had been a Windows Mobile 7 phone that had had this happen to it, you would be jumping up and down saying way to go Gimodo You tend to be so predictable Tom. Stewart * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
This is the problem...let's get the facts straight and then referenced is a part of the article that is not confirmed... On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:56 AM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:35 AM, t.piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: Apple sent folks over to the guy's house to demand he give them back the phone. He didn't. Let's do get the facts straight. The PCWorld article you referenced was drawing upon another story that appeared in Wired Magazine. The representatives from Apple Corp, who went to the home of the person alleged to have been in possession of the phone, were not able to confront the person they were looking for. When they arrived, the individual they were interested in was not there. His roommate was, and it was he who answered the knock on the door. The Apple Corp. folks demanded that they be allowed to enter and search the house, but the roommate refused their demand because the person of interest was not present. I would have done the same thing in that situation. I would never let any officially unauthorized persons search through the belongings of someone who shared a house with me unless I had been specifically told by that individual to allow it. Those Apple representatives apparently never made another attempt to recover the phone at that address. Additionally, it was at first denied by the San Mateo Police that Apple ever had any hand in the raid and search of the premises in question. We now know that to have been untrue, and a silly thing for the authorities to have said in the first place. At a minimum, Apple would have had to have filed a theft report, and since Apple already knew where the phone was alleged to be located, they would have provided that information to police. That is called having a hand in the execution of the search. I am not casting aspersions toward Apple Corp. in this instance, but I do wonder why the San Mateo Police were initially trying to hide the fact that Apple Corp. was involved in the execution of the search. Perhaps because Apple is a corporate partner (consultant) with them? Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:56 AM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: Additionally, it was at first denied by the San Mateo Police that Apple ever had any hand in the raid and search of the premises in question. We now know that to have been untrue, and a silly thing for the authorities to have said in the first place. At a minimum, Apple would have had to have filed a theft report, and since Apple already knew where the phone was alleged to be located, they would have provided that information to police. That is called having a hand in the execution of the search. I am not casting aspersions toward Apple Corp. in this instance, but I do wonder why the San Mateo Police were initially trying to hide the fact that Apple Corp. was involved in the execution of the search. Perhaps because Apple is a corporate partner (consultant) with them? In my town the names of crime victims and witnesses are not given out by the police. We also do not let people walk around the streets with loaded guns or let anyone with a card table freely sell firearms. Probably much different in your town. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Apr 29, 2010, at 5:06 AM, Jeff Miles wrote: And how is this different then today? When I call in a crime I just get a case number for the insurance company. You must have a bunch of tea baggers running your city council. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Apr 29, 2010, at 11:23 AM, David K Watson wrote: Whether the police were within the law in executing their warrant is a matter of dispute, but even if being a blogger makes Jason Chen a journalist, there is already some legal precedent that shield laws can't be used to enable journalists to hide their own criminal behavior. Details here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html Thank you for a logical and factual account. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
That's why the murder rate in DC is one of the highest in the country. Places where people walk around with guns is safer than those places who don't. I see you've devolved into 'no facts for you' mode and will now not answer for any of your previous misstatements. Just keep tossing it on the wall and maybe some will stick. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:46 AM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:56 AM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: Additionally, it was at first denied by the San Mateo Police that Apple ever had any hand in the raid and search of the premises in question. We now know that to have been untrue, and a silly thing for the authorities to have said in the first place. At a minimum, Apple would have had to have filed a theft report, and since Apple already knew where the phone was alleged to be located, they would have provided that information to police. That is called having a hand in the execution of the search. I am not casting aspersions toward Apple Corp. in this instance, but I do wonder why the San Mateo Police were initially trying to hide the fact that Apple Corp. was involved in the execution of the search. Perhaps because Apple is a corporate partner (consultant) with them? In my town the names of crime victims and witnesses are not given out by the police. We also do not let people walk around the streets with loaded guns or let anyone with a card table freely sell firearms. Probably much different in your town. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
That is not a fair or accurate comparison. How is it not a fair comparison? A running car in a convenience store parking lot has the presumption that the owner will return to it very quickly, while a phone that has been left unclaimed for a few hours does not, but that has no bearing on the actions of someone who takes either one knowing that it isn't theirs and eventually sells it to someone else who also knows this. Stripped to the bare essentials, we have: A) Guy takes physical possession of misplaced valuable item that is not his B) Well before he could think it reverts to him, guy sells item to someone who also knows the item is not his. On Apr 28, 2010, at 11:36 PM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: From:Rev. Stewart Marshall popoz...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: illegal search warrant? That is not a fair or accurate comparison. Stewart At 09:17 PM 4/28/2010, you wrote: You can personally feel that Apple was foolish in how they let the phone be stolen, but that has absolutely no legal bearing on its theft. There are still people who are foolish enough to leave their car running and unlocked when they go into a convenience store, but if the car gets stolen, the thief can't plead this as an extenuating circumstance if he or she gets caught. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
http://mashable.com/2010/04/29/jon-stewart-apple/ The definitive take on the issue. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:57 AM, David K Watson davidkirkwat...@gmail.comwrote: That is not a fair or accurate comparison. How is it not a fair comparison? A running car in a convenience store parking lot has the presumption that the owner will return to it very quickly, while a phone that has been left unclaimed for a few hours does not, but that has no bearing on the actions of someone who takes either one knowing that it isn't theirs and eventually sells it to someone else who also knows this. Stripped to the bare essentials, we have: A) Guy takes physical possession of misplaced valuable item that is not his B) Well before he could think it reverts to him, guy sells item to someone who also knows the item is not his. On Apr 28, 2010, at 11:36 PM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: From:Rev. Stewart Marshall popoz...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: illegal search warrant? That is not a fair or accurate comparison. Stewart At 09:17 PM 4/28/2010, you wrote: You can personally feel that Apple was foolish in how they let the phone be stolen, but that has absolutely no legal bearing on its theft. There are still people who are foolish enough to leave their car running and unlocked when they go into a convenience store, but if the car gets stolen, the thief can't plead this as an extenuating circumstance if he or she gets caught. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:46 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: In my town the names of crime victims and witnesses are not given out by the police. What? No one suspected that Apple Corp. was the claimant here? All that the police said initially was that Apple Corp. did not have a hand in the processes involving the warrant to do a search. That statement, in and of itself, does not mean that Apple Corp. was the complainant, yet in the final analysis, Apple was identified as being involved in the warrant process, complainant or victim or neither. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:49 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 11:23 AM, David K Watson wrote: Whether the police were within the law in executing their warrant is a matter of dispute, but even if being a blogger makes Jason Chen a journalist, there is already some legal precedent that shield laws can't be used to enable journalists to hide their own criminal behavior. Details here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html Thank you for a logical and factual account. Yeah, well, I think it was the W. Bush administration that decided to go this route with journalists. For instance, this means that journalists, who receive information from persons who have violated their job related legal proscriptions from divulging information, can be prosecuted as a result of providing said information to the public. If proscribed information is passed on to a reporter, even if that information proves that illegal activities have taken place, the recipient of that information can be held legally liable for disseminating that information. Nice arrangement, isn't it? Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Additionally, there is a difference between the police denying that Apple had any part in the raid and their simply being silent on the matter until they made an official statement, which appears to be what actually happened. As to Apple's involvement, it looks like Apple didn't file the theft report. Powell did, with the support of his employer's legal staff. True, Apple clearly wanted the matter to be pursued, but Powell is arguably the more aggrieved party. From:tjpa t...@tjpa.com Subject: Re: illegal search warrant? On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:56 AM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: Additionally, it was at first denied by the San Mateo Police that Apple ever had any hand in the raid and search of the premises in question. We now know that to have been untrue, and a silly thing for the authorities to have said in the first place. At a minimum, Apple would have had to have filed a theft report, and since Apple already knew where the phone was alleged to be located, they would have provided that information to police. That is called having a hand in the execution of the search. I am not casting aspersions toward Apple Corp. in this instance, but I do wonder why the San Mateo Police were initially trying to hide the fact that Apple Corp. was involved in the execution of the search. Perhaps because Apple is a corporate partner (consultant) with them? In my town the names of crime victims and witnesses are not given out by the police. We also do not let people walk around the streets with loaded guns or let anyone with a card table freely sell firearms. Probably much different in your town. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
OK, so supposedly Apple sent folks over to the guy's house to demand he give them back the phone, but he wasn't there, so he didn't. Then presumably having heard about this from his roommate who was there, he nonetheless sells the iPhone to Gizmodo. It still looks wrong to me. PC World reports this part of the story as unconfirmed by the way, not as a fact. On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:00 AM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: phartz...@gmail.com Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:13:28 -0700 On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:35 AM, t.piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: Apple sent folks over to the guy's house to demand he give them back the phone. He didn't. Let's do get the facts straight. The PCWorld article you referenced was drawing upon another story that appeared in Wired Magazine. The representatives from Apple Corp, who went to the home of the person alleged to have been in possession of the phone, were not able to confront the person they were looking for. When they arrived, the individual they were interested in was not there. His roommate was, and it was he who answered the knock on the door. The Apple Corp. folks demanded that they be allowed to enter and search the house, but the roommate refused their demand because the person of interest was not present. I would have done the same thing in that situation. I would never let any officially unauthorized persons search through the belongings of someone who shared a house with me unless I had been specifically told by that individual to allow it. Those Apple representatives apparently never made another attempt to recover the phone at that address. Additionally, it was at first denied by the San Mateo Police that Apple ever had any hand in the raid and search of the premises in question. We now know that to have been untrue, and a silly thing for the authorities to have said in the first place. At a minimum, Apple would have had to have filed a theft report, and since Apple already knew where the phone was alleged to be located, they would have provided that information to police. That is called having a hand in the execution of the search. I am not casting aspersions toward Apple Corp. in this instance, but I do wonder why the San Mateo Police were initially trying to hide the fact that Apple Corp. was involved in the execution of the search. Perhaps because Apple is a corporate partner (consultant) with them? Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
I doubt Steve would agree with you. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:57 AM, David K Watson davidkirkwat...@gmail.comwrote: but Powell is arguably the more aggrieved party. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Bottom line is, we know Giz and the guy who sold the phone knew Powell had lost it and could have contacted him. They chose not to. Like I said before, Calacanis's take on this is everyone involved is either an idiot or a dick, there are no innocents here...I like that version myself. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:06 AM, David K Watson davidkirkwat...@gmail.comwrote: OK, so supposedly Apple sent folks over to the guy's house to demand he give them back the phone, but he wasn't there, so he didn't. Then presumably having heard about this from his roommate who was there, he nonetheless sells the iPhone to Gizmodo. It still looks wrong to me. PC World reports this part of the story as unconfirmed by the way, not as a fact. On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:00 AM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: phartz...@gmail.com Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:13:28 -0700 On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:35 AM, t.piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: Apple sent folks over to the guy's house to demand he give them back the phone. He didn't. Let's do get the facts straight. The PCWorld article you referenced was drawing upon another story that appeared in Wired Magazine. The representatives from Apple Corp, who went to the home of the person alleged to have been in possession of the phone, were not able to confront the person they were looking for. When they arrived, the individual they were interested in was not there. His roommate was, and it was he who answered the knock on the door. The Apple Corp. folks demanded that they be allowed to enter and search the house, but the roommate refused their demand because the person of interest was not present. I would have done the same thing in that situation. I would never let any officially unauthorized persons search through the belongings of someone who shared a house with me unless I had been specifically told by that individual to allow it. Those Apple representatives apparently never made another attempt to recover the phone at that address. Additionally, it was at first denied by the San Mateo Police that Apple ever had any hand in the raid and search of the premises in question. We now know that to have been untrue, and a silly thing for the authorities to have said in the first place. At a minimum, Apple would have had to have filed a theft report, and since Apple already knew where the phone was alleged to be located, they would have provided that information to police. That is called having a hand in the execution of the search. I am not casting aspersions toward Apple Corp. in this instance, but I do wonder why the San Mateo Police were initially trying to hide the fact that Apple Corp. was involved in the execution of the search. Perhaps because Apple is a corporate partner (consultant) with them? Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:57 PM, David K Watson davidkirkwat...@gmail.com wrote: As to Apple's involvement, it looks like Apple didn't file the theft report. Powell did, with the support of his employer's legal staff. True, Apple clearly wanted the matter to be pursued, but Powell is arguably the more aggrieved party. The more aggrieved party? Can you explain that, please. Mr. Powell apparently faces no recriminations from his employer over this matter. How is he so aggrieved? I would suspect that Apple Corp. simply wanted to keep their name out of the matter to all extents possible, as is typically the case with any corporation. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:06 PM, David K Watson davidkirkwat...@gmail.com wrote: OK, so supposedly Apple sent folks over to the guy's house to demand he give them back the phone, but he wasn't there, so he didn't. Then presumably having heard about this from his roommate who was there, he nonetheless sells the iPhone to Gizmodo. It still looks wrong to me. PC World reports this part of the story as unconfirmed by the way, not as a fact. None of this whole affair is devoid of wrongness, in my humble opinion. I think it was wrongheaded for an Apple Corp. insider to take a highly secretive prototype iPhone into an establishment well known for being a watering hole that caters greatly to and is usually crammed with computer geeks. Everyone involved in the possession of that phone after it was taken from the bar were a bunch of money grubbers, so gaga over technology that they lost sight of almost all reason. I say a big thumbs down on all of them as far as sensibility is concerned. If those folks represent who is at the core of technology today, we may all be in deep doo da. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Free advertising [was: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?]
I doubt Steve would agree with you. but Powell is arguably the more aggrieved party. The entire iPhone prototype adventure--Lost--can't be too serious to Apple. Otherwise they would have fired the guy who lost it. Just like the TV show, there's lots of confusing twists, and both versions will end soon. The product isn't scheduled for release yet. On CGUYS list alone this thread has now over 60 comments--at no cost to Apple Inc--with many more on other sites/lists. Any noise is good noise. FWIW, iPhone OS 4 will be released in early summer. ATT Wireless store employees were told not to plan any vacations in June, supposedly in anticipation of new products. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Free advertising [was: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?]
The thing is, Apple has never liked this kind of noise. They like noise they control. And at this point, if this guy gets fired it would make the evening news. J months are usually the months you look for this stuff. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:43 AM, b_s-wilk b1sun...@yahoo.es wrote: I doubt Steve would agree with you. but Powell is arguably the more aggrieved party. The entire iPhone prototype adventure--Lost--can't be too serious to Apple. Otherwise they would have fired the guy who lost it. Just like the TV show, there's lots of confusing twists, and both versions will end soon. The product isn't scheduled for release yet. On CGUYS list alone this thread has now over 60 comments--at no cost to Apple Inc--with many more on other sites/lists. Any noise is good noise. FWIW, iPhone OS 4 will be released in early summer. ATT Wireless store employees were told not to plan any vacations in June, supposedly in anticipation of new products. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Free advertising [was: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?]
And I am already tuning out of this. Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- The entire iPhone prototype adventure--Lost--can't be too serious to Apple. Otherwise they would have fired the guy who lost it. Just like the TV show, there's lots of confusing twists, and both versions will end soon. The product isn't scheduled for release yet. On CGUYS list alone this thread has now over 60 comments--at no cost to Apple Inc--with many more on other sites/lists. Any noise is good noise. FWIW, iPhone OS 4 will be released in early summer. ATT Wireless store employees were told not to plan any vacations in June, supposedly in anticipation of new products. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Free advertising [was: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?]
The thing is, Apple has never liked this kind of noise. They like noise they control. And at this point, if this guy gets fired it would make the evening news. Any noise is free publicity. Controlled noise is better. Have you ever done marketing or advertising? There are many ways to keep potential customers excited about a new product that don't involve direct advertising or product placement. Accidental releases happen frequently. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Free advertising [was: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?]
Frequently? Name the last Apple product that was accidentally released. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM, b_s-wilk b1sun...@yahoo.es wrote: The thing is, Apple has never liked this kind of noise. They like noise they control. And at this point, if this guy gets fired it would make the evening news. Any noise is free publicity. Controlled noise is better. Have you ever done marketing or advertising? There are many ways to keep potential customers excited about a new product that don't involve direct advertising or product placement. Accidental releases happen frequently. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Apr 29, 2010, at 2:33 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: None of this whole affair is devoid of wrongness, in my humble opinion. I think it was wrongheaded for an Apple Corp. insider to take a highly secretive prototype iPhone into an establishment well known for being a watering hole that caters greatly to and is usually crammed with computer geeks You keep insisting that Apple should not do product testing. Where did you get such an idea? Microsoft? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Yes that's exactly what Steve said, zero product testing, none, zip...the phone should stay in the clean room up until delivered. To the rest of us Steve said you probably don't need to test your product in the lions den and maybe taking it to a grocery store, out on the street...maybe a five and dime shop could be enough. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:37 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 2:33 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: None of this whole affair is devoid of wrongness, in my humble opinion. I think it was wrongheaded for an Apple Corp. insider to take a highly secretive prototype iPhone into an establishment well known for being a watering hole that caters greatly to and is usually crammed with computer geeks You keep insisting that Apple should not do product testing. Where did you get such an idea? Microsoft? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:56 PM, mike wrote: That's why the murder rate in DC is one of the highest in the country. Places where people walk around with guns is safer than those places who don't. Towns with pop 10 usually do have lower murder rates, prolly have higher suicide rates though. What about it? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Do your research before you flap your gums. WRONG! Stewart At 05:11 PM 4/29/2010, you wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:56 PM, mike wrote: That's why the murder rate in DC is one of the highest in the country. Places where people walk around with guns is safer than those places who don't. Towns with pop 10 usually do have lower murder rates, prolly have higher suicide rates though. What about it? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
I believe that statistics show that the suicide rate increases the higher density the population. Also during highly stressed conditions. Stewart At 05:22 PM 4/29/2010, you wrote: Do your research before you flap your gums. WRONG! Stewart At 05:11 PM 4/29/2010, you wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:56 PM, mike wrote: That's why the murder rate in DC is one of the highest in the country. Places where people walk around with guns is safer than those places who don't. Towns with pop 10 usually do have lower murder rates, prolly have higher suicide rates though. What about it? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Apr 29, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: I believe that statistics show that the suicide rate increases the higher density the population. That's reported suicides. When nobody notices it doesn't get reported. The sun just bleaches your bones. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Apr 29, 2010, at 6:43 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote: Why did I think you lived in VA? I do. Wanna see my collection of assault weapons and cruise missiles? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Tom having lived in the said communities most of my ministry I know the statistics. Just not true. Oh and they have a lot more firearms than you can count. Most of it long barrel not short barrel. Stewart At 08:01 PM 4/29/2010, you wrote: On Apr 29, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: I believe that statistics show that the suicide rate increases the higher density the population. That's reported suicides. When nobody notices it doesn't get reported. The sun just bleaches your bones. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
I do. Wanna see my collection of assault weapons and cruise missiles? Seen 'em, thanks. But you do realize that contrary to your statement what you suggest IS legal where you live. http://vaguninfo.com/pages/opencarry.htm The fact that most people don't do it has nothing to do with whether it's legal or not, in the Commonwealth, which it is. But practically speaking, people don't usually do it. It's legal for employers to forbid weapons on company property, etc. It's a complex equation. I COULD walk into a mall in Arlington with an M1911A1 on my hip, legally. Or into a convenience store in Galax. But I'd only do it to make a point. That is to prove you know nothing about gun law :-). Frankly, would you want to tote 3 pounds of steel around to make a point? I didn't think so. Reasonable people make reasonable choices. Not unreasonable statements of quasi-misunderstood fact. But you have the Commonwealth's permission to wear unregistered iron (openly) anywhere you like inside its boundaries. Somehow I think the criminals there have been apprised of this. You can also get a concealed carry permit without too much hoop jumping but you'll have to prove you know the laws, aren't a criminal, and aren't insane. Apologies, but this falls within technology and law. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:37 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: You keep insisting that Apple should not do product testing. Where did you get such an idea? Microsoft? Let's not be silly or intentionally inaccurate when describing what another poster wrote. I never said that Apple Corp. should not do any product testing and you know I didn't. Apple WAS doing product testing in that very bar full of geeks who always check out what everybody else is using. The phone was intentionally left laying around, begging to be taken, because Apple Corp. was trying to find out how enticing their product was to jealous and inquisitive potential thieves. Apple Corp. was getting to be a bit apprehensive about whether or not their phone was the coolest and most sought after such device in the entire world these days. After all, they are getting some decent competition lately from other makers, and Apple's worry meter was beginning to deflect in the wrong direction according to their marketing department. Apple Corp. also wanted to test the effectiveness and threat level impact that the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team would have on citizens who would dare to breach the inviolate sanctity of the Steve Jobs Aura Emissions Sphere of Marketing Efficacy and Behavioral Attitude Adjustment Scheme of the Holy Black Turtle Neck Sweater Brigade. Cops usually do not smash down doors that will cost them more to replace than the item in question is worth, especially when said item had already been returned to its rightful owner. See Jon Stewart for more on this. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:23 AM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote: Haven't heard anything about attempts to return the phone before Giz bought it..? http://gizmodo.com/5520729/why-apple-couldnt-get-the-lost-iphone-back?skyline=trues=i * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
This whole thing is just stupid. I hope Apple isn't behind any of the prosecution of this person, their employee, for loosing the phone. I also hope they're not behind the prosecution of the person who sold it, or the person who blogged what it's advancements where over their most recent model. If what I've heard is true and they handed out hundreds of these phones to employees for testing, Apple is the only one to blame for any of this. Stupidity is not a defense. If apple handed out hundreds of these phones to employees for testing (not sure, just a rumor), they expected this to happen. Apple isn't stupid. Think about it. How much did this media blitz cost them? The words out on what the new phone might do and it hasn't cost them a dime in advertising. Their under the cover media stint might have got out of hand, but do you think someone is loosing any sleep over it? I'd love to be on the inside and see if anyone is getting promoted. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Apr 27, 2010, at 6:43 AM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:41 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote: There is also the question of how much force Apple is using to get this done, it's not beyond them to use a hammer when none is needed. The problem is that another gadget blog that was approached asked their lawyers and they told them not to get anywhere near the thing. It would have been considered stolen property. CA state law is apparently lost items are to be held for six months and attempts must be made to find the legitmate owner before they become property of the finder. So doing things like taking it apart would be considered illegal. Apple could be pressing on this but it may look like an easy win for a prosecutor who needs a run in the win column. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
This Giz article just makes me want to find someone who works at Gizmodo and slap em around. This blog post front to back is an insult to their readers. They make not one statement as fact, it's all maybe and perhaps. They also gloss over the fact they knew who the phone belonged to...I don't mean just Apple, but which engineer in paticular, and made no attempt to contact them till after they had their way with the phone. This post just makes their case worse for believing they have any kind of journalistic cred to stand behind. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:55 AM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:23 AM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote: Haven't heard anything about attempts to return the phone before Giz bought it..? http://gizmodo.com/5520729/why-apple-couldnt-get-the-lost-iphone-back?skyline=trues=i * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:11 AM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote: This Giz article just makes me want to find someone who works at Gizmodo and slap em around. This blog post front to back is an insult to their readers. They make not one statement as fact, it's all maybe and perhaps. They also gloss over the fact they knew who the phone belonged to...I don't mean just Apple, but which engineer in paticular, and made no attempt to contact them till after they had their way with the phone. This post just makes their case worse for believing they have any kind of journalistic cred to stand behind. Not gonna disagree with you at all. A lot of childishness on display. I think that is sometimes what you get when people get overly gaga about technology. I also think that Apple was also silly to let something super-secretive be taken out in public. Unless, of course, what essentially transpired is what they wanted to have happen. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Most I've heard have dismissed this believing exposing the new iphone this early would kill current sales. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 8:51 AM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.comwrote: I also think that Apple was also silly to let something super-secretive be taken out in public. Unless, of course, what essentially transpired is what they wanted to have happen. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Apr 28, 2010, at 11:51 AM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: I also think that Apple was also silly to let something super-secretive be taken out in public. Unless, of course, what essentially transpired is what they wanted to have happen. Releasing new products without field testing is not a good idea. You are taking quite an extreme stance if your efforts to oppose Apple. Perhaps you should run for the Senate? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:10 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote: Most I've heard have dismissed this believing exposing the new iphone this early would kill current sales. Are you saying that folks do not already suppose that Apple is going to release a new version of their ubiquitous phone in the near future? Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:54 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: Releasing new products without field testing is not a good idea. You are taking quite an extreme stance if your efforts to oppose Apple. Perhaps you should run for the Senate? Field testing an as yet publicly unseen and unreleased product should not require taking said item into a bar, particularly not into a bar well known as a gathering place for geeks or into any other public place where many folks are gathered, especially if secrecy is of any concern. Leaving such a device laying around in an unattended manner is also not a great idea either unless the field test involves experimenting with anti-theft procedures. Seems very unprofessional to me. Why do you suggest that I am daring to oppose Apple? Is that something that I should be fearful of engaging in? I am not opposing them. However, it is my position that they brought this upon themselves either through intent or through foolishness. In either case, they should shoulder the blame themselves in this instance instead of lashing out at others by causing the power of legal authorities to wreak retribution upon the silly individuals who were reveling in the thought that they had, if for only a little while, bested the mighty goliath. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
I'm saying most industry folks are saying that putting a new iphone into the faces of those who may be buying one, may make them wait till this new one comes out. Especially one that may look very different than the current one. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:28 PM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:10 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote: Most I've heard have dismissed this believing exposing the new iphone this early would kill current sales. Are you saying that folks do not already suppose that Apple is going to release a new version of their ubiquitous phone in the near future? Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
If I was a judge in this case my first query would be if this item is worth so much, money, market share..etc...why did you send some kid into a bar to leave it while he went out and took a leak in the alley? This super secret phone from Apple wasn't taken from Apple headquarters by a team of IMF agents, so I'd not let them prosecute like it was. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:25 PM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.comwrote: Why do you suggest that I am daring to oppose Apple? Is that something that I should be fearful of engaging in? I am not opposing them. However, it is my position that they brought this upon themselves either through intent or through foolishness. In either case, they should shoulder the blame themselves in this instance instead of lashing out at others by causing the power of legal authorities to wreak retribution upon the silly individuals who were reveling in the thought that they had, if for only a little while, bested the mighty goliath. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:53 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote: I'm saying most industry folks are saying that putting a new iphone into the faces of those who may be buying one, may make them wait till this new one comes out. Especially one that may look very different than the current one. That could be the case. I also think that Apple could miss some sales of current phones and not skip a beat in terms of their overall profitability. The titillation factor of having intrigued phone freaks by exposing a new device to them could also bode well for Apple when said device is finally released for sale. Regardless, I feel that Apple should lay off those all-too-excitable bloggers and their ilk in this instance since it was an Apple insider who initially created the situation that led to all of this palaver. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net wrote: This whole thing is just stupid. I hope Apple isn't behind any of the prosecution of this person, their employee, for loosing the phone. I also hope they're not behind the prosecution of the person who sold it, or the person who blogged what it's advancements where over their most recent model. If what I've heard is true and they handed out hundreds of these phones to employees for testing, Apple is the only one to blame for any of this. Stupidity is not a defense. If apple handed out hundreds of these phones to employees for testing (not sure, just a rumor), they expected this to happen. Apple isn't stupid. Think about it. How much did this media blitz cost them? The words out on what the new phone might do and it hasn't cost them a dime in advertising. Their under the cover media stint might have got out of hand, but do you think someone is loosing any sleep over it? I'd love to be on the inside and see if anyone is getting promoted. Apple is said to have fired an employee who showed Steve Wozniak, an Apple founder, an iPad just after the release date of that device. His showing of the device to The Woz was not authorized, thus he was apparently fired. The Apple employee who left this new iPhone prototype in a bar has apparently not been fired or even severely disciplined. Apple shut down the functionality of this iPhone a few hours after it had been found, thus indicating that Apple knew it had been separated from the employee who initially had it. But, yes, this has turned out to be a publicity bonanza for Apple at no apparent cost to them. However, if the folks who got the phone and then reported on its features wind up in a legal quagmire, as dumb as their actions may have been, Apple will probably suffer an image problem as a result. I agree that selfish dumbness seems to have prevailed throughout this entire episode to date. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:56 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote: If I was a judge in this case my first query would be if this item is worth so much, money, market share..etc...why did you send some kid into a bar to leave it while he went out and took a leak in the alley? This super secret phone from Apple wasn't taken from Apple headquarters by a team of IMF agents, so I'd not let them prosecute like it was. This is what it has come to in the digital age. Judgements in the of hundreds of thousands of dollars to pubescent teenagers who have downloaded music files. Ditto for having copied some Hollywood movies. As has gone the super-hyperventilating hype surrounding new digital products, hardware and software, so have gone the punishments that are meted out to those who fail to follow those legalistic gobbledegook EULA agreements. Why can't I download a song from the internet without paying for it if I have previously purchased the record album and/or the CD that the song is on? Oops!! Have I asked an illegal question? Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:25 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: However, it is my position that they brought this upon themselves either through intent or through foolishness. In either case, they should shoulder the blame themselves in this instance instead of lashing out at others by causing the power of legal authorities to wreak retribution upon the silly individuals who were reveling in the thought that they had, if for only a little while, bested the mighty goliath. You bleeding-heart liberals make me sick. I don't buy the argument that it is society that is to blame for criminality. It is not all Apple's fault because they had the audacity to develop an attractive new product that people would be tempted to steal. I put the blame squarely on the criminal who took the device and the criminal who bought the stolen goods. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Sounds like you read half of Jason Calacanis's breakdown where he said everyone involved including Apple were d#$ks. On Apr 28, 2010 4:43 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:25 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: However, it is my position that they bro... You bleeding-heart liberals make me sick. I don't buy the argument that it is society that is to blame for criminality. It is not all Apple's fault because they had the audacity to develop an attractive new product that people would be tempted to steal. I put the blame squarely on the criminal who took the device and the criminal who bought the stolen goods. * ** List info, subscrip... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
On Apr 28, 2010, at 8:49 PM, mike wrote: Sounds like you read half of Jason Calacanis's breakdown where he said everyone involved including Apple were d#$ks. I bet that if we were to come over to your house and help ourselves to your belongings you would be singing a tune similar to Apple. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] illegal search warrant?
Lousy analogy Tom. You act as if you have not read any of what has been written about this item. The fact is the item was left by absent minded techie at bar. Item was turned into bar tender who has no idea whose it is.(I wonder how many folks had been there that night and had phones?) Good faith attempts were made to return said item to Apple, but because of Apples own compartmentalization no one knew what they were talking about. I cant remember how the Gizmodo guy got it at that point but he did, he then did a review and took it apart analyzed etc. etc. When he had it back together and working he sent it back. It is only after the fact that they have raided the guys house and not charged him with anything. I wonder what the search warrant said? You have to lay part of the blame here at Apple for being careless with their tech stuff, and being a little paranoid. This is not the first time someone has lost a prototype and someone else got it to look at and review. This would make it one of the first times that the reviewer has been criminalized for someone elses careless behavior. Is the Gizmodo guy totally innocent here, I don't think so, but he saw a chance to be one of the first to see review and look at a prototype of Iphone. But I also see Apple going over the top here and making themselves look really really stupid and heavy handed. Especially since they had the phone back already. And I would venture to say if this had been a Windows Mobile 7 phone that had had this happen to it, you would be jumping up and down saying way to go Gimodo You tend to be so predictable Tom. Stewart At 08:36 PM 4/28/2010, you wrote: On Apr 28, 2010, at 8:49 PM, mike wrote: Sounds like you read half of Jason Calacanis's breakdown where he said everyone involved including Apple were d#$ks. I bet that if we were to come over to your house and help ourselves to your belongings you would be singing a tune similar to Apple. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
