Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G
wraith808:
...Depending on who got ahold of it. You say you could do a great deal with it - Okay... - At what age? The one you are now, or the one you were in 1975? (It's a gamble on my part, you could be in your 60s now... ;)
-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 05:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not in my 60s, but in 79 I made a science project in which I made a robot arm that could move up and down... and I had to wire a circuit board and bridge it to my Apple II computer and made a program to allow the user to control it from the keyboard. A few years later... but not much.
Keep in mind the intention was to share a glimmer of thing to come with the throng of frothing accolades - Not to copy Uber Secret Chip X and rush it into production at competitor Y. Apple created "the Monster" that got off the chain - Gizmodo just gave it a carrot. A is business as usual. Were B the case I'd (still laugh, but) agree with you.
-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 05:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
No matter what their intent was, they were still doing it by illegal means that they just thought they could get away with. It's not the size of the incident, but the principle behind it. You traffic in stolen goods, you get slammed if caught.
-Legal fees = a vacuum.
-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 05:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not if it goes like you think it should and nothing happens to them legally. See how that works?
Accountable for what? Depriving Lord Jobs of a teensy weensy little spark from his next over-the-top release worship revival light show? If they actually had a product... other than their immense marketing hype inducer machine, this would be a total non-issue.
-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 05:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
No... accountability for breaking the law. And I'm no apple apologist, but its just the rule of law at work. And you start breaking it down at these levels, and you pave the way for future grander violations. Which is one of the reasons it's lame of them to bring the journalistic shield into play since you're using something that's meant to protect real journalists in a way that in the future could limit it when it really needs to be used.
Stoic Joker:
...Depending on who got ahold of it. You say you could do a great deal with it - Okay... - At what age? The one you are now, or the one you were in 1975? (It's a gamble on my part, you could be in your 60s now... ;)
-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 05:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not in my 60s, but in 79 I made a science project in which I made a robot arm that could move up and down... and I had to wire a circuit board and bridge it to my Apple II computer and made a program to allow the user to control it from the keyboard. A few years later... but not much.-wraith808 (April 30, 2010, 07:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
Cool. In 79 I did my first solo engine rebuild, actually I rebuilt the whole bike (CB450 Honda twin) from the ground up.
Keep in mind the intention was to share a glimmer of thing to come with the throng of frothing accolades - Not to copy Uber Secret Chip X and rush it into production at competitor Y. Apple created "the Monster" that got off the chain - Gizmodo just gave it a carrot. A is business as usual. Were B the case I'd (still laugh, but) agree with you.
-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 05:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
No matter what their intent was, they were still doing it by illegal means that they just thought they could get away with. It's not the size of the incident, but the principle behind it. You traffic in stolen goods, you get slammed if caught.
--- End quote ---
Fortunately the world isn't quite that black & white, reality is really more a myriad shades of gray. I've seen a multitude of these discussions go into the wall because somebody just had to play the nursery school marm stealing bad/momma spank cut and dried nonsense. As I've mentioned before, any time there is enough money involved, the rules change - That's just life in the big mean corporate world.
And even for the average Joe types, it's not always quite so crystal clear. for example, by the definition you're eluding to I submit this summery:
Any time one sets forth by stealth of design to willfully and intentionally with or without deception acquire property that they have no legal right of ownership to from the legal owner of said property they are without exception guilty of theft, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
...Correct?
Now in some countries, the penalty for theft is to cut off the thief's hand - So we'll set the bar there (come on you just new I was headed for some manner of crazy ass-ed extreme).
Now, lets say your buddy, is drunk. I don't mean the slightly tipsy "legally drunk", I'm talking flat out smashed, blind, staggering, can't hold onto the floor drunk. In an attempt to prevent him from driving (obviously a bad idea) ... you orchestrate the separation of him and his car keys (e.g. you steal them). Hence by definition above a crime despite the best of intentions... Guilty - and off goes the hand. Cut, dried, completely in accordance with the law, done.
But wait... There's more! Lets say - you draw the short straw - and get a still sopping wet fresh from graduation public defender, and the prosecuting attorney is in a bad mood (it's an election year, he's down on points, & looking for a good quick kill). So now due to the fact that your actions directly impaired said party's ability to leave...they tack on unlawful detention. Yeah now it's a party - I wonder what they cut off for that one?
Point being stealing is not always wrong.
-Legal fees = a vacuum.
-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 05:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not if it goes like you think it should and nothing happens to them legally. See how that works?
--- End quote ---
Sure do, It's called a gamble, and is a standard part of any business. Large corporation dump toxic waste where they like, because the fines are cheaper than the cost of proper disposal. They're gambling on the price of the fine not changing. When it comes to politics vs. tax money - They're probably right too.
Accountable for what? Depriving Lord Jobs of a teensy weensy little spark from his next over-the-top release worship revival light show? If they actually had a product... other than their immense marketing hype inducer machine, this would be a total non-issue.
-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 05:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
No... accountability for breaking the law. And I'm no apple apologist, but its just the rule of law at work. And you start breaking it down at these levels, and you pave the way for future grander violations.
--- End quote ---
That actually happened years ago. Hay if Diplomatic Immunity hasn't gotten us all killed by now - I'm not seeing this as a real issue.
Which is one of the reasons it's lame of them to bring the journalistic shield into play since you're using something that's meant to protect real journalists in a way that in the future could limit it when it really needs to be used.
--- End quote ---
If they tossed in a dead nun and a few pound of heroin (making an obvious stretch for Tech Journalism...) I'd agree with ya. But IMO, this is just what that shield be for.
Carol Haynes:
Personally I don't think anyone did anything illegal (irrespective of stupid repressive Californian laws designed to keep people in their place).
If there was any 'offence' it was industrial espionage which should (at least in an sane world) be a civil matter.
The tactics of all major companies include (but are not limited to) private revese engineering of hardware and code, plagiarism with minor changes to avoid patent infindgement, extorting money from companies and individuals for patent infringements of patents they never developed themselves, patenting of biological entities (including genes of individual species and even individual humans), deliberate industrial espionage, poaching employees for their skills and knowledge, the use of gag orders on practically anybody they feel like, using wealth to deliberately destroy competitiors (and even potential competitiors), using pure threats and bullying tactics.
It is probably fair to say that most large corporations also exploit people in developing countries openly and also cause death and deprivation in one form or another if it is to their financial and competitve advantage.
If you think I am eggagerating get a copy of the film "The Corporation" for examples of all this behaviour which is required behaviour in law under most capitalist systems. In US law corporations have the status of 'person' (itslef a corruption of laws intended to protect freed slaves after the civil war) and "The Corporation" admirably illstrates that if corporations were real people they would be locked up in a psychiatric hospital as dangerous psychopaths!
Stoic Joker:
:greenclp: :greenclp: :greenclp:
That exact point has been gnawing at me for some time. The evil faceless corporation bent on domination (/repression of) the population was a popular theme of SiFi in the 60's & 70's. Unfortunately its message seems to have backfired as the only thing that seems to have been learned is that as long as you're at the top it's all good. Donald Trumps show The Apprentice (which I detest) comes to mind for the complete lack of integrity shown (and applauded) in the quest for the biggest pile of ca$h. Happy customers? Quality Product? Irrelivant... Just as long as a huge pile of dough is raked in. I find the attitude quite disgusting.
40hz:
I remember reading an article where somebody remarked that she found it incredibly interesting that unacceptable behaviors (such as rampant egotism, lying, cheating, bullying, and a total disregard for others) are often elevated to the status of virtues when they occur in a business context.
Such behaviors are often associated with street crimes. Unless they occur on Wall Street. Commit them there and your market valuation goes up!
As Carol so succinctly noted:
if corporations were real people they would be locked up in a psychiatric hospital as dangerous psychopaths!
-Carol Haynes (May 01, 2010, 04:35 AM)
--- End quote ---
Go Carol! :Thmbsup:
--------------
The Apprentice (which I detest) comes to mind for the complete lack of integrity shown (and applauded) in the quest for the biggest pile of ca$h. Happy customers? Quality Product? Irrelivant... Just as long as a huge pile of dough is raked in. I find the attitude quite disgusting.
-Stoic Joker (May 01, 2010, 07:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
+1
But what's even more disgusting to me is how well - and often - that attitude actually seems to work.
And that's the really heartbreaking thing for me.
It's not so much that people like Jobs, or Trump and his brethren, are the way they are.
It's more that, given the current state of global business, they just might be 'right' in behaving that way...
With the lunatics running the asylum, is it any wonder so many of us suffer from depression? :nono2:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version