Dusty Chalk

Why not this? Is it because it's a super-duper top-secret Apple product? If someone were to leave their regular 3G iPhone in a bar -- in exactly the same manner -- and someone else were to grab it -- in exactly the same manner -- and somehow some magical mysterious way, someone bricked it, took out the sim card and whatnot (I.E. rendered it resellable), and sold it on eBay, do you think the recipient of said sold stolen iPhone would have had a raid on their house, trying to determine if they knew when they bought it on eBay that it was a stolen iPhone? Really? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but theft shouldn't be a function of what is stolen, only of the value of what is stolen. It would be an entirely different manner if they were claiming trade secrets/intellectual property, or whatnot, but the only thing different about what Gizmodo did to what Gizmodo usually does is they did it without permission from Apple, and they did it earlier than Apple wanted. Those "trade secrets" were going to be revealed in the future, when Apple was ready to sell the product.

So say we all, man. (shudders)

Also: why would they shoot themselves in the foot, and ruin their "it was all a ploy by Apple to leak the phone to us" explanation? Gizmodo were the ones to explain why that couldn't have been the case, not Apple.

Doesn't matter what I believe, you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not what happened, Mr. Armchair Prosecuting Attorney. I mean, if we're going to "try them out of court", as it were.

That's because you haven't seen deep-fried bacon-donut hamburgers yet. Look up "Paula Deen" or "Luther Burger".

"We specified artichokes, because we don't know if it's a fruit, vegetable, nut, or 'other', so we just threw it in. Aw, shit, we forgot legumes."

Unless the seller reassured you that they made their darnedest effort to return it, but maybe with your connections, you can get through to Apple in the way that we can't, but we know you're going to look it over before you return it to them, so give us some dosh for our beer habits. And again, if the person wasn't there to steal from, is that considered theft? The bar's closing, you know they're gone... Victim of extortion, at best.

Maybe I'm being Jacob-indignant with terminology (remember the Vodka Martini!), but I don't consider 8 feet to be nearfield. So my issue is with Cardas not with you. Think about the old BBC LS3/5a, and how engineers usually had it perched over their mixing boards, so they'd be the depth of a mixing board away from the speakers -- that is nearfield, to me. Arm's reach. If you can fit a coffin between you and the speaker, that's approaching midfield, IMHO. That said -- so many people piped up in this thread as having successful results with room treatments, even in the nearfield, that I'll shut up now.

No, it would be theft if he was there (I.E. they took it from him); since he left it, that's "protective custody". There are definitely bars where, if someone left their phone, I'd take it (to return to them) rather than leave it with the bartender or any other patron. And yeah, if it was something I or the world had never seen before, I'd rifle through it a bit. And my point was not intent, but rather that they did not perform any stealing -- at best, they can be considered an accomplice -- or whatever it would be, fencing? -- if they bought known stolen goods. The statute of limitations comment came from "if they try to return it within a reasonable amount of time, then it's not considered stealing". I bet the statute of limitations is pretty long on that one. But if you want to play armchair judge jury and executioner, Jacob, at least ...you know, be right. It says right there that they have to know it was stolen in order to be held liable. I win. Nanner nanner. And WTH is a 'jenny'? And why artichokes?

FIFY. It's not known at this point that it was stolen. Also pretty sure you can't prove Gizmodo knew it was stolen at the time that they bought it. Even if it's proven that the initial person stole the phone, it's a separate legal issue entirely to say in hindsight that they knowingly bought a stolen phone. And the fact that they began machinations to return it before the raid tells me that while their intentions may not have been entirely benevolent, they weren't ...er...larcenic? Felonial? Theft-oriented. I believe there's a statute of limitations involved here, but I'm not a lawyer, and neither are you.

There you go again, assuming I'm guilty before you've even heard the facts.

By giving the iPhone back, isn't this effectively what they did -- paid money, got access to it for a limited time? I doubt they asked for their $5,000 back.

Frosted Mini Wheats

Remind me never to have someone like you on my jury.

Stripmall Architecture, Feathersongs for Factory Girls -- the album I contributed to (funding) -- and I may be a bit biased, but I think it's their best.

'Appholes'

yogurt

Nope. Part of the benefit of nearfield is that the room makes much less of an impact on the sound. But as jpnumbs said, how close are you sitting, because nearfield is pretty tight. A lot of people say nearfield when they mean midfield.

Up next: vegan brains.

It is now.

etc.

QFT.

Lio is probably my favorite current newspaper comic strip. Alternate version: