Should Snatching an iPhone Be a Felony? 607
theodp writes "English comedian Russell Brand could be facing a felony conviction for snatching an iPhone from a would-be paparazzi and tossing it through a window. Singer/parolee Chris Brown also found himself in iPhone hot water after being charged with 'robbery by snatching' in a similar DIY-paparazzi-thwarting incident, which could be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the value placed on an iPhone. But in the world-of-crazy-pricing created by phone makers and wireless providers ($899 Nokia Windows Phone, anyone?), where the quoted price of an iPhone varies by a factor of 376 from the same company, should one really be charged with a felony for snatching an iPhone, especially when an iPad 2 can be had for $399 retail?"
Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is no different than pick pocketing someone.
Usually stealing something directly from someone's person is a serious offense no matter how worthless it is.
Hell, if force is used it becomes robbery.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I believe the ideal of weighting the seriousness of a crime on the monetary value of the goods stolen is inherently flawed. Which is worse - tossing the phone of a paparazzi? Or stealing a sandwich from a homeless guy? It appears that US law may consider damaging a wealthy man's toy to be worthy of a greater punishment than depriving a poor man of his food for a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why I always carry black PVC tape and super glue. Stick it on and give it back. Not that I'm a celeb mind you.....
That stupid. I'm assuming you're placing the tape where it obstructs the function of the device?
What you're doing is vandalism, not to mention the damage you'd do to the livelihood if we're talking a paparazzi here.
Now, let's just get this straight - celebrities have no extended right to privacy. If they're out in public you can snap pictures and film them to your hearts content, the same as if the subject had been anyone else. There are rules for private property and rules for publication, but not for the actual recording in public. Anyone can photograph and film anyone in public. It's that simple.
Then the celebrities whine about their privacy and how they hate having their pictures taken but at the same time they have no qualms spending days posing for publicity pictures (which they get paid for) or in general collecting more or less obscene paychecks for 8-10 weeks of work. They enjoy VIP treatment and privileges at clubs and restaurants, not to mention award shows and similar. They wanted fame and the perks that come with it, but they don't want the flipside... Well, too bad. It's all or nothing. That's the way life works.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
To be fair, if the person taking the pictures is close enough for me to "snatch" the phone from his/her hand, it would seem to me that they are stepping over some line, harassment maybe? How much space around you can you reasonably expect? here in the midwest, I'd say at least an arms length.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, clearly. The article I read said that the person taking the photo was in a car driving past, so, now, who was it that stepped over a line? Who committed the harrasment?
Re: (Score:3)
Why does his privacy have not value? (Score:5, Insightful)
The interesting thing here is that the iPhone may have enough value to make this a felony, but his privacy has no value at all. Paparazzi can follow and harass him all they like and he can do nothing about it. Now you might not have sympathy for celebs, but they do the same thing to mothers of murder victims and others. A (British) paparazzi only today followed the mother of one of the dead Belgium schoolchildren (coach crash in Switzerland) to get 'sad mother' shot.
IMHO, throwing a paparazzi camera out of a window should have no more value than the damage to the phone. It was NOT THEFT, he can go get his phone, it was not assault, he did not hit the Paparazzi. It was not a mugging, no threat of violence was used. I don't even rank this the same as taking a normal persons phone and throwing it out the window because the Paparazzi was the person who came into close proximity and shoved the camea phone in his face.
He didn't go seek out the Paparazzi, the reason they're in conflict is entirely the Paparazzi actions.
So it's a misdemeanor since it's paparazzi, or possibly a 'jolley jape'.
Re:Why does his privacy have not value? (Score:4, Funny)
IMHO, throwing a paparazzi camera out of a window
You are all doing it wrong. You throw the paparazzi out of the window.
Re: (Score:3)
His privacy doesn't have value because he's a celebrity. That's settled law. The iPhone has value because some lady purchased it. Also settled law.
You can whine about how it's not right all you want, but then I'd counter with whining about how it's not right that a woman-beating piece of garbage like Chris Brown [ibtimes.com] is still a celebrity.
And I'd further argue that only his celebrity kept him out of jail after that incident,
Re:Why does his privacy have not value? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed it can be argued that Lady DIana Spencer would not have died were it not for the Paparazzi's actions. For sure it appears her driver was drunk. But the speed at which he drove appears to have been due to the pursuit by paparazzi.
The law is the law. But in terms of real justice I think that paparazzis should take the occasional smashed camera or phone or punch in the mouth as part of the job. They take the job on, usually freelance, in the full knowledge that they are harassing people, and from time to time those harassed people will will snap and strike back. It seems to be adding insult to injury to go running to the police and pressing charges. But what else can one expect from such scum?
Re: (Score:3)
I think the real scum are the readers of tabloids and gossip magazines. If there wasn't a demand for compromising photos of celebrities, the paparazzi wouldn't exist. They're giving people what they want to see.
Re: (Score:3)
As despicable as some of the paparazzi can be, they did not contribute to the speed.
Yes they did. The driver was trying to get away from the paparazzi. That's why he was driving at an excessive speed. Alcohol will have given him more confidence, porrer judgement and lesser ability to drive. But the cause of the speed was the chasing paparazzi.
They weren't endangering her safety by taking pictures, and even if they were, speeding off would not have been the correct response.
The "correct response" isn't in question here. Just whether the paps contributed to the death of Diana, and it did.
If OJ proved nothing else, he proved that being chased does not put any obligation on you to drive fast.
OJ didn't manage to avoid photographs being taken, so he proved no such thing.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, a "herd of photographers" is an annoyance, just like, say, a herd of mosquitos would be. Now, everyone would rather avoid a herd of mosquitos; but if you do so in a manner that obviously endangers yourself and others, and it ends badly, the fault lies with you, not the mosquitos, no matter how disgusting their bloodsucking parasitic nature might be.
I hate to use the term "personal responsibility",
Re: (Score:3)
He's claiming that it's not robbery since there was no taking of property.
Re: (Score:3)
He's claiming that it's not robbery since there was no taking of property.
Which is clearly absurd- he took it, then he threw it out a window. Just because a thief dumps what he stole in a river doesn't absolve him of the crime.
Whether or not it should be a felony, I don't know, but taking someones phone is a crime regardless of what you do with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is clearly absurd- he took it, then he threw it out a window. Just because a thief dumps what he stole in a river doesn't absolve him of the crime.
Arguably it's more vandalism than theft. I'd say it would be closer to taking a baseball bat to someone's car than stealing his wallet and keeping the money.
Re:Why does his privacy have not value? (Score:5, Insightful)
Arguably it's more vandalism than theft. I'd say it would be closer to taking a baseball bat to someone's car than stealing his wallet and keeping the money.
I could be on board with that if he had picked it up off a table and thrown it out a window. Physically taking something out from someones hands _is_ force, with an escalation of force implied. Its a criminal act in its own right. We're not in kindergarten anymore, and physical confrontation, physical intimidation and such have criminal consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, intention is important too. To me (not the courts) it is whether he intended to permanently deprive the person of the item. Since he threw it through a window my guess is yes, but it was more a "destruction of private property" act.
But if someone was trying to take pictures of you and you knocked the phone/camera away and out of their hands, to me that's not robbery or theft. But still an offen
Re: (Score:2)
I hope they had permission to do so. If not, I'm someone who would certainly smash their camera and/or delete the picture myself. I'm prepared for the consequences of that.
So you're willing to commit a felony (depending on the cost of the phone/camera) in response to a lawful non-threatening action? At least you posted AC...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the charges change with the degree of force, and other factors.
A pick pocket won't have made any physical threat. Ideally, they would have the job started and finished before the mark knew what was happening.
From the article, there appears to be a physical threat, destruction of private property, and disturbing the peace. In cases like this, pick a side, they're both probably just as guilty of some of those charges and more.
Taking someone's phon
Re: (Score:2)
You forget the possible value of the contents on the device.
So bring the offender to court on a felony charge regardless of if it was a pick pocket or robbery. If someone takes inappropriate pictures - then charge them with that instead.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, if force is used it becomes robbery.
Snatching anything out of anyone's hand is legally considered force, and is thus automatically a robbery. (Just like civil battery is the same tort of "battery" regardless of if it results in grievous bodily injury or is just an ear flick, or a poke.)
The difference is most people let a lot of misdemeanors and/or torts go by, because doing something about it would cost more than the harm done.
I learned about this because I actually had a piece of evidence snatched out of my hands in the halls of a court house. Pissed me off to no end, and the cops didn't understand what criminal act could have been committed. It wasn't until much later that I learned that it was technically robbery. (Same guy later went on to break into our apartment and steal more evidence, and my netbook just 2 days before the hearing about my protection order against him.)
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, so we've established this is a crime. That's not disputed.
But there are underlying reason why it was a crime, why that crime is assigned the penalty it has been, and why the legislators implement a price breakdown in the first place. If the specific law does not continue to correspond accurately with those intentions, it probably is being misapplied and/or needs to be modified.
One major function of the penalty (if not the only function) is to act as a deterrent. This means it needs to offset the potential gain to the offender in a way that accounts for his probability of being caught. In this case, a "robbery" charge is silly: robbers get a financial payoff and generally operate so as to escape penalty. Publically tossing someone's property obviously should involve assessing a different penalty because there is no financial reward and the chances of getting away with it are minimal.
Another key difference is where the perpetrator does not understand the value of the property. If someone grabs an unknown electronic item from you and damages it, how important is the price to whether he should be allowed to vote or made to spend significant time in prison? Seems to me that as long as he is required to make full restitution for the cost of the item, the additional criminal penalty should be roughly the same for most cases.
Consider, why did the legislators include a price breakdown at all? One reason may have been increased deterrence for major heists, another may have simply been to target particularly egregious offenses. Neither of which seems to me like something which should depend on whether it was an iPhone or a Nokia.
Re: (Score:3)
Another key difference is where the perpetrator does not understand the value of the property. If someone grabs an unknown electronic item from you and damages it, how important is the price to whether he should be allowed to vote or made to spend significant time in prison? Seems to me that as long as he is required to make full restitution for the cost of the item, the additional criminal penalty should be roughly the same for most cases.
So as long as a rich person eventually pays for it- he can forcibly take anything he wants and destroy it, and suffer no criminal consequences?
I realize people cynically(?) claim this happens now, but I haven't seen too many people actually argue for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
Sheesh, this takes fanboism to a whole new level. Stealing is one thing, but being charged with a felony because you picked up the wrong f#cking phone (all iphones look the same) off the bar is just wrong.
If you get robbed/pwned/mugged/beaten it shouldn't matter what was taken. Let's not go making iLaws for christ sakes.
Re: (Score:2)
This is no different than pick pocketing someone.
Actually, it is. The law makes a difference between taking something from someone with the intent of keeping it for yourself, and just taking it out of their hands and immediately dumping it somewhere else. If you smoke in a non-smoking zone and I take the damn cigarette out of your hands and toss it on the floor, that is legally not a theft. You could probably sue me for the 20 cents or so it is worth (though the counter-suit for smoking in a non-smoking area would spoil your victory). Ok, in the USA you c
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, if force is used it becomes robbery.
Forced was used if the guy snatched it out of the paparazzo's hands.
IANAL, but I see three issues here:
- The destruction (or damage, at least) of the $500 phone and possibly its contents.
- The use of force.
- The obstruction of a perfectly lawful action - taking a photograph in a public place.
As a guy who enjoys shooting and looking at street photography, IMO the last one is the most severe offense. A few hundred bucks and a scare is nothing in comparison to the potential erosion to artistic and journalistic
It already is (Score:5, Insightful)
It's already a felony in basically every democratic city in the world to snatch whatever private property someone else owns, and tossing it away like that (out the window).
It's not yours, so you can't snatch it, it's that simple. Nothing complex about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. The only question the story raises - why is Russel Brand considered a comedian?
Being cocky and a loud mouth makes you funny now? I'm glad he moved over to the states, he should fit right in over there. We were already really sick of him.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately just after Louis CK delivered a particular scathing line for team talent, Gallagher would squash him with a novelty-size mallet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It already is (Score:5, Insightful)
It is certainly a crime, but should it be a *felony*? Basically, should you have your gun ownership, voting, working, and a host of other rights nullified for tossing someone else's iPhone?
Re:It already is (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't matter even if they're a convicted murderer. They should still be allowed to vote. Maybe even from prison (unless we don't trust the prisons to not tamper with or influence the votes).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Because the people who make the rules engineer them in order to disenfranchise large portions of the population as a way of securing power. They work the system so that they can get away with much, much worse behavior than what would be criminal if we did it. Congress is full of people who think the rules don't apply to them because they're strong or smart enough to game the system. And in most cases they're right. Those are the people we really have to worry about. A felon with the right to vote is
You may have answered your own question (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would I want my democracy's rules to be determined by the same people who've proven they don't care about the rules?
Because perhaps they care more about the rules than some other people [wikipedia.org]. Let me guess: you would have approved of taking away someone's right to vote for having smuggled slaves out of the South into Canada in pre-1860s United States.
Unless you're rich enough to write your own undemocratic laws
The following does not apply to phone theft or vandalism, but would you approve of taking away someone's right to vote for having violated an undemocratic law that was written by someone who was rich enough?
Re:It already is (Score:5, Insightful)
Any country that treats involvement in its democracy as a 'privilege' doesn't have a democracy. Otherwise a monarchy is just a democracy with fewer privileged individuals. Removing people's right to vote for any reason fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of a democracy and it doesn't even have any benefits. No one decides not to commit a crime because of voting rights. In return being excluded by society from involvement in democracy is hardly likely to make them value democracy and the rule of law any more than they originally did.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the act that's punished. Consequences hurt? Don't fucking do the act, that being the point. If your self-control is that poor, you don't need access to firearms. (I say this as a staunch Second Amendment advocate.)
If the perp grabbed wallet full of that amount of cash instead, it wouldn't even be interesting and certainly wouldn't make Slashdot.
Re:It already is (Score:5, Interesting)
It's already a felony in basically every democratic city in the world to snatch whatever private property someone else owns, and tossing it away like that (out the window).
In Germany, it isn't theft, when you are not trying to enrich yourself. Next, in the case of killing a person, there are distinctions being made between pre-meditated or spontaneous cases, or whether the death of the person was intented. In this particular case, there was no intent that the paparazzi would lose their phone, the intent was to protect someone's privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
If I steal your car and throw it down a mountain I will not have profitted from it, yet it would be a crime.
Even more, if I do not enter your car but I douse it with gas and lit, that would be another crime (yes, not theft but arson). Even if you were using that car to follow me and keep harassing me.
Now, we can discuss if the guy can claim that he was under pressure by the paparazzi as a way to soften the sentence. But that does not change that it was indeed a crime.
And for paparazzi, I think the same than
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, an assault can still be a misdemeanor but there would seem to be the potential for multiple charges arising from the incident.
One
Not since 1967 in Englnd and Wales (Score:3)
Apparently felony was abolished in the Criminal Law Act 1967 [wikipedia.org] in England and Wales "which made all felonies (except treason) misdemeanours". Arrestable offences were abolished in 2006. [wikipedia.org]
Re:It already is (Score:5, Informative)
It's already a felony in basically every democratic city in the world to snatch whatever private property someone else owns, and tossing it away like that (out the window).
There's an awful lot wrong with this statement.
1. The word "felony" is a technical word from US law that has a very specific meaning, and one which refers to a distinction most other countries do not (any longer) make. We have criminal offenses, which have varying scales of punishments, but we do not have the notion of different categories of offence like this. In the UK, for example, we have only a distinction between "indictable" and "summary" offences, which determines whether a jury trial is required (only for indictable offences) and whether a punishment of more than 12 months imprisonment is available (also only for indictable offenses). A felony corresponds most closely to an indictable offence, but the distinction is not really the same at all.
2. At least here in the UK, this would not be considered either theft or robbery. Theft is defined as "taking someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of its use". Robbery is "taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear." As there was no intent to permanently deprive, neither offense occurred.
It may or may not be another offense. If contact was made with the holder of the phone, it may be battery, a summary offense carrying a maximum term of 6 months imprisonment in the UK. Note that battery is a less serious offence in the UK than in the US as it does not require harm to be caused. If no contact was made, but a reasonable person would have feared violence in the situation, it may be common assault, which carries a similar penalty. If neither of these occurred, but the phone was damaged, it may be criminal damage, which is also a summary offence with a maximum penalty of only 3 months imprisonment. In the event there was no touching, no threat of violence, and no damage to the phone, it isn't clear to me that any offence would have occurred at all had this happened in the UK. In any event, none of these offences are considered especially serious, and so are not in the category that we would most commonly consider as parallel to a felony.
Re: (Score:2)
Quick everyone - mod this patent-loving, blood-sucker down!
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't a crime require intent? If not, people should be charged with theft whenever they move a chair at a restaurant. This is property damage/vandalism. Nothing to see here, move along...
Re: (Score:3)
It's yet another advert for Apple passing as a story.
I don't think so. Where's the pro-Apple angle? I must have missed these endorsements:
Apple - the paparazzi's choice. Protecting your privacy, while you invade someone else's...
Russell Brand, England's premier comedian, says "I only throw Apple phones, no other manufacturer's phones are weighted for the same distance and accuracy".
The iPhone - with an 18 month contract, it's a steal. (Off contract, it's a felony...)
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe. When I mean 'maybe' I mean maybe when I'm pissing off random thieves on the street by shoving my phone in their face repeatedly until I get a reaction.
Maybe then.
Yes (Score:3)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Why is this a question?
Because this is an answer.
O, in that case (Score:3)
Might as well punch the paparazzi in the face...
Was it loaded with songs? (Score:5, Interesting)
See http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html [ted.com] . Perhaps the iPhone is worth $8 billion (I mean, you are technically stealing every song on the iPhone as well as the phone itself).
Why bother stealing the phone? (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Wear something copyrighted.
2. Sue the paparazzi for copyright infringement.
3. PROFIT!!!!
What is up with all these bad summaries lately? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually a story about two things, paparazzi invading people's private lives, and a prison industrial complex that encourages and indeed forces the criminal justice system to impose multi-year prison terms for petty offences for the sake of profit.
Only on slashdot could a bunch of autistic dolts think it's about "mobile phone pricing structures".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
... and a prison industrial complex that encourages and indeed forces the criminal justice system to impose multi-year prison terms for petty offences for the sake of profit.
.
While I agree that the prison-industrial complex is out of hand. If someone snatched a Fabergé egg out of someone's hand and threw it, no one would be doubting if it were a felonious act. It's clearly an expensive object, taken by force, and then damaged.
As others have noted, it's not about excessive criminal sentences for snatching and damaging another's expensive property, it's about gauging the proper value of an "overpriced electronic toy".
Re: (Score:3)
If someone snatched a Fabergé egg out of someone's hand and threw it, no one would be doubting if it were a felonious act
I don't think I entirely agree. What was the situation? Why did the person snatch the faberge egg? If I snuck into security in a museum showing the egg, and I intentionally destroyed it because I didn't like the person who owned the egg, I would expect to be charged with *something*. If a mentally ill person did it suddenly for no apparent reason, then I might question the need to charge him, and whether some action might make more sense.
If, however, the owner of the egg snuck up on someone and started
Re: (Score:2)
Since Steve Jobs died I cannot bear to see anyone use an iphone irreverently, what I did was a tribute to his memory.
This tweet was quoted in TFA. To be fair, he's quite funny when he wants to be - so "talentless" seems a harsh assessment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't consideration be given to the "replacement" cost? I mean, Apple or any other cellphone maker/seller isn't going to replace a phone damaged by another person's mischief. Insurance, if applicable probably does not cover such cases directly.
On top of that, the prosecutor usually goes for the maximum applicable charge. That way they don't look soft on crime, and it gives them the option of a plea agreement. It's all about intimidation. 60 days of jail plus a fine or whatever sounds a hell lot better than 10 years or whatever it comes out to; as opposed to them offering you 60 days at the onset.
Felony, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is already too much crime. Civil liability should be enough. If it's unprovoked, simple battery might be in order. But felony?
Stop being so damn blood-thirsty. Breaking somebody's device because they shove it in your face should not ruin lives and occupations.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's unprovoked, simple battery might be in order.
Except snatching something is robbery. If the value of the object is small enough, then it's a misdemeanor robbery, if it's expensive enough, it's a felony robbery.
No one seems to have difficulty understanding that if you steal a candy bar, that it's a misdemeanor, while if you steal an expensive television it's a felony... so, why does anyone have trouble differentiating misdemeanor vs felony robbery?
$899 Nokia Windows Phone? (Score:4, Informative)
Are the paparazzi carrying the accessories of that bundle? [microsoftstore.com] Individually bought the Purity HD headset is about 150-200$ and the Play360 speaker maybe 100-150$. Slantdot editing at it's finest.
Price of phone not the issue (Score:3)
The price of the phone is not what makes it valuable or its loss dangerous. That's like considering the price of the paper to determine the severity of the offense of the hold-up note to a bank teller.
Ahh! Can /. stop using The Daily Mail is a Source? (Score:3)
it should be a capital offense IMHO (Score:2)
dont like the prices of smartphones? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
then vote with your wallet, i have never owned an iphone or any other brand of smartphone for exactly that reason, i refuse to spend as much on a cellphone as i would a desktop or laptop computer, i opted to buy a cheap Tracfone for for around 29 bucks and buy a pre-paid card to program it with by three months at a time, that way if my phone gets lost or stolen or broken i have not lost much on it
but you miss out on having live location and status feeds of you anus posed to facebook and twitter
That's WHY they are called 'updates'
Considering the religious aspect of Apple.. (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe it should be considered an act of sacrilege.
$399? (Score:2)
$399? The iPad2 is priced at $1055.28 for the cheap non-3G one over here! *sits in a corner and grumbles about rich countries getting the lowest prices*
I pose this question (Score:2)
Phonicide in public interest! (Score:3)
Obviously, stopping a paparazzi is in public interest. Freeing somebody from an iPhone clearly is too. So IMO, this should result in a public commendation, and if needed in a psych-eval for the former iPhone owner to determine whether there is any residual damage that could mandate putting them into a closed psychiatric facility to protect the public.
Where do you draw the line? (Score:2)
The problem with this suggestion of a felony conviction over questionable MSRP pricing structures is where do you draw the line? What happens next month when someone snatches a Coach purse, or some other obscenely overpriced piece of shit that we Americans seem to love to waste money on?
Start questioning one overpriced product, and it tends to lead you down a very dark path that NO retailer or manufacturer wants people screwing with.
Theft + force = robbery. (Score:3)
Stealing an item of personal property is larceny. Add the use of force or fear and it's robbery. Robbery is always a felony because of the inherent risk that someone could be injured or killed. That's why Jerry Dewayne Williams is serving 25-to-life for stealing a slice of pizza. [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Programmers belong in cubicles, criminals belong in jail.
You say that like there's a functional difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Programmers belong in cubicles, criminals belong in jail.
You say that like there's a functional difference.
Yeah, jail cells are bigger.
My thinking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Avoid the theft/snatching charge.
Just punch the papparazi in the face and deal with the misdemeanor assault charge.
Russell Brand is a douche (Score:2)
Re:it doesnt matter really (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate apple
Replace "iPhone" with "phone" or "mobile" or "smartphone" and absolutely nothing relevant changes.
That's it, though, isn't it? The story doesn't even involve Apple or its products save that it incidentally happened to be the brand of the specific stolen overpriced electronic toy. Hell, no iPad's were involved at all, and yet this click-bait summary managed to work them in anyhow all while mentioning that you can get one for less than the well-publicized $499!
When I clicked the check box to disable advertising I didn't expect the ads to reappear as articles. This is getting ridiculous.
Re:it doesnt matter really (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish we could give a -1 Troll to articles themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
There's the firehose but it doesn't do anything for stuff that's gotten on the front page. I'd like to see a moderation and a bar that listed the percentages like
[---- 43% Informative ---] [--- 22% Insightful ----] [11 % Interesting --- ] [--- 12% Troll ---] [--- 9% Flamebait --- ] [--- 3% other ---] of coursed sized to proportions.
That way you could easily see if other people thought this was worth reading or not, not just whether it passed the somewhat arbitrary submission process.
Re: (Score:3)
Make that show up in the top of the RSS feed as well.
Re:it doesnt matter really (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an Apple fan, but an iPhone is not overpriced for the amount of quality design and hardware you get for it, and it's not a toy - it's a powerful portable computer that can do some impressive and useful things. A Tonka truck is an example of a toy, in case you've forgotten how to describe things without hyperbole.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
no really, its a toy.
If I connect an ipad to my desktop, windows detects it as an "entertainment device"
Re: (Score:2)
"...detects it as an "entertainment device""
Since when are entertainment devices all toys? I get entertainment from a variety of things, like driving a car really, really fast around a track on the weekends. I play golf with friends where I use an app on my iPhone to judge the distance to the pin. The device I'm staring at right now to type in this message entertains me.
So, cars, golf clubs, mobile computers and desktop computers are toys?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OMG SO EVERYONE SHOULD GET IPADS INSTEAD OF PC's FOR WORK
that is what i see when i read your post....fact: ipad does not replace a pc. get this through your fanboy heads. its not a microsoft conspiracy either. I am a linux user.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it can replace a PC. It just depends what your requirements are for work. Why I work, 80% of users can switch to tablets like the iPad, and save the company millions in maintenance and support fees.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
can i run visual studio or Siemens Step 7 on an ipad?
no? then bugger off while I write software for a million dollar industrial machine.
anyone can make a gimicky hardware toy, e.g OpenPandora, raspberry pi, apple ipad, but for real work cad (email and word dont count), I need a x86 Windows PC.
VS on tablet PCs, XCode, Eclipse, AIDE (Score:3)
can i run visual studio or Siemens Step 7 on an ipad?
I don't think you could run either of those on a Windows phone ... or Windows tablet
If it's a Windows On ARM tablet, it'll be locked down as tight as a Windows phone. But if it's a Windows On Atom tablet, you can probably run Visual Studio just fine because Windows will see those as a PC with a pen.
or a Mac
Macs can run XCode. If you add a $200 copy of Windows, they can run Visual Studio.
or a Linux desktop
A Linux desktop can run plenty of Free IDEs. So can an Android tablet running AIDE [slashdot.org]. I guess this leaves iPad and Windows On ARM tablets as the only major tablets that can't be used for application development even
Honeycomb/ICS tablets yes, iPad no. (Score:3)
you CAN (easily) write a program every bit as fancy as anything you can produce on a PC, on a tablet or phone even.
Only if the tablet runs Android or some other operating system that allows unsigned or self-signed code. You can write a program on an iPad, but you can't test it because of how Apple's developer program works. You have to use something like Citrix or VNC to a PC to compile and run it, and if you're out of range of Wi-Fi and in the United States, a cellular data plan for doing that regularly can become expensive. I keep my netbook because I can code while taking the bus to and from work.
Re:it doesnt matter really (Score:5, Interesting)
Yesterday I was listening to C-SPAN, and they were discussing a concept of crime under passion, giving an example of jealous husband who stumbles upon his wife having sex with another man, and that in some jurisdictions it's considered as a factor for sentence reduction.
I think snatching a camera when the owner is actively abusing "being in public" concept, could fall into that category.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you seriously misunderstand the intent of the article. It is definitely not about Apple iThings. But since the general public doesn't have a slashdot car analogy to use, the article writer finds the general public's awareness of Apple iThings to be convenient to help put cost/value considerations into a frame and perspective they can easily identify and measure. And that's pretty important when getting a message across I should think.
The article also rightly calls out that iPad is less expensive
Demand a jury trial (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This brings to mind a current activist motion to defeat the US injustice system by demanding a speedy trial
And it also illustrates the stupidity of that suggestion. He can choose between a plea bargain for a misdemeanor and pay a small fine, or try to be an "activist" and face certain conviction for a felony.
It's not clear to me what cause he would be supporting by demanding a trial though; are you suggesting we all have a right to grab someone's phone and destroy it because they annoy us?
Re: (Score:2)
are you suggesting we all have a right to grab someone's phone and destroy it because they annoy us?
In general? No.
For paparazzi?
...
...
Damnit. No there too.
You win this time!
Re: (Score:3)
are you suggesting we all have a right to grab someone's phone and destroy it because they annoy us?
In general? No.
For paparazzi?
The same! - Of course!
The laws apply equally for everybody, even the paparazzi who're only doing their job.
Now, about the story - no real paparazzi would work with a smartphone so that part is bull. If someone was filming with such a toy, it's guaranteed it was a regular fan or similar. Real paps would be filming with a proper video camera, probably with a powerful light on top to really bother the subject. And now we come to the core issue: Both fans and paparazzi are allowed to film in public and taking s
Remember the WILD WEST (Score:2)
That seems equivalent to stealing an iPhone, a device that has all your digital data, financial information, communications, essential life info requires for personal and professional survival.
Re: (Score:2)
you'll get shot
And you'll go to jail for escalating force well beyond what is reasonable...
Unless you can show that you had an actual fear that it were a weapon endangering your life, and you had no duty to retreat. (Some states hold that if you are in public, you have a duty to attempt to run away before you attempt lethal force. In a few states, this duty even applies inside your own home.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, its amazing how many Americans don't realise he scurried off over there to avoid the fallout [telegraph.co.uk] from his disgusting obscene phone call "joke". The kind which, naturally, had a member of the public done exactly the same would have got them prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
More than the money value of the phone, a phone is a communication device. For that reason alone it should be a felony to snatch any phone.
So, now we've gone beyond the crime of pricing said "communications device" WAY over what it is actually worth, and now you're going to try and sit here and convince me that because of the advent of personal communications devices, it should NOW be a felony to remove one from someones person? What's next, are the "victims" of said crime going to start suing for emotional distress and lost wages because people couldn't possibly leave their house without a "communications device" glued to their side, and had