If you think about it, it's no different than reporting a bug. You and your team know you should fix it, but there are always more pressing issues on your plate. You probably won't move it to the top of your list until either a large number of users complain or a one user complains very loudly.
Pretty important distinction: The people reporting bugs probably aren't paying your salary out of their taxes, nor have they granted you and your team a monopoly on wielding the tools necessary to perform an essential service.
What if I find a bug in Mac OS X* that I need fixed yesterday. I file a bug, and hope that it gets fixed eventually. Now it is up to Apple to fix it and get back to me on their schedule.
I pay Apple for their OS, and they are the only ones that can fix it. I'm at their mercy to fix it, so I fail to see how this is that different.
> If you think about it, it's no different than reporting a bug.
It's no different than reporting a bug with a patch. If I go to the police with evidence of a crime and details to apprehend the probable culprit, I expect them to deal with it. Those are really low hanging fruits.
This is just a laptop but really uncool stuff goes down all the time and there is not a lot the cops can do without a plate number or pictures. My dad's place in Oakland (Well secured warehouse) has had people try to break in five times over the last year and a half. The really fun one was 3 guys on the roof and one guy holding a neighbor kid hostage in the kids van so he would not call the cops. They are looking for pot grows and it happens all the time in Oakland. (They tried to drive their truck through the rollup doors of the neighbors warehouse) Not a damn thing you or a the cops can do except put up some cameras and shoot them if they get in your house.
The Oakland PD no longer responds to property crimes. This is a stopgap policy they started after they lost a large number of officers (100?) recently due to budget cuts.
I don't think I will use an app like Hidden mentioned in the post. It's just a laptop if you back up your data. But using an online service means that they have access to every activity you do on your computer. I don't think I can trust them. What if they activate the software and record user data without you knowing?
This being USA, can the thief sue this guy for violating his privacy? Is the violation of privacy for those 3-4 individuals for a month less valuable than the price of Macbook in the eyes of law?
Argh, this is actually a very legitimate case. It is rather unfortunate that in most people's eyes this is viewed as a textbook example of a farcical lawsuit.
Some points, which are mentioned in the very wiki article you linked.
* The coffee was about 45F or 20C higher than McDonald's guidelines.
* The coffee caused third-degree burns that required skin grafting
* Liebeck initially only asked to be compensated $18,000 largely to cover medical expenses; third-degree burns, an eight-day hospital stay which lead her to lose 20 lbs.
Do you think it is understandable that someone might know all of the facts of the suit and still consider it a farcical lawsuit, if not a textbook example of one?
I ask because those facts are often presented with the presumption that the person crying frivolousness hasn't considered them before forming his opinion.
No argument that McDonald's should've settled for medical costs when they had the chance. Yes the coffee was too hot but... she put the cup between her legs while driving.
Reasonable care would've prevented this injury and that's my problem with the ridiculous payout.
The law has many failings like this. For example, if you become intoxicated, get in a vehicle and manage to kill someone then the law largely says you were not responsible... because you were intoxicated. The punishment for vehicular manslaughter is WAY lower than other unlawful killings, if it's even tried as that. It's so hard to get vehicle-related felonies convicted that often they'll be settled for lower severity crimes (reckless driving and so forth).
But who got intoxicated in the first place? Who didn't take reasonable steps to avoid getting behind the wheel?
The McDonald's case is the poster child for frivolous litigation because, in spite of the misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the facts, ultimately it boils down to rewarding people for being stupid.
But who got intoxicated in the first place? Who didn't take reasonable steps to avoid getting behind the wheel?
I am not a lawyer, but I believe, firstly, this is largely orthogonal to the original discussion, and secondly, my understanding behind why it is considered manslaughter is because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
> but... she put the cup between her legs while driving.
No she didn't. She was a passenger and the car was parked.
> The McDonald's case is the poster child for frivolous litigation because,
It's the poster child because if you don't bother to learn any of the facts, it sounds outrageous. And the world is full of people who can't be bothered to learn the facts before they form strong opinions.
You forgot the most salient point: At that temperature, the styrofoam was so soft (though not quite melted) that after removing the lid, it collapsed on itself. So she "spilled" the coffee by assuming that the cup would retain its shape without a lid. Since it was so hot, it did not, the cup collapsed, and she was burned.
There's a reason the media always mentions the alleged in conjunction with a claimed crime. You know, the whole presumption of innocence thing that some consider important in a free society.
I understand that the media actually does that because if they don't they can get sued for libel if the person in question is in fact innocent. It's no great moral stand they're taking in applying the label.
Also, I agree that the legal system and suchlike should presume innocence, but there's no reason private citizens can't advocate their believe that someone is guilty as sin.
That confused me too. But the silver thing on the couch isn't the Macbook, probably a remote. The laptop is apparently still open on a table or something while he is asleep and somehow catching him perfectly in frame (yes, I am still skeptical of this).
Does this software (Hidden) work when the computer goes in to sleep mode? Because it's also odd that it's still alert even after he's taken the time to fall asleep on the couch.
On a side note... this is great PR for Hidden. I just spoke to a friend in New York and she said that she followed a similar story there couple of weeks ago on Twitter. It could just be coincidence. None the less good to see the laptop recovered!
By stealing this Macbook you hereby agree to these Terms and Conditions which allow the rightful Owner of said Macbook to write and publish short stories and prose illustrated with your likeness captured by Hidden app.
"My name is Hernando. I have your bourgeois lap typing machine! I have it here, in my lair ... my love lair. So come and get it! Come, come here and taste death! I spit on your bourgeois typing machine! Pah! There! I don't want it! I don't steal because I covet! I steal for love. For PASSION. For the eternal animal within. AND ... why does this little dark circle above the screen keep lighting up? Um, maybe I should put a shirt on."
This is all fake. Who drives the car with Laptop Lid Open? and why the hell is he looking at the laptop.
Ok let me summarize this. A person came in the car, driving to this persons house, stole the macBook, place it in the front and I guess is browsing Google Maps to find directions. Am I right buddy?
43 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 128 ms ] threadWhat if I find a bug in Mac OS X* that I need fixed yesterday. I file a bug, and hope that it gets fixed eventually. Now it is up to Apple to fix it and get back to me on their schedule.
I pay Apple for their OS, and they are the only ones that can fix it. I'm at their mercy to fix it, so I fail to see how this is that different.
* Could be anything that isn't open-source
It's no different than reporting a bug with a patch. If I go to the police with evidence of a crime and details to apprehend the probable culprit, I expect them to deal with it. Those are really low hanging fruits.
(from the article on Consumerist http://consumerist.com/2011/06/laptop-thief-caught-after-vic...)
The Oakland PD no longer responds to property crimes. This is a stopgap policy they started after they lost a large number of officers (100?) recently due to budget cuts.
Some points, which are mentioned in the very wiki article you linked.
* The coffee was about 45F or 20C higher than McDonald's guidelines.
* The coffee caused third-degree burns that required skin grafting
* Liebeck initially only asked to be compensated $18,000 largely to cover medical expenses; third-degree burns, an eight-day hospital stay which lead her to lose 20 lbs.
I ask because those facts are often presented with the presumption that the person crying frivolousness hasn't considered them before forming his opinion.
Reasonable care would've prevented this injury and that's my problem with the ridiculous payout.
The law has many failings like this. For example, if you become intoxicated, get in a vehicle and manage to kill someone then the law largely says you were not responsible... because you were intoxicated. The punishment for vehicular manslaughter is WAY lower than other unlawful killings, if it's even tried as that. It's so hard to get vehicle-related felonies convicted that often they'll be settled for lower severity crimes (reckless driving and so forth).
But who got intoxicated in the first place? Who didn't take reasonable steps to avoid getting behind the wheel?
The McDonald's case is the poster child for frivolous litigation because, in spite of the misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the facts, ultimately it boils down to rewarding people for being stupid.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe, firstly, this is largely orthogonal to the original discussion, and secondly, my understanding behind why it is considered manslaughter is because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
No she didn't. She was a passenger and the car was parked.
> The McDonald's case is the poster child for frivolous litigation because,
It's the poster child because if you don't bother to learn any of the facts, it sounds outrageous. And the world is full of people who can't be bothered to learn the facts before they form strong opinions.
Also, I agree that the legal system and suchlike should presume innocence, but there's no reason private citizens can't advocate their believe that someone is guilty as sin.
I understand that there is an update on the story, but is re-submitting the only way to convey that to HN? Not quite sure.
I guess they will find that out later. But congrats on a happy ending.
Of course the police will probably keep it as evidence for a year now.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110513/01182814258/one-ma...
Prey is free BTW:
http://preyproject.com/
"My name is Hernando. I have your bourgeois lap typing machine! I have it here, in my lair ... my love lair. So come and get it! Come, come here and taste death! I spit on your bourgeois typing machine! Pah! There! I don't want it! I don't steal because I covet! I steal for love. For PASSION. For the eternal animal within. AND ... why does this little dark circle above the screen keep lighting up? Um, maybe I should put a shirt on."
Ok let me summarize this. A person came in the car, driving to this persons house, stole the macBook, place it in the front and I guess is browsing Google Maps to find directions. Am I right buddy?