My first reaction upon seeing this Gizmodo post that a computer-nerd friend sent me was: that other computer nerd at Gizmodo is totally biting my style! Apologizing to people is my schtick! But it's very touching and has nothing to do with me (as shocking as that may that seem) and is exactly the right thing to do when you discover that you've made a terrible mistake. Seriously. It's great. Everyone else should read it, too. "I Am Very Sorry, Segway Stroller Lady," it's called. It begins, "You might remember this post three years ago in which I laughed at a woman on a Segway pushing [...]
…. and he wants his iPhone back. Oooh. In other news, receiving stolen property, in the state of California, is often charged as a misdemeanor. (Interstate receipt, however, under federal law? Well, things get a little more hectic.) But we're still awaiting the explanation on how Gizmodo came to have the opportunity to pay $5K (we believe) for the missing alleged new prototype iPhone. Could be totally legit!
Engadget said that the "finder" (who some are referring to as a "stealer") was charging to see the "lost" new iPhone-pictures of which were published on Gizmodo this morning. Tech blogger John Gruber said the phone was a "total hoax," but seems to have backed down on that; now he says "That this belongs to and was made by Apple is almost beyond question at this point." He also says that Apple considers the phone "stolen." Gawker honcho Nick Denton promises that the story of the iPhone's acquisition is coming, and it's a "corker." ("Slang: A remarkable or astounding person or thing.") It's going to [...]
Aol. blogger Jeff Bercovici was totally unable to digest his dinner last night because he was SCANDALIZED and OUTRAGED about Gizmodo's "checkbook journalism" regarding the new iPhone. Sure, Gawker Media had already long-ago returned Steve Jobs' missing iPhone, but that would not settle his OUTRAGE. He writes: "Gawker Media brazenly, publicly flouted the law. It subsidized a crime: the selling of stolen merchandise. Then it published a misleading, whitewashed account of the seller's actions meant to make it look as though he was not acting with criminal intent. It published this account in order to disguise its own culpability in the matter." Oh mercy!