clickies and stuff

[phinnia]

thanks to mactavish, boozymatic and dandelion_diva

penguins can jump as high as 6ft in the air (video link.)

existence of loch ness monster beyond doubt in 1938

fishnet anklets knitting pattern these are fabulous. do want. <3

homemade baked cheese crisps mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. cheese. this sounds fantastic.

especially for reannon and shutterbug_12: west wing guest star quiz. (I'm sure there are

Comments

[tsuki_no_bara]

that penguin video made me squee. i love that some of them kind of land on their heads and each other. /('v')\

also those cheese crisps look gooooood. oh mommy.

[brewsternorth]

doesn't this fall under freedom of the press?

Hrr. A RL friend of mine pointed out that the Gizmodo reporters were technically handling stolen goods, since the person who picked up the lost iPhone failed to either make an effort to return it to the original owner or surrender it to the police. (Apple remotely 'killed' it, so what Gizmodo got was a brick, basically; the guy who originally found it probably would've done better just to send Gizmodo the photos of the thing while it was still running, then return the object.) Why the PD decided to seize the computers beats me, but maybe someone in Apple security was making excitable noises about corporate espionage.

[maladaptive]

I was about to say this. Gizmodo knew who the phone belonged to and wrote about it anyway.

But I don't know if you can confiscate his computers. It's not a freedom of the press issue (and "you can't confiscate a journalist's computer" makes me LAUGH, WTF is Darbyshire smoking), but rather the stealing of the iPhone issue. Just because the press does something in the course of reporting on stuff doesn't mean everything they do is sanctioned. Not sure why they'd need the computers for that.

I'm curious to see how this goes, though.

[kengr]

t's not a freedom of the press issue (and "you can't confiscate a journalist's computer" makes me LAUGH, WTF is Darbyshire smoking),

He's right. That's what the law says. They *can't* seize anything that has a journalists files on it with a regular search warrant. That's so they can't find out who anonymous sources are, and can't "kill" stories by grabbing the files before they get printed.

It happens far too often and police departments *still* don't bother checking first.

[maladaptive]

Curious. So if you're going after a journalist for anything else you'd get a computer for (child porn, hacking, racketeering, whatever), you can't use a search warrant to get it if it's got journalism work on it?

I'm going to have to look that up, because that just doesn't jive for me. At all. And it seems like a really big loophole. "I know you suspect me of running an illegal gambling business, but I have articles on my computer, you can't search it!"

After some quick googling, that very issue seems to be the heart of the debate. If the search warrant is for the felony, CA's shield laws don't apply.

ETA: From what I see. I don't disagree with the purpose of shield laws or anything, I was just finding it weird that the shield would work for *everything* not just stories.

[gimp_mom]

We made the cheese crisps when Rach was on the low carb diet last year, and they're super easy. You can also use little piles of grated cheese if you don't have any slices or bricks.

[just_the_ash]

*comments using icon*

[shutterbug_12]

Heeee. That was a fun quiz! Thanks for the link! Also, ZOMG JUMPING PENGUINS!