First of all - from Oregon statutes [which I know are NOT applicable here, but provide a reference point]:

" 164.045 Theft in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of theft in the second degree if:
(a) By means other than extortion, the person commits theft as defined in ORS 164.015; and
(b) The total value of the property in a single or aggregate transaction is $100 or more and less than $1,000.
(2) Theft in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor."

and Theft by Extortion is defined as:

"164.075 Theft by extortion. (1) A person commits theft by extortion when the person compels or induces another to deliver property to the person or to a third person by instilling in the other a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or a third person will in the future: ...." and then provides 9 subsets - none of which apply to this case.

The thrust of my point here is that you appear to have hyperbolized the situation [as do many others], especially when one considers there is certainly an argument as to whether this is a theft at all [legally depending on intent.] As to the Gizmodo activities being unsavory? I would be hard pressed to disagree. In the end, this is Apple's dance and they can ask [or not] whomever they wish.

First - I was providing questioned examples in a general manner [e.g. - most information, of which I am aware, implies that great religious-problem-maker Darwin was a 'true believer.']

Second - Though I find Wikipedia to often be useful for a 'quick and dirty' information source, I would be loathe to cite it as the underpinning of any serious discourse.

Lastly - My objection was to the generality of the statement with no substantiation or specificity. Hence my laziness in my first point. ;-)

Firstly, there are/were lots of scientists, who have achieved a lot, whiles believing in God. One thing is about what they think about world and how it is made, another - being honest about research they make.

I would be interested in your basis of information which supports that statement. It appears that you are making assumptions about dead scientists [Newton, Copernicus, etc.] without any possible valid source of information. You base this on your understanding of the beliefs of the general population when they {Newton, et al] were alive, perhaps? Less than rigorous.

@AC - I absolutely love C&H.

That said, what is done there is what is done in nearly all good humor/comics [including xkcd] -i.e. taking a shared experience and presenting it as viewed from a new angle. [We all have made or know about making snowmen - but Calvin!? I love his ability to take that 'simple' activity and use it as a medium to discourse on childhood/adulthood/angst/etc.] OTOH - Many people do not find Dilbert at all funny [or understand why some others find it funny], having never worked in a similar office setting.

You say "It is no longer about funny things, and more Randall's Personal Weblog In Pictures!" - he is supposed to write/draw about things he has not learned/experienced/observed?

I am not privy to the exact time-line in this instance. However, I would first point out that unless you have insider status, you are relying on news reports, which even given the best of intentions often get a LOT of what they report incorrect [and/or the timing wrong.] Add to that there are at least two possible points wherein many charges are changed. Upon the arrest, the officer puts down the crime s/he thinks is involved [burglary to a house - Burg 1st degree in my state.] There is a brief initial hearing wherein the DA [handling all the issues for that day] can change the charge [burg to the garage of the house - [possibly] Burg 2d degree in my state.] However, by the time it goes to trial the 'real' prosecuting attorney has had a chance to discover more complete information and found that the garage 'person-door' opens directly into the kitchen, thus a Burg 1st degree again, BUT the defendant had permission to be in the garage [though NOT to take the chain saw] so a simple Theft might be charged.

What I am saying here is that in the first instance your sources may be wrong or have their timing off and secondly the system is quite complex and any simple generalization is probably not going to serve you well.

@khasim - I am only a dabbler in the computer field but have well over 30 years in the legal arena. In criminal cases, often the prosecutor will present several charges regarding a single offense. For example - in what most would consider a straight forward burglary case, they may charge: burglary [for that is what crime occurred]; trespass [a lesser included crime]; vandalism/criminal mischief [lesser included for the damage to the window to get into the house]; and theft [lesser included crime.] All charges are 'tried' at the same time. So a jury that might not find for the burglary, may find for some/all the lesser included charges. Prosecutors also do it in the hopes of having some bargaining power when it comes to reaching a plea deal [i.e. - drop whatever charge[s] with a plea of guilty to 'X' charge] - which saves time and money for the courts. So the fact that he was not found guilty of ALL the charges is nearly irrelevant.

My son - admittedly a music major - has over 100G of music on his laptop ... from an extensive classical and opera collection to death metal (of many varieties) and jazz (his particular interest) and every other possibility [except I do not think he has any country/western.] I am a lightweight ... I only have a little over 20G. ;-)