nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 25, 2014 14:48:35 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 24, 2014 20:50:30 GMT
Seems to me that a leg restraint that would discreetly prevent accused from going too far from where they are sitting would have gone a long way toward preventing any of this. If the jury were not in place when the accused was seated and restrained, the jury would never know unless the accused tried to leave their assigned location. With the accused not even being able to reach others, perhaps the worst they might do is throw something. Unless the accused are superman, even the most expertly thrown pencil or pen will do limited damage.
You could decide based on where the accused spends their nights, whether they get the discreet restraint or not. Those who sleep in the jail will be restrained, while those who posted bail will not be.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 1, 2014 19:22:27 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 1, 2014 19:13:06 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Feb 28, 2014 13:41:22 GMT
Isn't it past the deadline? Wasn't it already past the deadline, even when you posted your suggestion?
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jan 14, 2014 20:38:17 GMT
While some say 'it may be a while ...' and that may be true, it would be foolish to bet against future technological advances.
For those who care, I would suggest that even if you do use strong encryption, you keep in mind that sometime down the road, anything you have encrypted may eventually be made plain.
And this would be even sooner for your messages if you happen to pique the interest of the NSA, as they can turn some number of conventional supercomputers to the task.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jan 10, 2014 17:56:48 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Dec 6, 2013 19:49:06 GMT
According to SCOTUSblog ... www.scotusblog.com/2013/12/court-to-rule-on-patent-rights/SCOTUS apparently will hear this case that concerns software patents. Hopefully it will prove an opportunity to clarify that software is not and should never have been subject to patent protection. The Federal Circuit has never seen a software patent that they didn't like.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Dec 5, 2013 17:36:21 GMT
The tolls of the daily 8-6 job have recently made it difficult for me to even keep up, much less think or analyze or comment about anything. There is an end in sight so I do have some hope of more participation in the coming year, but things have still been difficult for me.
While it would not be a bad thing for the SCOTUS to smack down the Federal Circuit, it would be a shame for Google to have to got to that expense and roll the dice, and there is no guarantee that the SCOTUS would deign to take the case, although we might think it critical that they would.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Nov 13, 2013 20:04:54 GMT
From ... www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/11/lavabit-doj/"A U.S. email provider can promise its users all the security and privacy it wants; it still has to do whatever it takes to give the government access. That’s the gist of the Justice Department’s 60-page appellate brief in the Lavabit surveillance case, filed today in the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia." The government brief is available at above article.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Sept 6, 2013 1:37:00 GMT
What little faith I have in the US 'Justice' system will be gone if somehow Motorola/Google does not eventually win what they should clearly win.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Aug 31, 2013 4:52:57 GMT
I read that same post but did not come to the conclusion that bprice is/was admin at Groklaw. But I suppose it does not really matter much one way or the other.
His bio shows ... ------------ Groklegians are welcome to email me as Bill1941Price on gmail.com. (Where the " on " obviously represents '@'.)
Anything I write for Groklaw may be used by Groklaw for any purpose. ------------ If it matters enough for anyone to verify one way or the other, they can email him.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Aug 24, 2013 4:18:41 GMT
I would hope that Samsung has a successful appeal of this ruling. But with the way this country is going it would not surprise me if the US injustice system failed Samsung.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Aug 22, 2013 21:39:47 GMT
Got a response from LOC ---------------- Public Services Division Law Library of Congress Library of Congress 101 Independence Ave., SE Washington, D.C. 20540-3120 Telephone: 202-707-5079 URL: www.loc.gov/lawLibrarian 3: Thank you for your question. The Law Library of Congress has, indeed, been collecting archival images of the Groklaw blog (< www.groklaw.net/ >) since April 2010, through permission granted to the Law Library by those who manage Groklaw. However, the Law Library was not and has not, to date, been granted permission by Groklaw to publicly display these collected images on the Legal Blawg Archive, at < www.loc.gov/collection/legal-blawgs-website-archives/ >. If this permission arrangement were to change in the future, we will be sure to contact you directly with this information. If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please contact Matthew Braun, Senior Legal Research Specialist at the Law Library of Congress, at 202-707-3190 or mbra@loc.gov. We hope that this information is helpful to you. Thank you again for your question.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Aug 21, 2013 19:56:19 GMT
Could you provide a source to that or those articles please? (The email interview with PJ that is)
|
|