Re: Re: 'Please hold all apluase until after the high-court treatment is handed out.'
I wonder if she'd be willing to settle though. The entire point of this case seems to be making sure that Getty (and others in the same industry) don't keep doing what they're doing. The best way to do that is by winning a case in court, not just getting a sealed settlement without an admission of guilt.
Just in case you aren't being sarcastic, there's a saying that, since it's so easy to get an indictment, any semi-competent prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. Since FedEx's logo is purple and orange and this was such a weak charge, he's calling FedEx the indicted ham sandwich.
Have a look at the suit. It lists, the United States of America, many of the agents that assaulted her, the hospital, the doctor, and everyone else (and every corporate entity or other company) that may have been involved in this travesty.
I don't know why but, I just get a fuzzy feeling inside when I see the United States of America as the defendant in a valid complaint. I guess it just reminds me that, even though we should never have to do so in the first place, suing the government is a way to get recompense that just doesn't exist everywhere.
Did you read the article? This move is to completely break the link between ICANN, IANA, and the US Commerce Department without giving them to the ITU. What's happening is that ICANN and IANA are being fully privatized so that no government can control them directly.
This is effectively the compromise position since no one sensible wants the United States to maintain even the illusion of control over the DNS system but, even fewer people want Russia, China, and other internet censors to have any control over it as they would if it became part of the ITU.
In order for a bill to reach the floor of the Senate, it must first pass through a committee related to the primary function of the bill. Since this bill deals with law enforcement, that committee is the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Grassley is the current chairman of that committee. Since the chairman alone decides the agenda of the committee (which bills they will consider) he can, single-handedly, kill bills in the Senate.
If there's not already, I want a Tasker (for Android) plugin that uses the fingerprint scanner to determine which finger you used to unlock the device. You'd be able to set it so that specific fingers will perform an action other than unlocking the device. My personal preference would be powering it off. Android devices (I think iOS devices do this too) require the actual PIN to be typed on powerup for decryption before accepting a fingerprint to unlock the lock screen. That way, I can have the ease-of-use of fingerprint unlock but, the safety of my PIN in case of compulsion.
Of course, one could have a fingerprint set to factory reset but, I wouldn't want to deal with the legal consequences of a destruction of evidence charges.
You do realize that the guy trying to pass the bill to remove the restrictions is a Republican, right? Like Karl said in the article, this isn't a partisan issue even though various lawmakers are trying to frame it as such.
That's not the best idea. From my understanding of your statement, someone who comes up with an invention and patents it but, can neither afford to bring it to market himself nor find investors, would have his patent invalidated. That sounds like something potential investors could use against the inventor in negotiations. For example, "We'll just wait until your patent is invalidated for disuse and work with someone else if you don't sign your rights over to us for a pittance."
Also, filing lawsuits looking for money is a commercial use. Even if it's a distasteful one.
The AC on Mar 18th, 2016 @ 11:45am dealt with your first concern well enough but, I think your second point deserves countering even more. There are already some who think that the BAR has too much of a stranglehold on our justice system. I don't fall that far on the conspiracy spectrum but, I also don't think it's a good idea to separate the people further from the ability to file suits in the courts than they already are. If you can afford the filing costs and fill out the forms competently, then you should be allowed to file a lawsuit. If it's frivolous then the judge can toss it out.