By 
- Google updates updates Google Play Movies, Google Street View, Google Play Music, Google Drive and Google Wallet in the Play Store. Mum on exact details.
- Facebook scans your private messages. “Likes” pages you’re discussing. One more reason to move to Google+. [TNW]
- XDA member starts “Update My Moto” campaign. Begs Motorola for Tegra 2 compatible Ice Cream Sandwich, and/or Jelly Bean kernel. [UpdateMyMoto]
- Parrot shows off Android-based Asteroid Smart in-dash car infotainment system. But is it better than using your own smartphone? [Engadget]
- Intel’s chip in the Motorola RAZR M gives 72 hours of battery life, vs. Qualcomm’s paltry 1 day. [TheVerge]
- HTC Jetstream gains S-Off with software hack. AOSP ROMs to follow? [XDA]
- Google Gesture Search updated. Now compatible with the Nexus 7. [Google Play Store]
- Researches find algorithm that can reduce battery drain by 25% and double recharge rates. [UCSD Jacobs]
- Acer Iconia Tab A100, A200, and A500 wont be seeing an update to Android 4.1 Jelly Bean. [Notebook Italia]
- Google settles copyright case with book publishers for undisclosed amount. [WSJ]
- Gingerbread malware can take control of your phone’s camera, snapping pics every 2 seconds. [ComputerWorld]
- Firefox Beta updated with ARMv6 support (old school phones). Looking for testers. [Play Store]
- Sony Xperia Tablet S pulled from store shelves due to faulty water resistance. [Reuters]
- Apple vs Samsung jury foreman responds to Samsung’s allegations of wrongdoing. [Bloomberg]
First intel and nvidia need to get their LTE act together and then we’ll talk.
“Hogan, in a phone interview yesterday, denied that there
was any misconduct, saying the court instructions for potential
jurors required disclosure of any litigation they were involved
in within the last 10 years — and that the 1993 bankruptcy and
related litigation involving Seagate fell well outside that time
range.” The 93 trial would put it at 9 years which is before the 10 year time frame so yeah that is basic math that he fails at here.
I see your other post, but regardless, the guy is a liar. The court never gave him a time constraint, he injected the 10 years into his own wacked out train of thought. This guy lies compulsively I’ve noticed.
From the other site, this was the question he was actually asked:
“THE COURT: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more
departures in your absence. Let’s continue with the questions. The
next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to
you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a
defendant, or as a witness?”
That’s what I think too, but I have a doubt…
In the phone interview, he talks about “court instructions for potential jurors,” not about a question.
Are potential jurors given written instructions before being questioned?
One of the other jurors mentioned a case they were involved in from 1998 beyond ten years and in the same session of questioning. Based on everything else he’s said in his video interview, I think its safe to say he didn’t read the court instructions, and either lied or just failed to answer the questions truthfully/correctly.
To quote someone from Groklaw comments, “Lying by omission is still lying” as a former employer I’m sure he knew Seagate was part owned by Samsung, there’s no way he’d have been allowed on the jury if he’d offered this information.
That would be so stupid to lie about something that’s going to be discussed by the same court, I can’t believe someone could be that dumb. lol
I’m a Canadian, and recently got a letter from Attorney General office for potential jurors. I still have the instructions paper in front of me. Although the question is different, and only pertains to indictable criminal offenses, there is NO TIME LIMIT specified.
Here’s quote:
<>
Thanks.
never mind for some reason I was thinking it was 2002
Yeah, your ‘basic math’ statement made me smile.
The original court transcript did not say anything about “10 years.” He’s making it up to save his own skin.
The good news, as I’m sure you’ve seen, is that strangely courts keep records of everything that happens in them. In the voir dire it clearly contradicts his lie.
” Moto RAZR i Smokes RAZR M In Battery Life”
“Intel’s chip in the Motorola RAZR M gives 72 hours of battery life, vs. Qualcomm’s paltry 1 day”
Which is it with good battery life? You switch back and forth. Proof read damn it!
The razr I is the same as the razr m except the razr I has the intel chip
If you would have clicked the link it would have been easy to understand