Ok, I'm just a poor schmo gettin' by from day to day (impatiently waiting for the next chuckle from a TechDirt article). So just out of curiousity I did a search on Google (OK, I googled it) for "Zarrelli Reputation". I mean after all, his whole business is reputation management, right? So the first FOUR pages of results are about how bad he is doing a managing his own reputation and some of the articles are feeling sorry about the clients that hired him.
Actually, this could mean that there is going to be more fun reading here. That's about 40 to 60 lawsuits against various blogs and publications that are (what did he say):
harass, stalk, libel, and cyber bully me online
Come on, I'm already starting to salivate at all the articles on TechDirt about this little "Zarelli Circus of Legal Entertainment".
Strangely enough, in working some Google magic, I could not find an article with a "positive" reference to Zarelli. Only articles about how badly he has messed up. I guess with everybody talking about his clown act, maybe he is hoping that no one will remember his client's activities. He's created the "Zarelli Google Trick". It's heavily patterned after the Jedi mind trick but is not a story of fiction and doesn't actually work. It is however entertaining.
I hope George Lucas doesn't sue him though; for creating a derivative work without paying for a license.
Since the author and readers of the Boston University Law Review may not also be readers of TechDirt, I went to their website to post a comment so that they could react to your rebuttal of the author's claims. Funny, no comments allowed. It appears that the Law Review, you know, those lawyer types, don't want to deal with the pesky 1st Amendment problems of dealing with comments. They just want to post random opinions of lawyers, you know the ones that support the laws of the land in court. If they had some experience with comments, maybe they would have their own push back against her very one sided fact free article.
First: Define where there is a need Second: Obtain evidence that there is actually a lack Third: Allow an ISP to build out the network to alleviate the need Fourth: Verify that the network that WAS missing is NOW in place Finally: Then, pay a portion of the cost that is above the normal build out cost. After all, the ISP is going to be charging for this build out for years to come.
Time Warner Cable isn't particularly in-tune with the value-needs of his typical customer, but executives like Marcus are going to have to pull their collective heads of of the sand post haste if they want to minimize the impact of the Internet video revolution, and the cheaper, more flexible channel options they insist nobody wants.
Nope, executives like Marcus are putting their $85 million in the bank and looking the other way. He/They don't care what anybody else wants, they got their money. How else are they going to get all that money if they don't take it from their customers?
It's Time for us Peaons to talk to our Gov'm'nt Representives
Let's pass a real consumer protection law that requires manufacturers to put on very large print that a product they sell include a "watch you" feature that may include a "phone home" and talk about you feature.
It's not just GOOGLE, keep repeating, it's not just GOOGLE
PLEASE, it would be one thing if just Google were the problem. However; MOST IF NOT ALL news aggregators got out of the business because of this new law. SO WHAT if Google was one of them.
Would the Google haters please read the whole article and stop focusing on just Google. Many new aggregators went out of business to avoid this mandatory tax under a very vague law that just tries to give publishers money for other businesses sending them more business.
Now Google AND MANY OTHER news aggregators stopped and the publishers have a lot of spilt milk to cry over as they end up with large drops in revenue because the advertisers are not getting page views anymore and ad rates WILL drop.
Ahhhh, but isn't it great. Google isn't making any money off of those Spanish newspapers (and really who cares that they are all making A LOT less money themselves). Those Google leeches aren't going to make any money off of Spanish newspapers even if they all have to close up. Cue the nose/face joke here.
OK, one more thought. If your driverless car is parked at a meter that has a 2 hour limit with no renewal and you've told your car that it's 10:00 now and at 12:00 the meter is up, can the car go find a different parking spot on it's own? Or, is there going to be a new law that prohibits that?
In many ways, the driverless cars are going to be a huge boon. Even the poor who "may" bear some additional cost IF they even have a car but will benefit from the driverless taxis that could be more responsive (no meal or potty breaks) and cheaper. As for the change in "revenue" from police departments, tere will be less accidents, less tickets and then there will be less need for police personnel to write up traffic reports (and less time investigating highway fatalities), but also there will be less judges and all of the associated courthouse personnel required to process tickets and other driving violations. So the cost to the public should be reduced. In Maryland, cars already have to have a vehicle environmental inspection where they check the vehicle milage. In the future, it will just include a mileage tax (assuming that there is a reduction in the gas tax anyway). There will be a huge rebalancing of money flow by the driverless cars. The cars will cost more initially, but as mentioned body shops, insurance rates, parking fees, and many other costs will go down drastically.
The reporters need to keep quiet for a little while. They can't even get the names of the officers that "charged" them with the crimes (I mean assaulted them). If the county prosecutors are actually stupid to file court charges, at some point they are going to have to name the officers. At that point, the false arrest and illegal detention charges can be filed against those officers.
Just let that hubris and prosecutorial stupidity run rampant just a little longer.
Not to over-generalize, but normally, 2 GB to one computer is overkill when connecting to the Internet. The only time I've been able to utilize a large portion of the 1 GB connections I have in my house are on computer to computer transfers when using SSDs or large RAID arrays. However; streaming video or multiple simultaneous uploads and downloads can certainly use a large portion of that 2 GB. It does mean that the subscriber is going to need a better than typical home use switch. They are going to need a "Smart" or "Managed" switch with a true upload port that is greater than 1 GB. Then, each user gets a 1 GB connection and the switch has an upload port that is the "Up To" 2 GB that Comcast will never deliver after the first few speed test after the installation.
It was “likely” that terrorists would stop using phones in favor of mail or courier
One of the curious "misses" based on this statement is that if indeed the "terrorists" were to start using the snail-mail system instead of phones, active terrorism would take a tremendous slow-down in activity. If all of the various methods of detecting terrorist activity were made public then the terrorists are going to have to start going back to actually meeting with each other to communicate because none of the modern electronic methods are going to be unwatched. Even the meta-data that encrypted emails are passing from a suspected terrorist to someone new would mean that a better watch can be kept on the network of terrorists. Instead, the spooks are way to interested in snooping on everybody instead of slowing down or stopping the terrorists by making it too hard for the plots to develop. /rant