Ehud Gavron’s Techdirt Profile


About Ehud GavronTechdirt Insider

Ehud Gavron’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 24th, 2015 @ 9:34am


    32GBps? Capital B for Bytes so x8 = 256Gbps? lol.

    > even if it ends up being just a small fraction of that speed at long distances, it would still be a huge improvement.

    A huge improvement over what?

    You can't use it.

    The fastest NIC you have is 1Gbps. The fastest home router NIC is 1Gbps. If you wanted to spend $5-$50K to get a Cisco Nexus 5000 or a Juniper MX-80 you can have 10Gbps links.

    There's *NOTHING* you can get that will support or use 32Gbps.

    It would not be a huge improvement. You're just a sucker for someone's marketing department that put stupid-big numbers in front of you.

    THROUGHPUT is what we humans care about. If you don't like big words it's "the web page loads super fast man." That's what we want.

    32Gbps? lol.

  • Mar 23rd, 2015 @ 9:01pm

    Begging the question

    Sorry, but if we're talking about speed, we're generally talking about "throughput" which is a function of bandwidth and latency.

    There is _NO_ necessary tradeoff between any element of the three. [The exception being geostationary or low-earth orbit satellites].

    Anyone who says "I can get you lots of bandwidth but you have to give up [anything including latency]" is lying.

    Anyone who says "I can give you lighting fast connections but you have to give up [something including bandwidth]" is lying.

    Throughput is what WE as human users of the Internet see. When you quantify it we know what we are buying. When some charlatan tells us there's a tradeoff -- the tradeoff involves that charlatan not selling us what he/she promised, and instead doing an oversell model and THEY are choosing to trade off one of the three.

    If you purchase good throughput, you'll have good throughput (bandwidth, latency, etc.)

    If you follow these charlatans' stories you will pay more for less. That's ok. It's the American way. Just don't confuse it with 'the reality of things'.


  • Mar 23rd, 2015 @ 11:10am

    Mason Wheeler said it best

    His post is right above mine. It's lengthy, so if TL;DR let me say this:

    The purpose of patents is to SHARE trade secrets. It is NOT to squirrel away technology nor to charge people who did not use YOUR PARTICULAR trade secret.

    Monetizing patents and NPEs aren't "doing a service" to the inventor, the world, or anyone other than their pockets.

  • Mar 11th, 2015 @ 12:48pm

    Not quite getting the idea

    Walter O'Brien is a charlatan. He makes up stuff about his past to get consulting clients to hire him.

    That's discussed in this article.

    The TV show is not discussed here. This includes what happens on the show, and stuff like "cable out in front of an aircraft" and other random noise coming out of the mouths of people who didn't bother to read the article.

    Really. It's about Walter O'Brien the fraud, not some fictional TV show.

    TL;DR? This is not a discussion about the TV show. Never was.



  • Mar 11th, 2015 @ 11:50am

    Break it down into its components...

    Computers calculate. This is a fact. It cannot be legislated against. So there will be large numbers. Large numbers in and of themselves are not unlawful.

    People email. This is a fact. It is a Constitutionally protected first-amendment right to speak freely. People can email large numbers.

    People who buy fiat currency (like US Dollars) do so because these are guaranteed by the US Federal Government to allow us to pay for things. Or give away to people on street corners with cute signs. Or donate to charitable organizations. Or hoard in bank accounts, mattresses, and fake shaving-cream cans branded "Shaving Cream." This is a function of law, and cannot be legislated against.

    Put the three together and this bill cannot possibly be lawful.

    Land of fruits and nuts indeed.

    Tucson, AZ

  • Mar 10th, 2015 @ 4:23pm

    Huge Rabbit Hole

    What a waste of bandwidth.

    It will still be the #1 torrented video. Here's why:
    1. No bullshit

    You need more reasons? That right there covers DRM, restricted app, must-buy-apple, must-suck-up-to-cable-company and whatever.

    No bullshit.

    I'm truly sorry HBO missed the boat on this one big time and this is leading TO ALL THESE FASCINATING LONG-WINDED DEBATES that are nothing more than rabbit holes.

  • Mar 3rd, 2015 @ 5:17am

    Tested IQ of 152 - moron

    Walter O'Brien is a fraud.

    Walter O'Brien uses his fake credentials to get jobs where he fleeces his customers.

    The article is about Walter O'Brien, and this has been pointed out so many times it takes a real genius to come along and --again-- talk about the show.

    "I have a tested IQ of 152."

    No, you do not.

    "Documentation available."

    Your posting (above) documents the opposite. No further documentation is needed.

    The rest of the discussion (about the show, not the man) is offtopic, irrelevant, and does nothing more than continue keeping this thread at the top of google searches for:

    Walter O'Brien is a fraud.

    "If you show the general public..."

    You, sir, are worse than the general public. Not only do you think that the microwave "flashes" 12:00, but you think yourself smarter than the general public for this.

    Perhaps you should go get that documentation, and then you and your mommy and your daddy can go ask Mr. Therapist for a big lollypop and a refund.

    Rube Goldberg called. Said not to bring up his name ever again when talking about morons.



  • Feb 28th, 2015 @ 4:49pm

    Value of pi

    Irony of ironies "guy on KS ... find the final value of pi".

    The KS state legislature wanted to legislate the value of pi... or was it Alabama... or Indiana... or ...

    Different kind of KS. Same kind of brilliant.


  • Feb 28th, 2015 @ 11:40am

    Re: [investment]

    "Unlike buying something on Ebay, you're basically 'investing' in research and development of something that has yet to be created."

    You're not investing. You have *NO* claim on the methods, R&D, patents (if any), final device, or *anything* other than a promise you'll "get one too."

    This is not an investment and thinking of it that way promotes the misunderstandings when "the investment doesn't have a good return on investment."

    It's a gamble. A wager. A coin-flip. You're paying for the right to maybe get something cheaper and/or sooner and/or NEVER. No matter which way it comes out, you paid to play, you played, and you get a result.

    Most people prefer a positive result (i.e. the product, either cheaper or sooner) but there are no guarantees.


  • Feb 28th, 2015 @ 10:13am

    It's not fraud when you GAMBLE and lose.

    If a guy on a street corner has a sign that says "Will work for food" and you give him a dollar and they he does no work, is that fraud? Is it material misrepresentation? Is it a crime of any sort (other than panhandling which is not a criminal offense in my US/Arizona jurisdiction?)

    I see the comments above me calling for these "blatant criminals" to "have something done." Tone it down, wiseacres, because the "something to be done" is not giving money to these people.

    "But how do we know?" Don't default to giving money to strangers, and then it's easy. "But this will kill crowdfunding!" No. It will remove from crowdfunding people who think they are shopping at a store. It's not.

    When you're supporting crowdfunding you are NOT INVESTING in a RISK that if it pans out then MAYBE what you get is what was promised and MAYBE it will be cheaper than the fully-developed product and MAYBE it will be as good as that one and MAYBE you'll get it first.

    You are GAMBLING that you will get your money's worth. That's a far different proposition than investing. Investments have value and assets. Crowdfunding is a gamble.

    If you get that you are GAMBLING and your "winnings" are "early, cheaper, and not as fully baked -- if at all" and your "losses" are "yeah none of this may come to fruition" then THAT is what backing a kickstarter is all about.

    In the real investment world we have ROI analysis and we have risk/reward analysis. If you apply those to kickstarters you will see they are REALLY REALLY BAD "investments". That's because they are wagers.

    They are, however, a great way to help someone get their project going. If you think of it in that way and consider your money "lost" when you invest it, then anything you get back is a win.

    Full discloser... things I've supported:
    OBDLink MX WiFi - delivered and it's $10 cheaper than market. (Yes, I saved $10 and got it 60 days sooner at a risk of 100% of the money I paid).
    Rubber Band Machine Gun - They're out of Ukraine, and there is a war going on, and they haven't been shy at saying that. I don't expect to see that in my lifetime.
    PockEthernet - delivered and not yet available to the public. Doesn't have all the originally-envisioned features but it's still a good deal. I got two.
    Quarter Century Belt - delivered, $10 cheaper than its current market price. Same comments as above. Great belt!
    Rising desk - due for delivery mid 2015. When I see it I'll know it's real.

    So I'm pro crowdfunding but consider it a GAMBLE or a WAGER. If I "win" I get to save $10 or get something two months sooner. That's it.

    Stop hassling the panhandlers. The only fraud is anyone who takes a kickstarter claims seriously and thinks if they aren't 100% met there's a criminal event there.


  • Feb 17th, 2015 @ 5:30pm

    Walter O'Brien The Fake

    Mean people suck. So do liars. In this case we have journalists who are not mean exposing the liars. That's not mean.

    Walter O'Brien is a phony. He trades on things he's never done to get people to pay him. If I were personally taken advantage of by such a scheme I'd say "fraudulent people suck." That's not mean.

    Perhaps though it's just that he's delusional. In that case reporting about it so others can not be sucked into the fraud is also not mean.

    In short whether he is your realative[sic] or not, his delusions are discussed. That's not the same as putting down his beliefs.

    Of course you read the original article, right?


  • Jan 25th, 2015 @ 6:39am

    Walter O'Brien The Fake

    "It's is not about the TV show".

    "That's why people don't want to talk about that."
    Oh but they do.

    This article is about Walter O'Brien the fraud. It's not about the TV show. People who want to talk about the TV show should go wherever it's being discussed... TVGUIDE.COM or wherever.

    "Stop confusing reality with fantasy"
    Again you're back to the show.

    Walter O'Brien is a fraud. There's no fantasy there at all except in his head and the heads of the people who employ him.

  • Jan 24th, 2015 @ 8:55pm


    Look, Randy Ellen Zeff, you troll, Walter O'Brien is a fraud and a scam artist. Every post you make keeps bringing this to the forefront of discussions about what a loser he is. Good job!

    What gives me the right to speak to you as trash? Well I talk to you and you think you're trash so there you go.

    I appreciate you want to discuss my childhood (was yours really bad so you think other people's childhoods are important to how they post online) or IQs (you seem obsessed with yours and Walter "the Fraud" Obrien's)... or something?

    Let it die? Let it die? Dude, you keep bringing it back to life.

    You will bet money? *LOL* You have no money. You're a self-admitted obsessive-compulsive trash-talking loser with no money or IQ or friends -- all things you think are important.

    There's nothing killing me or us. It's killing you. Please hurry it up as you're annoying.

    "Let it go and I will go...."

    No. You will go or you won't go. Nobody cares.

    Walter O'Brien is a fraud. He will be no matter what you do.

    You're an idiot. If you go you're an idiot who left. If you stay you're an idiot who stayed. Enjoy.

  • Jan 23rd, 2015 @ 2:15pm

    This isn't about Bill Cosby, just that poser O'Brien

    Walter O'Brien is a fraud. He makes up stuff and pretends he did any of it and then gets people to hire him based on that.

    This article discusses Walter O'Brien -- the fraud. Feel free to keep bringing it to the top of search engine results. It won't change the facts. Walter O'Brien is still a fraud.

    Bill Cosby as a fraud is being discussed here: from-u-mass/

    I know it's confusing that "different URLs" lead to "different articles" that discuss "different subjects" but try and pay attention and see if you can grok the concept.

    This article is about Walter O'Brien -- the fraud.

    Thanks for helping keep it at the top of the search rankings.

    Take your Bill Cosby opinion solicitation elsewhere, sweetheart.


  • Dec 25th, 2014 @ 6:18am

    Re: Einstein's I.Q.

    Walter O'Brien is a fraud and uses made up credentials to get paid by real-life clients who don't know he's a fraud. This article up top is about Walter O'Brien the fraud.

    This article is NOT ABOUT THE SHOW.
    Nobody is discussing THE SHOW.

    So "the opening claim" has nothing to do with Walter O'Brien and is just whatever passes for television these days.

    NOBODY cares about THE SHOW here. The article is about the man.

    Let me know if you missed that.


  • Dec 21st, 2014 @ 11:53am

    Scorp supports show their IQs

    Walter O'Brien makes up stuff about his history. His clients should research him before they pay him. That's my honest opinion, and it seems to be shared by everyone else except his illiterati fans.

    That being said I'm so jelous[sic] about anything you say that I'm willing of[sic] making a show about then[sic] bwahahahahaha!

    Humor was missing from this discussion of the fact that Walter O'Brien is a fraud. Thank you for keeping the discussion alive.


  • Dec 19th, 2014 @ 6:03pm


    Please do read up on the difference between "conscientious" and "conscious".

    This article is about that fraud, Walter O'Brien, and how he lies about his past to get clients. The TV show is being discussed on TVGuide.COM or People or some such.

  • Dec 17th, 2014 @ 5:06am

    Streisand Effect

    Lots of people know about the Streisand Effect, but few know the details of how it started.

    Amateur photographers Ken and Gabrielle Adelman use their own helicopter and flew up and down the California coastline taking high-resolution pictures to document coastline "erosion" and derosion (that's when celebrities buy beachfront property and add sand and rock to extend their beaches).

    Barbra sued them (and other parties) in what became a famous meme, but the original lawsuit was about the pictures of her house from a program that documents well.

    The use of satellite and other imagery to document our ecosystem and its evolution (whether man-made, caused, assisted, or independent) is a very good thing.

    P.S. If you don't care about anything I wrote about the Earth and the California Coastline and just want to refresh yourself on the lawsuit, all the docs (and a picture of the check!) are here:

  • Dec 16th, 2014 @ 6:22pm

    That's just fine

    We don't care about the show. If it does well, that's awesome! So many people getting paid and not out of work. No worries.

    Walter O'Brien's lies is a different topic. That's getting lots of press. That shouldn't hurt the show. If it hurts Walter's ability to con clients, that's a public service.

    Now I have to go dangle an Ethernet cord from my boat into the ocean to save self-booting laser sharks.

  • Dec 5th, 2014 @ 8:26am

    ISP reporting requirements

    Dane is a good guy and he and Sonic do much to improve network services in the US. However the quote attributed to him is missing one key word.

    The quote:
    "Internet service providers are required to publish for the FCC a disclosure of traffic management practices"

    -- no --

    BROADBAND Internet Service Providers are required to...

    The rest of the ISPs including the WISPs and the wireless telephone carriers are not.


More comments from Ehud Gavron >>