Scaj Eastern Florida State Hosts FDLE Leadership Academy
SCOTT ELLIS: What Really Happened in Court on July 23 By Scott Ellis // July 26, 2012 YOUR OPINIONWhen the public records lawsuit was filed on June 27,聽no Blueware documents had been produced and requests for documents stretched back months.聽There was no flood of requests, just the same reques
polene store ts repeatedly 鈥?what was being paid Blueware and on what authority Ellis Claims Needelman Improperly Withheld DocsRather than comment on who is a pathological liar I actually am flattered to get this from Mr. Needelman in his press release , the statement the $500,000 wire transfer was a deposit in good faith to continue negotiations, is backed by nothing.Mitch NeedelmanThe transfer states INITIAL PAYMENT ON SIGNING. A deposit would have gone to escrow, this did not.聽 The money was wired directly to Blueware May 23rd.聽 I believe much of it was already spent by Friday the 25th.I have to admit I have always been impressed by the sheer audacity of Needelman claims and press releases.聽 Mr. Needelman failed to show for the hearing so he could avoid any direct questioning.This is
stanley thermobecher dandy in giving one plausible denial.聽 Should a copy of a May 23聽contract surface it enables the Clerk to throw his attorney under the bus while he ca
polene fr n re-write history as best fits the circumstances.During th Avdk FRESH FROM FLORIDA: Learn to Whip Up Some Awesome Florida Blueberry BBQ Sauce 鈥?Delicious!
Google is facing a flurry of backlash after announcing plans to protect u
stanley mug ser privacy by continuing to allow cookies in Chro
stanley butelka me in a proposal it calls the Privacy Sandbox. This felt like a surprise, since the company suggested in May that it would update how cookies are handled in Chrome. Since Apple, Mozilla, and Microsoft are all moving away from tracking users through cookies, it seemed like Google would do the same. But nah. Cookies are good for advertisers, and Google makes a ton of money selling ads. In other words, Google wants it both ways. Its recent announcement came cloaked in a lot of feel-good words about how important privacy is and how blocking cookies would boost the practice of browser fingerprinting, a relatively rare method of online tracking that uses metrics like fonts installed or screen size t
owala cup o create unique profiles of each user. Right on the heels of this argument, however, Google points out that blocking cookies would also prevent publishers from serving relevant ads and making money which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant web. Google fails to admit here that its primary business is selling those ads to publishers. So, in what a pair of Princeton researchers are calling privacy gaslighting, Google insists that it believes in user privacy but refuses to take the necessary steps to protect user privacy, since its presumably more profitable not to do so. The whole thing is sort of wild when you step back and think about it. Jonathan Mayer and Ar