For example, after Wimbledon, everyone was either talking about Federer being dominant or Serena Williams (maybe) returning to glory.  Whitlock took a different stance and put Serena in a category of underachievers and stated what has been obvious to those who have watched her over the years: she is inconsistent at best and not as dedicated or committed to tennis as any of her competitors.

Serena was blessed with talent as was her sister.  Together they have dominated doubles tennis, and they’ve traded blows in the singles realm.  Unlike the men’s field however, the women’s field has two big names with several others that seem to win tournaments over the players who out talent them by miles, and in Serena’s case in particular, it’s all due to work ethic.  Serena has slacked off and pursued other ventures over the years and she’s been on and off her game and all over the place.  In the rare cases when she’s been in top shape, she’s unstoppable.  When she’s in great shape, she’s a competitor.  But most of the time, she’s indifferent and falls by the wayside.

She is what could have been the equivalent of Federer, Nadal, or Sampras.  She instead can count her total grand slams on one hand and complains that people don’t give her the respect she deserves.  I agree with Whitlock in saying that if she perhaps tried as hard, or even cared to try, like Federer has done, Agassi had done, or Sampras, she would be there as the women’s ambassador for any sport, not just tennis.  It’s a shame to see talent not put to its full potential.

But it’s an even bigger shame to have people criticize a writer for pointing that out.  I am not one that prefers to keep the truth, however ugly, from coming to light in the sports world.  There is a line drawn at the personal life, but as far as their play and the reasons behind great or poor performances, those things need to surface and be discussed.

In the end, that is the only way there can be effective reporting: fair, balanced and with great debate.

Even with the massive success that YouTube has brought Google, and the billions in revenue that Google’s shareholders have reaped benefits, it hasn’t been without its rough patches in the road, with some of those rough patches being six-foot pot holes.  

To start, many wouldn’t imagine seeing Google sued by England’s Football Association Premier League.  Yet, in 2007, the association threw litigation against the Internet video giant, seeking damages for use of its game film that found its way onto the site.  

It took a few years and a team of lawyers to wage a war of paperwork across the pond, all while more lawsuits loaded up in queue to take a crack at YouTube pending the outcome of this trial.

Unfortunately for Viacom, which owns Comedy Central and MTV, the judge has set precedent in favor of Google, making the long wait in line just a little bit longer.

The judge ruled that punitive damages under the Copyright Act of 1976 don’t exist, and that there are no circumstances by which they can be justified.  

As in many copyright infringement lawsuits as of late, the justice system has now come to the realization that the copyright laws are indeed too vague, since at the time of conception, the Internet wasn’t even a blip in the mind of Al Gore, our former Vice President, who is also known for claiming to invent our wonderful Worldwide Web.

With YouTube’s legal victory, avenues have opened for Google to start planning to fight other cases that have been made.  It also sheds light on the problem with copyright laws in general: copyrighting is stupid.  The fact that an entity that has no impact whatsoever on the creative process or actual production of the material can claim ownership of said material, even though ownership belongs to the individual who created the product (like artist’s selling the rights to their songs for commercials, and the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) doesn’t have an argument against it).  

Most of the time, the videos that make their way onto sites like YouTube are fan videos not available anywhere else, by anyone else, including the people who supposedly own the material.  You won’t find videos like “Real Madrid’s Greatest Goals in 2008″ from FIFA (International Football Federation Association, roughly translated), or “Ray Lewis’s All-Time Greatest Tackles from the NFL.”  Fans will piece together footage from all of their favorite games and make tributes to their athlete idols.  

If anything, the organizations should look at this as free advertisement, and an obvious testimony to the dedication (or fanaticism) the fans have for the sport(s) they love.

But if spending millions in legal fees over 3-minute clips on YouTube is the best way they find to demonstrate the greatness of their sport, I would reconsider all of the useless lessons taught during the joke that is the MBA degree.

I began my social networking tour with LiveJournal when I was in middle school. There I would tell the world about my love for Joey Fatone (from N’SYNC…duh.) Once in high school, I decided that it was time to move onto MySpace. By that time, my music tastes had changed and I was interested in the MySpace music pages. In college, I was introduced to Facebook, and just recently I joined Twitter. It’s been a long social networking road for me, but I can honestly say there have been times when it’s really helped, though there’s also been a time when it’s hurt.

I’ll lay out some pros and cons for you. You’ll notice that many of the pros and cons are the same because, well, they’re both good and bad. It’s up to you to decide which one. Weigh it out for yourself.

Pros:
1. When done right, these Web sites can actually get you connected with people of your similar interests.
2. If you don’t really want to talk to someone in real life, you can always send them a message. It’s better than calling and hoping to reach a voicemail.
3. If you are creepy, any of these can be assets, and in more ways than you can imagine.
4. They are a good way to stay connected with friends who live far away.
5. If you’re smart enough, you can make yourself look like something you’re not.
6. MySpace and Facebook are constantly in transition. They continue to add new aspects like instant messaging with friends and status updates.
7. You can connect with people all around the world.
8. You have your own place in the World Wide Web.
9. The Internet is not FCC regulated.
10. It provides companies with a great way to advertise for free.

Cons:
1. People may try to contact you, thinking that the two of you have similar interests when, indeed, the two of you do not.
2. When people are mad, it’s a scapegoat to just send a message and not actually work it out face-to-face.
3. People are creepy.
4. Friends that you didn’t want to stay connected with will find you.
5. If you’re smart enough, you can make yourself look like something you’re not.
6. They are constantly in transition so when you finally get used to one version they switch it around and confuse you again.
7. People from all around the world can find you.
8. You have your own place in the World Wide Web where people will always be able to find you.
9. The Internet is not FCC regulated.
10. They can be a great place for people to steal identities.

Microsoft plans to introduce their new search engine, (nick-named) Kumo, within the next few weeks. It will only be introduced at D:All Things Digital Event. But by the way that Google and Yahoo’s new add-ons look, Microsoft may want to work on it a little bit.

Kumo is the updated version of Live Search and features a left-hand navigation menu that breaks down each category into a subcategory. The look certainly is different than other search engines. Still, the questions remains if that will be enough.

According to CNET, Google recently introduced new enhancements. These will allow people searching “new ways to filter results and adding new types of data to the search results themselves.” Some other new options provided by Google include providing a news timeline and the option to turn results into a spreadsheet.

Yahoo plans to “redefine Internet search by focusing on intent, not results,” according to CNET. They have been working on a project called SearchMonkey which aims to get Web publishers using thoroughly descriptive tags. If publishers were to do this, searchers would know exactly what content they could expect to see on those pages.

As for Microsoft, they remain the third popular search engine. (Can you guess who the first two are?) They’re desperately trying to regain popularity by this revamp possibly because their online services lost $575 million of their $721 million in revenue, last quarter alone.

Maybe Microsoft $100 million advertising campaign will help. There is no known date to when Kumo will be available to the public, if it will be available to the public or what it will actually be named.

While this analysis is bleak for Microsoft, it speaks volumes of Google. Google was created in 1998 by Sergey M. Brin and Lawrence E. Page with everything to prove. From there, it’s basically taken over the Internet world with a search-engine, e-mail, mapping, social networking and countless other helpful technologies. Then, there’s poor Microsoft which was founded in 1975 by (you know who) Bill Gates. It only seems right that after over 30 years, that Microsoft would have a well-established fan base and would be at the top of the game.

With the overwhelming popularity of Google and Yahoo, is it really worth hundreds of millions of dollars for Microsoft to spend if we all know that there’s only a slim chance of success?

Perhaps this is their last attempt before giving up. Maybe this is their last hurrah. I know I can say, personally, that I’m a big fan of Google. I have it in my toolbar. It’s my go-to search engine. Part of me hopes that Microsoft finds success and the other part knows they’re wasting their time. People are creatures of habit and many of us have been using Google or Yahoo for years. Will we be able to give something new a chance?

One thing to be said about Microsoft is that they are darn persistent.