Netflix has been getting troubled by the telecoms a lot, but how about YouTube? Are they less bothered by the telecoms? Do they just not complain publicly as much? How does being a part of Google make their situation different than Netflix's?

Without the market share needed to embrace and extend anything, is there actually a real reason for Microsoft bother having their own a browser at all?

Wouldn't bundling another browser with WIndows and laying off the IE division make more financial sense that carrying on with a product that cost money to make, generates no revenue and is so badly respected by customers that Microsoft literally can't give it away?

Exactly, I've found that the only way to get Facebook to work the way it should work â" showing everything posted by people I know and pages I've liked â" is to install the FBPurity browser extension (from fbpurity.com) and to manually select 'receive notifications' from a hidden drop down menu when I 'like' a page.

The iPhone app just keeps getting worse, it does have the ability to show things in the right order, but it conveniently forgets that setting every time you open the app, and now the app has stopped showing everything after the first few characters when some sends you a message, begging you to install an extra app (but you don't need to, just open facebook.com in the phone's browser and you can read and respond to messages there).

Looks like dodgy statistics to me, they also have Apple at 6% when a much better known market research company says Apple' sales market share is 13.7% (source: http://www.gartner.com/newsroo...).

A limited private copying exemption was approved in the House of Lords yesterday, and is due to be introduced on 1st October - see http://www.publications.parlia... for a full and interminably dull discussion on it.

"The report also notes the MOI's use of invasive surveillance targeted at political and religious dissidents."

So, arguably less evil than western governments, who use invasive surveillance targeted at absolutely everyone.

QR codes are write once and take a lot of processing power to read, the article is talking about reusable, electronically accessible memory.

The frontal area to mass ratio of a train is tiny compared to almost every other form of transport, so that's less of a problem.

The limiting factor with trains is usually the track, for really high speeds you need to almost completely smooth out the bends and flatten the hills, the impressive part of the jet train is that it went so fast on a track designed for much, much lower speeds.

I have one here, on this blank sheet of paper.

That all makes sense, but it doesn't seem to match up to the observations.

The article says neutrons were observed arriving hours before optical photons, but what you are saying is that photons of high enough energy to become temporary particle pairs should arrive later than lower energy ones, which don't get slowed down by temporarily dropping below c.

If the chance to become a particle pair varies with energy, we ought to see the supernova change colour, starting off shining brightly in the visible spectrum only, then gradually becoming bright at higher and higher energies, as higher energy photons emitted at the same time as lower energy ones arrive progressively later on.

Time to dust off that Acorn Archimedes!

Just to clarify the EU court ruling didn't say:

1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story
2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.

It said something like:

You may have a right to be forgotten if your right to privacy in certain information outweighs the public interesting in knowing and accessing the information, and if removing the information from a search engine is a proportionate response.

EU law is often drafted in terms of proportionality, and the CJEU doesn't usually rule on the facts of a case, just gives guidance on interpreting the law. The key parts were that a search engine didn't have immunity just because it didn't host the original content (it was still processing data) and that just because the information was still available on a website didn't mean that removing it from a search engine was necessarily a waste.

I think that Google did make that point; it is Question 2(d) of the reference, and dealt with in paragraphs 62-88. I think whoever wrote that line meant to say that they'd failed to convince the Court of that point, rather than that they hadn't made it.

Imho this ruling isn't as "evil" or "censorship-based" as some commenters have made out, but also isn't nearly as pro-individual privacy.

As with most EU law, it comes down to proportionality; balancing the gain to the individual's right to privacy by removing the search result against the trouble to remove it (very low weighting) and the public's freedom of expression/right to know it (can vary).

In theory this is great; you and I can get the awkward things we did when we were young scrubbed before they turn up with job applications, but evil corporations can't use it to bury their dirty secrets, or politicians to hide uncomfortable pasts.

In practice, however, this kind of balancing is very expensive to do - and the Court seems to be encouraging direct claimant/search engine interactions (rather than going through the domestic courts), so we could see search engines just agreeing to take down everything they're told because they don't want to pay to fight or even examine the claims - as with defamation or copyright claims.

[It's also important to remember that this is a ruling on a 20-year-old law, the law technically hasn't changed, this is just the first time the CJEU has been asked whether search engines "process" personal information etc..]

Erm... Google did have standing. You can read the judgment of the court here.

Google was represented and their arguments are referred to throughout the ruling. Also represented were the Spanish, Greek, Polish, Austrian and Italian Governments, and the European Commission.

I don't think that it is possible to appeal Grand Chamber judgments in preliminary ruling applications such as this, but I could be wrong.

To paraphrase Pauli, that's so bad it's not even wrong.