You missed my point. Current mass media narrative is that "gamergate is a harassment movement and social justice warrior types are their victims".

At the same time, reports from the actual people suggest that it's the exact opposite. But it's very hard to figure out what is what in there because this is internet, and most sources are difficult to double check.

FBI on the other hand will actually go for evidence. So it will be interesting where that investigation will lead - who is actually doing the harassing?

According to wikipedia, all gamergate related articles are edited by a one specific editor who was asked even by Jimbo Wales himself to stop editing because of his obvious extreme bias.

He's still editing the articles and they're all extremely obvious hit pieces.

Jedi shark with lightsabers for teeth?

How internet fighting works:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/ind...

That was quite possibly one of the worst anonymisations of writer of all times.

Some were admitted to have been fabrication. Some have been real but police advised people threatened that they were not credible, only to have those people go to the media claiming they were serious.

And then there were probably a few real psychos.

The saddest part is that most of the actual victims appear to be people who took part in the #notyourshield tag. The folks that basically made a point that "we're those minorities you opponents of #gamergate claim to be "protecting" and we're telling you under our own names - we need no protection from you". They and their families were brutally harassed and some were actually driven out of work.

It's going to be interesting to know if FBI is going to actually look at the whole thing rather than just #gamergate and what they will find out.

It's not worth it because of maintenance costs. Large ships have extremely complex structures which require constant ongoing maintenance and stops for significant maintenance once every few years at the very least.

Modern large yachts that billionaires own are typically the "optimal" in terms of size in that they're big enough to basically have about as much room as a city block without being prohibitively difficult to maintain and require consistent downtime.

This is specifically a ship. It's entire point is that it can move on its own power like a ship, instead of having to be towed to a new location as it is with platforms and barges today.

What is true however is that it's not specifically a cargo ship as much as a platform that is designed for extraction and temporary storage. LNG carrying ships are supposed to get gas from this ship and then handle the transportation part.

That is correct. This is supposed to be the first ship out of many designed around the concept of having a large ship as a mobile gas extraction platform with its own power.

The idea is that they want to extract gas from underwater wells that are much harder to access than before and in much greater numbers. This is supposed to be just a first ship in the fleet of such ships. Hence hte name.

Except that lasers don't do so well under water. Which means that they should make a shark that actually bites instead.

Can you imagine a gigantic mecha shark ship biting smaller gunboats in two? Now THAT would be hilarious.
Probably won't be done because it's too Japanese though :D

No. These are near surface drones. They'd be crushed if they tried to go to that depth.

This isn't about banking or hiding money. This is about directing the money flow through tax arrangements that will not incur severe problems on using the said money (i.e. specifically NOT hiding money but keeping it in plain sight so that it can be easily accessed). Completely different issue.

Microsoft got hit for about a billion in penalty as a result. And that was just about browsers. I'll let you think of the magnitude of difference when you consider browsers (i.e. non crucial product for microsoft) and google (talks are about breaking the company up).

I do understand that slashdot is probably not the place to talk about non-nerdy part of the business. Most people here simply do not comprehend how these things actually work and why they work that way.

Note the difference between "flow" and "revenue". Two completely different things. The reason why most of google's money flow goes through EU is various tax break arrangements. As a result, if it were to get kicked out, not only would it lose the market, it would lose lucrative tax deals.

FTY: google didn't "go offshore" in China. It left China entirely. It's blocked in China now.

Suggesting that EU is "losing" here sounds a lot like "oh EU is losing to microsoft, what can it do?" back in the days of browser monopoly fight. Until EU decided to actually take action and suddenly "oh EU is losing" whine changed to "oh evil EU is oppressing this nice US company" tune here on slashdot. And that wasn't even "gloves off" kind of action - they didn't actually plan to break up microsoft. And vendor lock in was far stronger in that case, as there are no real alternatives to much of microsoft software right now.

Learn from the history.

It's the exact opposite. Sexual organs enable exchange of extremely high amounts of information. Single cell organisms are exceedingly simple in comparison, and as a result the method you talk about works well for them.

Attempting the same with more complex organisms would result in overwhelming amount of failures due to permutations being lethal or disabling in nature far more often than not.

They as in the other interested parties. Issue is far more complex than you present, with far more stake holders. And yes, I do in fact mean stake holders rather than share holders because there are a lot more of people invested in the issue than just shareholders. You have everyone from security apparatus that made deals with google to various companies that really like google's ad network and value it brings. All of these have vested interest in google staying in Europe.

Europe itself would not need to replace google at all. You seem to forget that much of google's development and multiple server centres, as well as overwhelming majority of google's money flow is in Europe. Even if google could shake off the former, latter is its main artery it needs for basic survival. That is why I consistently point out that you don't go into a direct conflict with large sovereign states as a corporation - that is not a fight you stand to win. Instead you subvert the government by buying influence through various channels available to you. In this case, google's problem is that there's a lot of other stake holders that while interested in google remaining in Europe aren't interested in it maintaining its current monopolist position.

You last point appears to be about you simply not wanting to look at the reality - that internet hasn't brought on a "global culture", if anything it did the exact opposite. It brought together the small fringe outlier groups together and created huge echo chambers where pundits peddle their opinions to their own circle which is mostly insulated from outside influence. And mind you, google is guilty of causing this more so than other companies because of the way its search personalization works. A good example of global warming issue - if you read a lot of articles and do searches on denialist side, google search will serve you mostly material it thinks you're interested in, that is denialist material in searches for facts. At the same time if you're on the other end of the spectrum, google search will produce facts that support your view on the very same searches that resulted in denialist material for the other person.