Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Is it too late to rename the Laniakea Supercluster (Score 1) 286

wikipedia states

The name Laniakea means "immeasurable heaven" in Hawaiian, from lani for "heaven" and akea for "spacious" or "immeasurable". The name was suggested by Nawa'a Napoleon, an associate professor of Hawaiian language at Kapiolani Community College. The name honors Polynesian navigators who used heavenly knowledge to navigate the Pacific Ocean.[3][7]

And perhaps more importantly, the Nature letter and preprint

Submission + - UMG v Grooveshark settled, no money judgment against individuals

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: UMG's case against Grooveshark, which was scheduled to go to trial Monday, has been settled. Under the terms of the settlement (PDF), (a) a $50 million judgment is being entered against Grooveshark, (b) the company is shutting down operations, and (c) no money judgment at all is being entered against the individual defendants.

Comment Re: uh... (Score 1) 170

If you pay for the service, the bandwidth, and have the equipment, it's annoying when you have to settle for the bare minimum. Not necessarily HULK SMASH lebel of annoying, but it's still there..

I happen to like aesthetically pleasing films. Sometimes, if the aesthetics are constrained by network issues, the film really isn't "worth" watching-- I'll read a book, or do a little programming instead.

Comment That's odd... (Score 1) 294

indicate to the scanning computer that the party being screened is a female. When the screener does this, the scanning machine will indicate an anomaly in the genital area and this allows (the male TSA screener) to conduct a pat-down search of that area.

That's odd, when I went through the screening and they mis-entered me into the scanner as female, it didn't report any anomaly.

-

Comment Regulation is ok, but the EU can't be a bad actor (Score 1) 247

Google does have an effective monopoly in search, and it's not a bad idea to have some degree of regulation in place to make sure that it doesn't harm consumers. (Though nonsense like a 'right to be forgotten' is going too far, and should be dropped)

The problem is that that very well may not be the EU's only motive here. At about the same time that the charges were announced, Gunther Oettinger, the EU's Digital Commissioner gave a speech where he said:

A great challenge is also Europe's position in the development of the next digital platforms that will gradually replace the current Internet and mobile platforms. We have so far missed many opportunities in this field and our online businesses are today dependent on a few non-EU players world-wide: this must not be the case again in the future. ... We need European industry 4.0 champions to win the global game in industry 4.0. ... Industry in Europe should take the lead and become a major contributor to the next generation of digital platforms that will replace today's Web search engines, operating systems and social networks.

Maintaining a level playing field and ensuring fair competition is one thing. Using the law to rig the market in order to engage in protectionism, however, is not acceptable. If the EU wants to pursue Google, they're going to need to do so in a way that is justifiably beyond reproach. Otherwise it's relatively easy for Google to restructure the way it does business internationally to avoid the EU from having any power over them, while still offering its services to persons in the EU, and to have many people cheer them on in the process.

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Working...