Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment crappy summary (Score 4, Informative) 183

To say the "new evidence surfaced from Warner Music" is rather misleading. The plaintiffs independently found the evidence; what they got from Warner had the evidence "blurred out". Here's the summary from TFA:

"(1) Warner/Chappell Music (who claims to hold the copyright for the publishing, if it exists) suddenly "found" a bunch of relevant documents that it was supposed to hand over in discovery last year, but didn't until just a few weeks ago, and (2) a rather important bit of information in one of those new documents was somewhat bizarrely "blurred out." This led the plaintiffs go searching for the original, and discover that it undermines Warner Music's arguments, to the point of showing that the company was almost certainly misleading the court. Furthermore, it definitively shows that the work was and is in the public domain."

Warner, of course, denies that conclusion. rsilvergun may be right, but the date of the songbook relative to the date of the "copyright" and of the changes to copyright law would seem to weaken Warner's argument fatally.

Comment Apology shows questionable understanding (Score 1) 190

I read the exchange on Ars, and I'm not convinced IMAX has properly understood their egregious error. Their apology said, "... in this situation we acted too quickly without truly understanding the reference to our brand. ... we will try to be better at taking compliments ...". That reads to me like they still think the take-down request would have been appropriate if the reference was uncomplimentary. But, as Ars pointed in their open response to the request, it would still have been an inappropriate action in that case for many reasons; and so the IMAX lawyer was (and is?) demonstrating unforgivable ignorance or disregard of the relevant laws.

Comment "reatlowing beacons"??? (Score 2) 49

Quoting from the article: "While there are countless questions about Ceres, the most popular now seems to be what the bright spots are. It is impossible not to be mesmerized by what appear to be reatlowing beacons, shining out across the cosmic seas from the uncharted lands ahead." "reatlowing" doesn't appear to be a real word, and I can't figure out what was meant. Any ideas?

Comment Not always hilarious... (Score 3, Informative) 185

If you find it hilarious, you've been fortunate. I tried opening a online CD with Nationwide Bank by calling them, and they asked me questions about my background which they believed the "real" me could answer, and I couldn't. I later realized that the questions were based on Trans Union's error years earlier, when they were incorrectly convinced I had a certain second name and address several states away. I (after much willful stupidity and/or incompetence on TU's part) had gotten that sorted out, but the error had apparently propagated (with further garbling) to whatever source Nationwide was using and unwisely treating as gospel.

Comment Re:Confusing summary - here's my version (Score 3, Informative) 74

The summary was not clear so here is my version based on my understanding of the work:


The research advisor Thomas E. Mallouk suggested trying it without the oxidizer. The researcher Nina Kovtyukhona was reluctant to perform this experiment as she thought it would be a failure. Her advisor persuaded her to try it by making a bet that he would pay her $100 if it succeeded, and she would pay him $10 if she failed. The experiment was a success, and researchers now have a new avenue to explore for synthesizing graphene.

From the article:

"I kept asking her to try it and she kept saying no," Mallouk said. "Finally, we made a bet, and to make it interesting I gave her odds. If the reaction didn't work I would owe her $100, and if it did she would owe me $10. I have the ten dollar bill on my wall with a nice Post-it note from Nina complimenting my chemical intuition."

Looks like you got it backwards in your version.

Comment Re:Anthropometrics (Score 1) 819

one answer is to offer wider seat spacing for a little extra price on some flights

At check-in, United Airlines offers economy seats with much better legroom for a modest upcharge. On a transcontinental flight it's usually around $60 - $70. I travel a lot for business (60 segments so far this year), often in Economy Plus, and there are usually many seats in E+ available, even when sardine class is completely packed. People simply refuse to shell out the coin for additional comfort. I think if E+ *were* full you'd see United expanded it until eventually their entire aircraft had room leg room at a higher price.

$60-70? I wish. On a United transcon (IAD-SFO) 3 weeks ago, they charged $89. That's out of the "modest" range, IMHO.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Love may fail, but courtesy will previal." -- A Kurt Vonnegut fan