In addition, Avatar won "Best Visual Effects" as well - so basically it won in every category in which people were talking about it before it was released anyway. People didn't go to the cinema to see Avatar for the plot, they went to see it because of the fantastic visual elements that were being raved about - and surprisingly, Avatar won in all of those categories at the awards...
There is no special category for romance, comedy, action or other types of live action film, so why should there be one for science fiction? As much as I love scifi myself, its not worthy of an entirely separate category at the awards, over and above every other sub-category within the live action category.
The fact that Avatar was "snubbed" has nothing to do with it being scifi, as it simply wasn't the best actual film - it won "Best Cinematography" and "Best Art Direction" because it was a treat for the eyes, but as a film it was really quite poor.
As for 2001, it won "Best Visual Effects", but wasn't even nominated for "Best Picture" - again, there were better films that year.
So no, it doesn't deserve a special category all of its own. This meritocracy only goes so far.
It's not being sourced from the winning bid, it's a requirement that the winning bidder cover the costs over and above their winning bid - no government money is being diverted.
Quite simply, it allows stories like this - which is a good thing.
P3P allows a website to make a very obvious statement about their intentions, to a set specification - if the website specifically sets a P3P that they don't honour then it becomes a PR issue, as it has in this case.
Google were breaking the spec here, in such a way that creates a valid P3P statement in the process which says "we won't be doing anything untoward with your cookies" - the field they use is not a text field and therefor the content they put into it is ignored, resulting in a zero length list of items they *will* do with the cookies...
That definitely should get Google into the tech media at least.
No, it's like saying drum brakes are shit because that other car over there as much better brakes, and then discovering that that other car also has drum brakes...
In other words, picking a bad example does not help your case.
Residing the detonator would be incredibly hard, as modern weapons are not simple devices - the cores have a jacket of explosives which is split into segments, and the segments are set off at intervals (very very small intervals) in order to create compression waves in the core itself.
The PAL controls the detonation of those explosives in a precise order. Remove the PAL and you no longer have the detonation sequence...
Reverse engineering that requires all the skill of designing and building the device in the first place, as it requires specific math in order to create the best yield from a smaller mass - get it wrong and you just blow th core up and little else (some modern weapons are designed to contain a non-nuclear exlosion within the weapon itself - so you don't even get a duty bomb effect).
I'm going to answer your entire point just by answering your provisional driving license analogy.
If I was to apply for a provisional driving license, while stating my intention was to use it to gain a pilots license rather than a drivers license, would the DMV not be remiss to issue me one under the basis that it might happen?
The FCC should have provisionally denied the operation, with approval granted on proof of conformance - to do anything else artificially inflates the operations position. Their license did not allow them to operate at the suggested power levels, and the FCC should have held them to those license conditions while welcoming evidence to support reversal of the rejection.
There is a world of difference between provisional approval and provisional rejection.
And I think it's worth me stating this outright, lest someone claim I am a shill for LS - I think their plan was stupid, their product flawed and their approach totally wrong, and I think that all of those things were obvious from day one.
Which is also why I think the FCC shares some responsibility here.
That's my point - they were given provisional approval to proceed, and when they failed the tests the FCC allowed them for months to submit proposed solutions. The provisional approval should never have been given, as it's a totally different use for the band than allocated for in the license - the FCC should have closed the door right then and there.
Yes, LightSquared were idiots for doing this at all, but the FCC were wrong in doing what they did.
While that is true, my opinion as someone who has been following the story is that the FCC does have a degree of culpability here because they were involved in LightSquared's plans from the very beginning, and only issued the death penalty after significant amounts of money had been spent even when the evidence they based that decision on had been available for a significant amount of time - to a degree, it can be argued that the FCC led LightSquared, and that is what they should answer for.
LightSquared should have been told at the very beginning, when the FCC first got involved, that their approach was not acceptable and that they needed a different license and spectrum.
Most US nuclear weapons are fully assembled when they are aboard an aircraft on a nuclear mission (although intentional flights with nuclear weapons was stopped in the 1960s after a spate of crashes), but control is limited by the Permissive Action Link, which blocks a lot of components in the weapon until a code is supplied by the aircraft (usually just prior to launch of the weapon).
Many countries use American supplied PALs, or systems based on the PAL designs, after it was decided that international nuclear weapons safety was a higher priority than inadvertently disclosing US wahead design details via PAL design considerations.
Wikipedia has a nice list of military nuclear accidents, there are quite a few in there where planes have crashed, or simply dumped their nuclear weapons due to difficulties, and in many cases those weapons are still out there.
No, it requires a truck to carry the sealed container unit, you could quite easily get a nuclear weapon on the back of a pickup if you can get into the container.
To add to that, you have the complication of security while the train sits in a marshalling yard, or is waiting to be offloaded onto a truck for final destination delivery anyway. There is a lot of waiting around that a train does, while a truck can be loaded in a high security area and immediately drive out and onto the road.
What world are you living in? Nuclear weapons didn't bring peace, they brought subterfuge as conflicts between the US and the USSR had to be fought between proxy nations with "aid". It's quite easy to claim that the US and the USSR was at war several times without public acknowledgement.
Of course it becomes obvious after someone points it out - an obscure vulnerability is obviously obscure until its made known... Every system in the world suffers from obscure vulnerabilities, in that every computer program ever written has bugs and in a serious percentage of cases those bugs are exploitable, so its only a matter of time and effort before a "secure" system becomes "obviously vulnerable".
There are also more than two possible options in this case - it certainly isn't a simple matter of "its either him or someone else", no one else might ever have succeeded in his place.
And yes, in many ways the digital world is different, but in many ways its similar - an open window does not give a random passer by the right to "test my homes security" by climbing in and having a look around. Such a person would not be considered a "white hat", just as this bloke is not a "white hat" - I can hire people to test my physical security, just as I can hire people to test my online security, the difference between those people and this bloke is that they would have my explicit permission.
This guy stuck his nose in, and made claims of an ethical motive after the event - sorry but he is most certainly guilty of what he was charged with, regardless of whether someone else may have done it in his place. The burglar does not get let off because his mate might have come around the night after him and taken advantage of the same open window...
This guy is not a white hat, thats just bullshit by people trying to excuse him of the crime he committed.
Slashdot Mirror
Actual "proper" scifi is extremely hard to get both correct and entertaining at the same time - very few authors have achieved both.
Which is why scifi is generally accepted and tolerated to have elements of fantasy rather than be chained to actual science.
In addition, Avatar won "Best Visual Effects" as well - so basically it won in every category in which people were talking about it before it was released anyway. People didn't go to the cinema to see Avatar for the plot, they went to see it because of the fantastic visual elements that were being raved about - and surprisingly, Avatar won in all of those categories at the awards...
Not much more to say really.
I agree with the parent.
There is no special category for romance, comedy, action or other types of live action film, so why should there be one for science fiction? As much as I love scifi myself, its not worthy of an entirely separate category at the awards, over and above every other sub-category within the live action category.
The fact that Avatar was "snubbed" has nothing to do with it being scifi, as it simply wasn't the best actual film - it won "Best Cinematography" and "Best Art Direction" because it was a treat for the eyes, but as a film it was really quite poor.
As for 2001, it won "Best Visual Effects", but wasn't even nominated for "Best Picture" - again, there were better films that year.
So no, it doesn't deserve a special category all of its own. This meritocracy only goes so far.
It's not being sourced from the winning bid, it's a requirement that the winning bidder cover the costs over and above their winning bid - no government money is being diverted.
I deliberately ignored the implied reference because an airplane is not an antigravity device.
All PETA need to do is get a sympathetic judge.
You, however, are stuck with the harsh realities of the only laws of physics we have access to...
PETA is currently trying to get the 13th amendment to be applied in the case of five killer whales held by SeaWorld.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16920866
Yes, PETA is trying to get antislavery law to be applied against animals, which if successful will seriously change everything...
Quite simply, it allows stories like this - which is a good thing.
P3P allows a website to make a very obvious statement about their intentions, to a set specification - if the website specifically sets a P3P that they don't honour then it becomes a PR issue, as it has in this case.
Google were breaking the spec here, in such a way that creates a valid P3P statement in the process which says "we won't be doing anything untoward with your cookies" - the field they use is not a text field and therefor the content they put into it is ignored, resulting in a zero length list of items they *will* do with the cookies...
That definitely should get Google into the tech media at least.
No, it's like saying drum brakes are shit because that other car over there as much better brakes, and then discovering that that other car also has drum brakes...
In other words, picking a bad example does not help your case.
And most of the apps I use on it have splash screens...
Residing? Fucking iPad autocorrect - that was redesigning.
Residing the detonator would be incredibly hard, as modern weapons are not simple devices - the cores have a jacket of explosives which is split into segments, and the segments are set off at intervals (very very small intervals) in order to create compression waves in the core itself.
The PAL controls the detonation of those explosives in a precise order. Remove the PAL and you no longer have the detonation sequence...
Reverse engineering that requires all the skill of designing and building the device in the first place, as it requires specific math in order to create the best yield from a smaller mass - get it wrong and you just blow th core up and little else (some modern weapons are designed to contain a non-nuclear exlosion within the weapon itself - so you don't even get a duty bomb effect).
Thats the second time you have said that, got any links to that "evidence", as its the first time I have heard it....
I'm going to answer your entire point just by answering your provisional driving license analogy.
If I was to apply for a provisional driving license, while stating my intention was to use it to gain a pilots license rather than a drivers license, would the DMV not be remiss to issue me one under the basis that it might happen?
The FCC should have provisionally denied the operation, with approval granted on proof of conformance - to do anything else artificially inflates the operations position. Their license did not allow them to operate at the suggested power levels, and the FCC should have held them to those license conditions while welcoming evidence to support reversal of the rejection.
There is a world of difference between provisional approval and provisional rejection.
And I think it's worth me stating this outright, lest someone claim I am a shill for LS - I think their plan was stupid, their product flawed and their approach totally wrong, and I think that all of those things were obvious from day one.
Which is also why I think the FCC shares some responsibility here.
I've been following the story fairly closely, but all your comment does is highlight yet another failure on the part of the FCC.
That's my point - they were given provisional approval to proceed, and when they failed the tests the FCC allowed them for months to submit proposed solutions. The provisional approval should never have been given, as it's a totally different use for the band than allocated for in the license - the FCC should have closed the door right then and there.
Yes, LightSquared were idiots for doing this at all, but the FCC were wrong in doing what they did.
While that is true, my opinion as someone who has been following the story is that the FCC does have a degree of culpability here because they were involved in LightSquared's plans from the very beginning, and only issued the death penalty after significant amounts of money had been spent even when the evidence they based that decision on had been available for a significant amount of time - to a degree, it can be argued that the FCC led LightSquared, and that is what they should answer for.
LightSquared should have been told at the very beginning, when the FCC first got involved, that their approach was not acceptable and that they needed a different license and spectrum.
Most US nuclear weapons are fully assembled when they are aboard an aircraft on a nuclear mission (although intentional flights with nuclear weapons was stopped in the 1960s after a spate of crashes), but control is limited by the Permissive Action Link, which blocks a lot of components in the weapon until a code is supplied by the aircraft (usually just prior to launch of the weapon).
Many countries use American supplied PALs, or systems based on the PAL designs, after it was decided that international nuclear weapons safety was a higher priority than inadvertently disclosing US wahead design details via PAL design considerations.
Wikipedia has a nice list of military nuclear accidents, there are quite a few in there where planes have crashed, or simply dumped their nuclear weapons due to difficulties, and in many cases those weapons are still out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents
No, it requires a truck to carry the sealed container unit, you could quite easily get a nuclear weapon on the back of a pickup if you can get into the container.
To add to that, you have the complication of security while the train sits in a marshalling yard, or is waiting to be offloaded onto a truck for final destination delivery anyway. There is a lot of waiting around that a train does, while a truck can be loaded in a high security area and immediately drive out and onto the road.
What world are you living in? Nuclear weapons didn't bring peace, they brought subterfuge as conflicts between the US and the USSR had to be fought between proxy nations with "aid". It's quite easy to claim that the US and the USSR was at war several times without public acknowledgement.
Of course it becomes obvious after someone points it out - an obscure vulnerability is obviously obscure until its made known... Every system in the world suffers from obscure vulnerabilities, in that every computer program ever written has bugs and in a serious percentage of cases those bugs are exploitable, so its only a matter of time and effort before a "secure" system becomes "obviously vulnerable".
There are also more than two possible options in this case - it certainly isn't a simple matter of "its either him or someone else", no one else might ever have succeeded in his place.
And yes, in many ways the digital world is different, but in many ways its similar - an open window does not give a random passer by the right to "test my homes security" by climbing in and having a look around. Such a person would not be considered a "white hat", just as this bloke is not a "white hat" - I can hire people to test my physical security, just as I can hire people to test my online security, the difference between those people and this bloke is that they would have my explicit permission.
This guy stuck his nose in, and made claims of an ethical motive after the event - sorry but he is most certainly guilty of what he was charged with, regardless of whether someone else may have done it in his place. The burglar does not get let off because his mate might have come around the night after him and taken advantage of the same open window...
This guy is not a white hat, thats just bullshit by people trying to excuse him of the crime he committed.
By that standard, every computer in existence today is vulnerable - it's just a matter of time before an exploit is found and utilised.
There's a difference between vulnerable and obviously vulnerable.