I'll go one step further. I like the taste of meat, and don't feel any need to voluntarily lower my position on the food chain.
That said, we shouldn't make anything suffer more than is necessary. Although I'd argue we might want to worry about our own species (who can and do tell us what they need), rather than project onto other species.
I really wish we could turn the clock back on this one, and make copyreading mandatory, and lack of journalistic integrity (like copying without even looking at the source, never mind actually contacting sources) subject to internal justice.
Sadly, there's no money in it. (As in, you won't see enough increased revenue to cover the cost of your copy editors.)
Doesn't help that in order to try and be current, they're waiting until the last minute to put the stories in (removing any time to edit the piece in the first place).
As I see it, the daily newspaper is stuck between a rock and a hard place - they can't compete with online media (much less TV/radio) in the "current events" market, and the weekly/monthly periodicals can beat them on "reasoned and informed" (not to mention some online media as well). There's just not much market for "slightly stale news with little context added".
Devil's advocate: hospital then turns to the doctor and says "why did you perform surgery when you weren't competent to do it?"
Sadly, this is going to come down to needing doctors to say "I have been awake too long; I am no longer competent to do this operation, and it's no longer safe for me to do so."
(snipping some very good points that I agree with)
If we have enough doctors in the hospital, then we can talk about mandating short work hours.
This is catch-22, though. If all the work is being done, then by definition you have "enough workers". You're not going to bring on more doctors if everyone is accepting the current situation.
Teachers cheat by the way if your job is on the line with grades.
It's not cheating. Paying by the grade (or worse, firing by the grade) is a stupid plan either way you do it:
If you let the teachers hand out the marks themselves, you're asking them to take the economic hit for a stupid kid. (I can pass the kid and get paid, or I can fail him and punish myself.) Bad plan. (If you're lucky, the teacher will pass everyone but still try their damnest to teach something; if your unlucky, your kid is doing a lot of poster projects this year.)
If you go the "standardized testing" route, then expect your kid to know exactly the material on the test, and not a thing more. And "love of learning" isn't on the standardized test, so don't be surprised when your kid has amazingly specialized, yet totally useless, knowledge, and hated every minute of it. Great if you're looking for drones, I suppose. (The teachers I know hate standardized testing, because it leaves no leeway for a class to get interested in an offshoot of the official curriculum. If your class decides to obsess on the meaning of "heath" in Macbeth, you can't spend a class going into that. At least, not if you like your job.)
The funny thing is, it's fairly obvious to anyone with two eyes who the good teachers are. Walk in to your kid's class, and ask yourself two questions:
Is my kid learning? (Your kid's smartness is your own genetic problem, but you should be able to tell if the teacher is trying to teach)
Do I/my kid like the teacher? (Because kid's like their teachers for a reason. Alternatively, if you like the teacher because he's making your kid work, that's good too.)
Not rocket surgery, folks. You knew who your good and bad teachers were when you were in school, right?
"Time and Attendance" at a guess. Like the punch cards that most civilised nations done away with decades ago, realising that workers who aren't micromanaged and monitored for every minute have higher productivity.
In some cases... I find that if you can't measure on results, then you're kinda stuck with "swipe-in/swipe-out". Doubly if the job is a public-facing one. (While your receptionist might feel "empowered" if he doesn't have to clock in/out, you might end up covering the desk when he empowers himself to take an extra hour lunch...)
Also, I know a few folks who became much *happier* when they got the swipe cards. Why? Because now there's proper documentation for all the overtime they're putting in!
Was a swiper, then was boss of swipers, and now is a result(er)
But it does mean that we have to accept that for many people, losing their license is not an inconvenience
Sounds to me like those particular people should take that fact into account, and put even more effort into not drinking while driving. Not giving them more of a break when caught doing so.
The guy with nothing to lose will be inconvenienced a lot less by a punishment than the guy with everything to lose.
The punishment should not be changed to reflect that however. It should be taken into account by the person about to commit a crime and be even more reason not to commit it in the first place.
I'd rather see the suspension on "drinking alcohol", to be honest. Let's be honest: it's the Day After, you're charged with DUI, and your license is suspended. You can't get to work without a car. Do you (a) lose your job, lose your house, and end up on the street, or (b) drive while suspended?
I lost a dear friend to a drunk-driver. A relative got the crap beat out of him by a couple drunk guys once too - but a suspended license won't prevent that sort of thing.
And now us doctors will have another reason to be afraid of lawsuits: "Your honor, evidence shows that the defendant was awake for 16 hours straight and did not inform the patient. Thus, he should be found guilty of malpractice!"
Of course we shouldn't have tired doctors (nurses, technician, etc.) working and treating patients, but as long as the system demands it (because of shortage of staff [and money, of course]), you can't put the blame on doctors and open up another avenue for lawsuits.
And if the only doctor for this life-and-death surgery is on hour 16, I'll take tired-doctor over no-doctor.
But for electives? That strikes me as the perfect place for the medical community to take a stand and say "it's safer for you if I don't operate in this condition".
Sounds like a form of impairment testing, which is a pretty big win for everyone but has not been widely implemented. Employers who have used it found that it consistently reduced accidents, and employees like it since they don't have to pee in a cup--a demeaning and annoying procedure. It should also be cheaper for employers: even at a couple thousand bucks for the machine and software you used, the payoff in reduced accidents and mishaps along with not having to pay drug testing companies all the time means it'll pay for itself in a very short period of time.
It doesn't unfortunately seem like it's going to catch on anytime soon. Most companies haven't heard of it, and my guess is that most who have are waiting for it to gain a reputation before thinking about making the switch themselves.
I can guess at one really good reason (from the company perspective) that it isn't "catching on" - if you get busted for drugs or alcohol, I (as PHB) can fire you. If you fail a generic impairment test (because you were up with your kid all night), I can't let you drive, but I can't punish you either.
Net effect for The Company? They pay more (because they have to cover all the impaired shifts), and can't put the costs/blame on anyone (because you can't fire someone for staying up all night).
The average pay for a GP in the UK is over £100,000 per year (linked like that because I'm not sure if/. will mangle pound signs in links). I'm not saying that GPs should not get that amount, but that is around 5 times the median for the UK. £100,000 is about the _total_ income tax of 30 taxpayers on that median pay.
Sadly, the link doesn't say one or the other, but I'm wondering if that average is mean or median? (As in, are there really well paid doctors skewing the average).
Misplaced the link, but I remember reading about a similar effect in actors - the "average" acting wage is decent, except no-one actually makes that much; you either make way more or way less.
If that's too much to ask of people, they need to hire a fucking driver, walk/bike, take a taxi, or hop on a bus.
The flaw in that argument is that in Canada/US, there's a lot of jobs that just can't be reached except by driving. My workplace is in an industrial park outside of town. I would happily not drive if I could. There is no (not "minimal", not "inconvenient", *zero*) bus service there. There is no housing close enough to allow walking or biking (and if there was, you'd be doing it on major highways; a whole other safety issue). The cost to take a taxi daily back-and-forth would cost most of my income. And hiring a driver is a laughable idea.
Now, none of this excuses drunk-driving (and my job is in the transportation sector, where you *will* lose your job for this sort of thing). But it does mean that we have to accept that for many people, losing their license is not an inconvenience - it will quite likely lose you your job (for no reason other than "you can't get there") and make it very difficult to get another one.
You miss my point. If you make it socially unacceptable, you can cut the number of people doing it. Unfortunately I think some groups such as MADD can put off as many as they convince.
Couldn't possibly because they seem more interested in increasing convictions than reducing drunk driving... (as in, when the numbers go down, they'd rather make the laws stricter to increase convictions than celebrate the fact that they made an impact)
This brings up a point: what if you eat that overripe peach, in front of the cop, before taking the test? (Or, if you want to be slightly less "hit with a nightstick", make a point of telling the officer that you have recently partaken in fruit). Would this set you up for a proper defense?
In this case, you're just pulled over and and checked for no valid reason other than everyone is being checked.
Is now when we drag out the "If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about" line?
Heck, I'm wondering why they haven't followed this through to it's logical conclusion - pair up the cop with a judge, right in the squad car! Cop turns to his partner, says "I need to go in there", Judge scribbles out a warrant, bang bang!
The part I find most frightening about this concept is the assumption that the judge will just be rubber-stamping these warrants all night. Aren't these guys supposed to be more than clerks?
If they "heavily advertise" these enhanced checkstops as promised, I sincerely hope the ACLU or other lawyery types camp out to provide legal representation on-site. Barring that, I hope some enterprising youths put up helpful detour signs a couple blocks away. (Here, at least, it was found to be perfectly legal to put signs up warning about upcoming radar traps; the kids even took donations!)
I was under the impression that a refusal to take a breathalyzer in most states landed you in jail until your blood was drawn. That's how it is here in MN.
As I understand it, in Canada it's actually a crime to refuse to blow (and as I read up on it, you're required to provide blood as well). You'll beat the "over the limit" charge, but be convicted of "refusing to blow", which just happens to have the same penalties. (And apparently if they can prove the intoxication charge independently, you can get convicted of *both*)
I just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test. It's non-invasive and it's not like it's a cheek swap DNA test. But I bet that no drop of blood goes to waste once they draw that...
As I understand it, the main problems with the gadget are:
Most places don't keep the sample afterwards, so your defense lawyers can't argue the results.
The machines aren't necessarily kept in proper working order (and the above point means that you can't necessarily prove it)
The general idea of self-incrimination
I agree with the idea (drunk driving Bad), but we've reached the point where you can quite reasonably be pointed at and automatically be guilty, because a machine says so.
I think the people that saw the original Tron at the time remember it as a much better movie than it really was.
Only partly true - I re-watched the original about a week before seeing Legacy, and... well, it's an 80s Disney live-action. It's pretty much what you'd expect plot-wise from that studio at that time. The acting is OK, but not amazing, although I think the blame rests more with lousy dialogue. The plot is standard adventure fare (guy gets lost at point A, must progress through set pieces B, C, D, and E to reach destination F; at the same time fighting villian X and his flunkies Y and Z). Swap the computers for Europe and the data for an Ark, and you've got Indiana Jones. Middle Earth + Ring = LotR. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The redeeming virtue isn't the plot, or the acting - it's the setting. And as someone above pointed out, there's a lot of newer, "better" movies that crib literally from the original. The opening "characters resolving into a cityscape" is almost a literal cribbing of Tron's opening sequence, for instance. (Substitute green characters for the original dots of light.)
In my own opinion, Tron has aged a lot better than other 80s media products (have you *tried* to watch an original A-Team?)
Ebert thumbed his up to three by liking the visuals, but he said several times in his short piece that the movie is essentially plotless.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with it. At it's heart, it's an adventure movie (guy ends up in strange place, has adventures A, B, C, and D on his way to point E). And in that context, it does a solid job. An Indiana Jones movie doesn't really have a lot more plot. Where Indy gets a leg up is that he can fight a Nazi and everyone fills in the details. Same with places - he's in Cairo? They don't have to tell us about the place - we just all remember Arabian Nights (or history class, if you paid attention there).
Tron doesn't get that luxury - everything is new and novel, and since the scenic details aren't really important to the plot, they don't kill time explaining (thank goodness). But that means you either have to just accept it as is, or do some reading afterwards.
I will forgive Tron a lot, for the simple fact that they got the "real world" computing parts right. (Give or take a few release dates). No "click on the magic link" crap.
As I understand it, they were intending to grab the beginning of each packet (the part that has the SSID, signal strength), which they would use to map where the hotspots are, so that when you're at the hotspot, Google can use the info to geolocate you.
The error was that their software was reading and storing too much of the packet, which meant they were getting some data that was being transmitted (instead of just the header). Most of the time it was just random chunks of data (kind of like getting words 532 - 538 out of a book), but sometimes it was user/password information, or an email address, or something else.
Important things to note here:
Google (and most everyone else I've seen commenting, here or in the press, agree) didn't want this information - it was collected purely by accident. There's no nefarious plan.
If your hotspot was encrypted in any way, you were absolutely safe.
Unless you happened to be connected and transmitting while the GoogleMobile drove by, you're safe.
Of course, since they've mapped huge chunks of the world, statistically they end up with a lot of naughty details.
Personally, I take the greatest comfort in the fact that we first found out about this from Google itself. Not a third-party security researcher, not a hacker - Google came forward on it's own and said "crap, we didn't want this - sorry about that". That says a lot to me in terms of motive and corporate responsibility.
First, cutting waste is good, but if I'm in debt, I'm not going to save much money by cutting the milk from my grocery budget, especially if I'm paying off a mortgage on a summer home. You have to look at the big-ticket items first. Prioritizing the small things is irresponsible.
Why yes, I know what you mean. I know a couple poor people who refuse to give up their cable TV and all the options on the phone and internet because it's not that much money. And when you really look at it, they crank up the heat in the winter because every 3 degrees is only 5% of their heating bills right. I mean 5% doesn't make a different so why should they turn the furnace down to 69 or 72 degree.
Here is the problem you are looking past. A lot of little things add up to one big thing. So if you save 5% a month on a $100 bill, it's only what $60 a year? But if you do that for 10 different things, it's now $600 a year. So dismissing something because it's insignificant or small is pretty much why poor people tend to remain poor- even with ever increasing incomes.
This is a bit of a false analogy. Of course little things can add up. But it is a bit ingenuous to complain that they're not saving $60 a year by keeping the hit up three degrees when they're dropping $900 a year on the poolboy. If you're looking to save money, you should look at your big ticket items.
According to this page Google gave me, "general science" gets about 7.2 billion a year. Which sounds like a lot, except it's the smallest category. America spends more on *everything* else besides science. If I was going to start penny-pinching, I'd look at the $97 billion dollars that's under "other". It's over 10 times as much money, and I bet you it's less than a tenth of the importance.
Of course, I'd be even more paranoid about that $170B marked "interest payments" - the US's fifth highest expenditure is the consumer equivalent of "not getting foreclosed". Even if the Republicans shut down the entire science funding system, that's less than 10% of your annual minimum payment, folks. If you want to get serious about getting your country out of hock, you need to look at the big items (social security, national defense, medicare, health). To go back to our household analogy, if your car payment is $170 a week, saving $7 by skipping lunch isn't going to make your ends meet.
Luckily, I'm Canadian and we already took our deficit pain. (Still paying off the debt, though.) Oh yeah, have they mentioned that to y'all yet? Even after you balance the budget, then you have to pay off all those decades of debt that you've racked up.
Who cares where we start as long as we start. Waste is waste isn't it?
Trick is, one person's "waste" is another person's "must have".
Probably easier to think of it on the local level - my taxes go to pay for things like libraries and swimming pools. I use the library a lot. The swimming pool on the other hand isn't my thing. Should I complain that my tax dollars are wasted on swimming pools? Or should we accept that in order to get everyone else to help pay for the things we want, we have to spend a little bit on things other people want?
According to Blockbuster.com they have a copy available at my local store.
My local library has fifteen copies of the 20th anniversary edition. I find it completely unsurprising that there's a 20+ long waiting list to get one right now.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll go one step further. I like the taste of meat, and don't feel any need to voluntarily lower my position on the food chain.
That said, we shouldn't make anything suffer more than is necessary. Although I'd argue we might want to worry about our own species (who can and do tell us what they need), rather than project onto other species.
I really wish we could turn the clock back on this one, and make copyreading mandatory, and lack of journalistic integrity (like copying without even looking at the source, never mind actually contacting sources) subject to internal justice.
Sadly, there's no money in it. (As in, you won't see enough increased revenue to cover the cost of your copy editors.)
Doesn't help that in order to try and be current, they're waiting until the last minute to put the stories in (removing any time to edit the piece in the first place).
As I see it, the daily newspaper is stuck between a rock and a hard place - they can't compete with online media (much less TV/radio) in the "current events" market, and the weekly/monthly periodicals can beat them on "reasoned and informed" (not to mention some online media as well). There's just not much market for "slightly stale news with little context added".
Devil's advocate: hospital then turns to the doctor and says "why did you perform surgery when you weren't competent to do it?"
Sadly, this is going to come down to needing doctors to say "I have been awake too long; I am no longer competent to do this operation, and it's no longer safe for me to do so."
(snipping some very good points that I agree with)
If we have enough doctors in the hospital, then we can talk about mandating short work hours.
This is catch-22, though. If all the work is being done, then by definition you have "enough workers". You're not going to bring on more doctors if everyone is accepting the current situation.
Teachers cheat by the way if your job is on the line with grades.
It's not cheating. Paying by the grade (or worse, firing by the grade) is a stupid plan either way you do it:
The funny thing is, it's fairly obvious to anyone with two eyes who the good teachers are. Walk in to your kid's class, and ask yourself two questions:
Not rocket surgery, folks. You knew who your good and bad teachers were when you were in school, right?
Can't say I've ever seen it used in my life that way. K=thousand, M=million, B=billion.
"Time and Attendance" at a guess. Like the punch cards that most civilised nations done away with decades ago, realising that workers who aren't micromanaged and monitored for every minute have higher productivity.
In some cases... I find that if you can't measure on results, then you're kinda stuck with "swipe-in/swipe-out". Doubly if the job is a public-facing one. (While your receptionist might feel "empowered" if he doesn't have to clock in/out, you might end up covering the desk when he empowers himself to take an extra hour lunch...)
Also, I know a few folks who became much *happier* when they got the swipe cards. Why? Because now there's proper documentation for all the overtime they're putting in!
Was a swiper, then was boss of swipers, and now is a result(er)
But it does mean that we have to accept that for many people, losing their license is not an inconvenience
Sounds to me like those particular people should take that fact into account, and put even more effort into not drinking while driving. Not giving them more of a break when caught doing so.
The guy with nothing to lose will be inconvenienced a lot less by a punishment than the guy with everything to lose. The punishment should not be changed to reflect that however. It should be taken into account by the person about to commit a crime and be even more reason not to commit it in the first place.
I'd rather see the suspension on "drinking alcohol", to be honest. Let's be honest: it's the Day After, you're charged with DUI, and your license is suspended. You can't get to work without a car. Do you (a) lose your job, lose your house, and end up on the street, or (b) drive while suspended?
I lost a dear friend to a drunk-driver. A relative got the crap beat out of him by a couple drunk guys once too - but a suspended license won't prevent that sort of thing.
All the more reason for Doctors Jones and Dave to be up on their rest, yes?
And now us doctors will have another reason to be afraid of lawsuits: "Your honor, evidence shows that the defendant was awake for 16 hours straight and did not inform the patient. Thus, he should be found guilty of malpractice!" Of course we shouldn't have tired doctors (nurses, technician, etc.) working and treating patients, but as long as the system demands it (because of shortage of staff [and money, of course]), you can't put the blame on doctors and open up another avenue for lawsuits.
And if the only doctor for this life-and-death surgery is on hour 16, I'll take tired-doctor over no-doctor.
But for electives? That strikes me as the perfect place for the medical community to take a stand and say "it's safer for you if I don't operate in this condition".
Sounds like a form of impairment testing, which is a pretty big win for everyone but has not been widely implemented. Employers who have used it found that it consistently reduced accidents, and employees like it since they don't have to pee in a cup--a demeaning and annoying procedure. It should also be cheaper for employers: even at a couple thousand bucks for the machine and software you used, the payoff in reduced accidents and mishaps along with not having to pay drug testing companies all the time means it'll pay for itself in a very short period of time.
It doesn't unfortunately seem like it's going to catch on anytime soon. Most companies haven't heard of it, and my guess is that most who have are waiting for it to gain a reputation before thinking about making the switch themselves.
I can guess at one really good reason (from the company perspective) that it isn't "catching on" - if you get busted for drugs or alcohol, I (as PHB) can fire you. If you fail a generic impairment test (because you were up with your kid all night), I can't let you drive, but I can't punish you either.
Net effect for The Company? They pay more (because they have to cover all the impaired shifts), and can't put the costs/blame on anyone (because you can't fire someone for staying up all night).
The average pay for a GP in the UK is over £100,000 per year (linked like that because I'm not sure if /. will mangle pound signs in links). I'm not saying that GPs should not get that amount, but that is around 5 times the median for the UK. £100,000 is about the _total_ income tax of 30 taxpayers on that median pay.
Sadly, the link doesn't say one or the other, but I'm wondering if that average is mean or median? (As in, are there really well paid doctors skewing the average).
Misplaced the link, but I remember reading about a similar effect in actors - the "average" acting wage is decent, except no-one actually makes that much; you either make way more or way less.
If that's too much to ask of people, they need to hire a fucking driver, walk/bike, take a taxi, or hop on a bus.
The flaw in that argument is that in Canada/US, there's a lot of jobs that just can't be reached except by driving. My workplace is in an industrial park outside of town. I would happily not drive if I could. There is no (not "minimal", not "inconvenient", *zero*) bus service there. There is no housing close enough to allow walking or biking (and if there was, you'd be doing it on major highways; a whole other safety issue). The cost to take a taxi daily back-and-forth would cost most of my income. And hiring a driver is a laughable idea.
Now, none of this excuses drunk-driving (and my job is in the transportation sector, where you *will* lose your job for this sort of thing). But it does mean that we have to accept that for many people, losing their license is not an inconvenience - it will quite likely lose you your job (for no reason other than "you can't get there") and make it very difficult to get another one.
You miss my point. If you make it socially unacceptable, you can cut the number of people doing it. Unfortunately I think some groups such as MADD can put off as many as they convince.
Couldn't possibly because they seem more interested in increasing convictions than reducing drunk driving... (as in, when the numbers go down, they'd rather make the laws stricter to increase convictions than celebrate the fact that they made an impact)
This brings up a point: what if you eat that overripe peach, in front of the cop, before taking the test? (Or, if you want to be slightly less "hit with a nightstick", make a point of telling the officer that you have recently partaken in fruit). Would this set you up for a proper defense?
In this case, you're just pulled over and and checked for no valid reason other than everyone is being checked.
Is now when we drag out the "If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about" line?
Heck, I'm wondering why they haven't followed this through to it's logical conclusion - pair up the cop with a judge, right in the squad car! Cop turns to his partner, says "I need to go in there", Judge scribbles out a warrant, bang bang!
The part I find most frightening about this concept is the assumption that the judge will just be rubber-stamping these warrants all night. Aren't these guys supposed to be more than clerks?
If they "heavily advertise" these enhanced checkstops as promised, I sincerely hope the ACLU or other lawyery types camp out to provide legal representation on-site. Barring that, I hope some enterprising youths put up helpful detour signs a couple blocks away. (Here, at least, it was found to be perfectly legal to put signs up warning about upcoming radar traps; the kids even took donations!)
I was under the impression that a refusal to take a breathalyzer in most states landed you in jail until your blood was drawn. That's how it is here in MN.
As I understand it, in Canada it's actually a crime to refuse to blow (and as I read up on it, you're required to provide blood as well). You'll beat the "over the limit" charge, but be convicted of "refusing to blow", which just happens to have the same penalties. (And apparently if they can prove the intoxication charge independently, you can get convicted of *both*)
I just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test. It's non-invasive and it's not like it's a cheek swap DNA test. But I bet that no drop of blood goes to waste once they draw that...
As I understand it, the main problems with the gadget are:
I agree with the idea (drunk driving Bad), but we've reached the point where you can quite reasonably be pointed at and automatically be guilty, because a machine says so.
I think the people that saw the original Tron at the time remember it as a much better movie than it really was.
Only partly true - I re-watched the original about a week before seeing Legacy, and... well, it's an 80s Disney live-action. It's pretty much what you'd expect plot-wise from that studio at that time. The acting is OK, but not amazing, although I think the blame rests more with lousy dialogue. The plot is standard adventure fare (guy gets lost at point A, must progress through set pieces B, C, D, and E to reach destination F; at the same time fighting villian X and his flunkies Y and Z). Swap the computers for Europe and the data for an Ark, and you've got Indiana Jones. Middle Earth + Ring = LotR. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The redeeming virtue isn't the plot, or the acting - it's the setting. And as someone above pointed out, there's a lot of newer, "better" movies that crib literally from the original. The opening "characters resolving into a cityscape" is almost a literal cribbing of Tron's opening sequence, for instance. (Substitute green characters for the original dots of light.)
In my own opinion, Tron has aged a lot better than other 80s media products (have you *tried* to watch an original A-Team?)
Ebert thumbed his up to three by liking the visuals, but he said several times in his short piece that the movie is essentially plotless.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with it. At it's heart, it's an adventure movie (guy ends up in strange place, has adventures A, B, C, and D on his way to point E). And in that context, it does a solid job. An Indiana Jones movie doesn't really have a lot more plot. Where Indy gets a leg up is that he can fight a Nazi and everyone fills in the details. Same with places - he's in Cairo? They don't have to tell us about the place - we just all remember Arabian Nights (or history class, if you paid attention there).
Tron doesn't get that luxury - everything is new and novel, and since the scenic details aren't really important to the plot, they don't kill time explaining (thank goodness). But that means you either have to just accept it as is, or do some reading afterwards.
I will forgive Tron a lot, for the simple fact that they got the "real world" computing parts right. (Give or take a few release dates). No "click on the magic link" crap.
Probably not much better, but I'll try...
As I understand it, they were intending to grab the beginning of each packet (the part that has the SSID, signal strength), which they would use to map where the hotspots are, so that when you're at the hotspot, Google can use the info to geolocate you.
The error was that their software was reading and storing too much of the packet, which meant they were getting some data that was being transmitted (instead of just the header). Most of the time it was just random chunks of data (kind of like getting words 532 - 538 out of a book), but sometimes it was user/password information, or an email address, or something else.
Important things to note here:
Of course, since they've mapped huge chunks of the world, statistically they end up with a lot of naughty details.
Personally, I take the greatest comfort in the fact that we first found out about this from Google itself. Not a third-party security researcher, not a hacker - Google came forward on it's own and said "crap, we didn't want this - sorry about that". That says a lot to me in terms of motive and corporate responsibility.
The cuts always seem to be "scheduled." When does that "schedule" happen? What does it mean when they say "the cuts are scheduled."?
It means that they're scheduled to take effect after they expect (a) to have moved on/defeated or (b) everyone will have forgotten it was their idea.
Heck, folks - you can cut your spending by $200B, completely cover your interest payments, and still be outspending China by 400%.
Why yes, I know what you mean. I know a couple poor people who refuse to give up their cable TV and all the options on the phone and internet because it's not that much money. And when you really look at it, they crank up the heat in the winter because every 3 degrees is only 5% of their heating bills right. I mean 5% doesn't make a different so why should they turn the furnace down to 69 or 72 degree.
Here is the problem you are looking past. A lot of little things add up to one big thing. So if you save 5% a month on a $100 bill, it's only what $60 a year? But if you do that for 10 different things, it's now $600 a year. So dismissing something because it's insignificant or small is pretty much why poor people tend to remain poor- even with ever increasing incomes.
This is a bit of a false analogy. Of course little things can add up. But it is a bit ingenuous to complain that they're not saving $60 a year by keeping the hit up three degrees when they're dropping $900 a year on the poolboy. If you're looking to save money, you should look at your big ticket items.
According to this page Google gave me, "general science" gets about 7.2 billion a year. Which sounds like a lot, except it's the smallest category. America spends more on *everything* else besides science. If I was going to start penny-pinching, I'd look at the $97 billion dollars that's under "other". It's over 10 times as much money, and I bet you it's less than a tenth of the importance.
Of course, I'd be even more paranoid about that $170B marked "interest payments" - the US's fifth highest expenditure is the consumer equivalent of "not getting foreclosed". Even if the Republicans shut down the entire science funding system, that's less than 10% of your annual minimum payment, folks. If you want to get serious about getting your country out of hock, you need to look at the big items (social security, national defense, medicare, health). To go back to our household analogy, if your car payment is $170 a week, saving $7 by skipping lunch isn't going to make your ends meet.
Luckily, I'm Canadian and we already took our deficit pain. (Still paying off the debt, though.) Oh yeah, have they mentioned that to y'all yet? Even after you balance the budget, then you have to pay off all those decades of debt that you've racked up.
Who cares where we start as long as we start. Waste is waste isn't it?
Trick is, one person's "waste" is another person's "must have".
Probably easier to think of it on the local level - my taxes go to pay for things like libraries and swimming pools. I use the library a lot. The swimming pool on the other hand isn't my thing. Should I complain that my tax dollars are wasted on swimming pools? Or should we accept that in order to get everyone else to help pay for the things we want, we have to spend a little bit on things other people want?
According to Blockbuster.com they have a copy available at my local store.
My local library has fifteen copies of the 20th anniversary edition. I find it completely unsurprising that there's a 20+ long waiting list to get one right now.