It must have taken them a while. A report from someone who was in the Heathrow airport at 6AM said the shops were still open, so I suppose they've since closed them. That said, my reply was actually about US airports, as the OP seemed to be referring to those in particular.
not at the gate. So I suspect you'll still be free to pay inflated airport prices for your food and water and bring that on. Along with toothpaste and the mass of other stuff they sell in airports behind the security barricaide these days. Good thing the people that work in airport vending areas are subject to thorough searches, along with all packaged products being delivered. Oh wait...
Actually, they "hate" (i.e. target) those that can afford to fly. Do you think the hype would fly that high if they targeted, say, Greyhound?
Travel by train these days is no cheaper than travel by air. And if you've ever taken the bus from coast to coast you'd probably agree that a little bit more to go by plane is well worth it, even if you have to save up a bit.
But, how many times are you going to make a similar 'mistakes'?
Rarely. In fact, this is the first time I've offered such advice outside the occasional rare conversation with a friend where there is ample opportunity to sort out the details more clearly.
For example - "how could suggesting someone invest conservatively be considered harmful?". Well, given that interest rates on many "conservative" investments are lower than the inflation rate (which is horribly understated by a government which needs to keep the posted CPI down to 1) protect the dollar, and 2) save it billions in COLA), that advice means the OP's investment erodes over time.
Yes, I'd intentionally hinted at this in my original post with "investing with borrowed money is only advisable if your return will be higher than the interest you owe on the loan," but decided it might be overkill to provide more detail. Personally, I do think plain old savings accounts and such are a waste of time insofar as their appreciation is concerned, but as they can be useful for avoiding accidental spending of "savings" dollars (and for encouraging a more proactive approach to living) I wouldn't advise against them.
To me, that's harmful. Sure, you should always have a cash component in your portfolio (and mine was as high as 60% in 1999), but you need growth components to combat inflation.
I think the interpretation of "harmful" is largely a matter of semantics insofar as this particular situation is concerned. If the alternative is having no savings at all and perhaps even running up debt then I don't see it as a bad thing. As for the cash issue, sure. Though in my experience "cash" is somewhat of a general term as well.
Plus we really need to understand the OP's situation - when does he want to retire, is he married, does he own or rent a home, etc., etc.
Personally, the best advice I ever got back when I began my career was to always allocate the maximum allowabe percentage to whatever 401(k) the company offered. That the money never even passes through my hands is a great encouragement for savings, and the pre-tax aspect is a great perk. It seemed really weird at the time to be planning that far into the future, but I'll admit it beats the idea of praying Social Security still exists when I'm ready to retire. That said, there's no guarantee that a poorly allocated 401(k) will make much money at all (not to mention the past mess concerning shady retirement plans and such). So as you say, it's always better to spend a bit of money now to protect the rest of it then to think you know what you're doing and end up with nothing later on.
Well, you qualify as a complete moron, and so insults are warranted.
No offense, but for someone in a service profession you seem to lack people skills. And how could suggesting someone invest conservatively be considered harmful? I do hope that you keep such sweeping and inaccurate generalizations out of your professional advice. Or perhaps that particular sweeping statement is a special case intended to foster job security? That aside, the term I had meant was "mutual fund" and "money market fund" came out instead. It's an honest mistake (as money market funds are a class of mutual funds), and one I have already apologized for. But I won't withdraw my advice, because I do feel it's useful--investing without consideration for external factors is a bad idea. After all, many people invest in real estate these days because it's seen as a "safe" investment as well. A financial advisor may say otherwise, but how many people truly consult a financial advisor before throwing their money at something? After all, good financial advice costs money.
There's plenty of loan money to go around. If a bank is convinced you'll be able to pay it back, they'll lend you money. If they don't have the money to lend you, they borrow it from the central bank, then turn around and lend it to you. Also, banks are allowed to loan out money they don't actually have (to a limit - I'm not up on financial law, I can't give you hard numbers). What I'm saying is, there is more than enough loan money available to easily loan money to anyone and everyone who wants it and is able to pay it back.
Yup. After I submitted my post I realized I was thinking of scholarship money, not loan money. Loan dollars are indeed effectively limitless, as the asset-backed security cycle can magnify the value of a dollar substantially. It's no wonder everyone and their brother is issuing credit cards these days, as it's practically free money for the issuer.
Please don't give people financial advice until you learn something. Money market funds do NOT invest in stocks. They invest in various short term financial loans (T-bills, commercial paper, etc.). They NEVER go down in value - they are usually priced on a par value of $10/unit, and you get your $10/unit back (unless there's been a complete financial meltdown), plus whatever interest has accrued. That interest is usually paid monthly, and usually (if you select the DRIP option) starts compounding for you.
Please don't offer feedback until you can avoid being insulting. I suppose I misspoke, as by money market funds I meant those offered by investment firms--Fidelity's Magellan fund being the first one that comes to mind--as these can span any investment type. And if you think such funds can't decrease in value, then please query the historic price of FMAGX (Fidelity's Magellan).
Probably create a market for ways to verify that a video stream is in its original state, along with the obvious hacker response. The authenticity of the footage will have to be proven to a reasonable degree of certainty, and the opposing team of lawyers will do their best to discredit this claim. Video could also be made more difficult to fake simply by increasing the overlap of surveillance points, perhaps combined with high-resolution positional audio (from which voice prints could possibly be verified), etc.
If it hasn't happened already, I think the network security, data archival, and location security services will eventually merge, and that most companies will let such a firm handle everything. In such a situation, the chance that data could be faked is essentially nil.
A money-market fund at a major brokerage (keep in mind that these are not FDIC-insured)
Also keep in mind that money market funds can go down. Say you buy one that represents a selection of normally reliable stocks and then the stock market declines as a whole (like it has been recently). Money market funds are generally a good choice, but you still have to consider overall market behavior if you aren't interested in long-term investing.
Six-month Treasury bills or a two-year Treasury note.
Threasury bonds are generally the way to go. They have a set amount of interest (which is typically higher than you'll get from a savings account or CD), and price fluctuations are so small as to be insignificant for the average investor. Because of how yields are figured they're generally a better buy when you think interest rates will be declining, but for normal investing this doesn't matter too much.
Pay back the loan
Definately. Investing with borrowed money is only advisable if your return will be higher than the interest you owe on the loan. For student loans that probably going to be the case, but it's worth keeping in mind. Carrying debt that can be paid off is rarely a good idea.
Finally: have you thought about the ethics of using your student loans in this way? Were the loans given to you in order to help you pay for your expenses as a student? Do you think it's okay to ask someone to loan you money for one thing and then use that money for something else?
Not to mention the fact that it screws other students who actually need the money, because that money supply isn't infinite.
The New York Daily News reported that the scheme was to blow up the Holland Tunnel, the most southern road link between Manhattan and New Jersey, with the aim of causing a torrent of water to shoot out and flood New York's financial district.
The problem with this statement is:
* The Holland Tunnel surfaces in Manhattan near Canal Street, which is still a good ways North of the financial district. Even a "torrent of water" wouldn't make it that far.
* Manhattan sits above sea level, and given the laws of Physics, I don't think such a torrent would escape the tunnel in the first place.
* Any terrorist attack via water outside of blowing a large dam sitting above a flood zone isn't going to cause much fuss as water disperses rather quickly with adequate drainage.
That said, if it were possible to make the Holland Tunnel non-drivable for any length of time it would have a large impact on business in Manhattan simply because most workers are commuters and most products are delivered by truck (Manhattan is an island). On the other hand, there are two tunnels between NJ and Manhattan (the Holland and Lincoln tunnels) very close to one another, so taking out one would just double the traffic at the other. This would cause irritating and large delays, but it wouldn't be cripping. Finally, the George Washington Bridge would still be available for delivery trucks and the deteremined financial sector commuter, though if both tunnels were crippled I would expect more commuting to occur via the rail system, PATH system (subway from NJ to Manhattan), and ferries instead. Prices in the city would skyrocket because of the difficulty in transporting goods into the city, but it wouldn't stop business.
then either your engineers stink or you've put them in an impossible situation. A good engineer will rarely miss an estimate made with sufficient information unless you're pressuring them to commit to an unrealistic timeframe, asking them to develop something for which they had no input or control at the design phase, or you keep surprising them with other work that has a higher priority than their project work. As for sufficient information--if the engineer doesn't know enough to make an accurate estimate it is his responsibility to say so, and if you ignore that then it's not his problem when he misses a date. A relevant article here is Joel's piece on "The Development Abstraction Layer": http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Development Abstraction.html
For instance, what are the odds of getting killed in your car opposed to being killed by "terrorists"? And why the discrepancy in response, other than stupidity on the part of the manipulated and cold calculated fear manipulation by those who will get infintite power and endless wealth making people "safe" from nearly nonexistent threats.
Blame. If you crash your car it's difficult to point your finger at the government and claim they're reponsible... that "someone should have done something." But if you were hit by a drunk driver you can blame the person who served him alcohol--no matter that the driver was the idiot who got behind the wheel intoxicated. And if you're harmed by a terrorist (ie. someone with a vaguely political agenda) well then the government is completely responsible for his existence and for not protecting you from him! The US stayed in Vietnam for years longer than it should have simply because we were unable to admit we were wrong. Policy changes are unheard of, even if a new strategy is proven to be better. After all, to change policy would shake the public's confidence in its leaders. And besides, a public that lives in fear with agree to anything if they think it will protect them. If there was any doubt of that it was shattered by Nazi Germany... not to mention Stalinist Russia (though Stalin didn't write a book about it first like Hitler did).
We live in an age where the pen is truly mightier than the sword, an age where publicity is all important. The Gulf War was sold to the public as a "clean and moral" war. A war where we could drop smart bombs from magical airplanes high in the stratosphere and those bombs would destroy weapons factories with no collateal damage, no mistakes, and no loss of human life. And the public bought it hook line and missile video camera footage. Or at least they did until the media began running stories about the bad intelligence we received and occasional hospital we blew up by accident.
The War on Terror is a propoganda war in the truest sense of the word, and the goal was multifaceted: revitalize the US economy, secure a new military location in the middle east, and hopefully secure a reliable source of oil to boot. The plan sort of worked even though the war itself was horribly botched. And because the US claimed to be acting against "terrorism" (ie. Arabs, not to be confused with the prior definition of 'terrorist' above) the public will never know if no futher disasters have occurred because of something the government did or simply because there was no danger.
If the public were interested in addressing the true dangers to human health we'd be spending more on cancer research and addressing automobile safety. If we were interested in protecting our children we'd talk to them every so often instead of treating them like fragile possessions. And if we were interested in actually changing things we'd take responsibility for our actions. But it's much easier to pass blame, and people are lazy.
I've never had such experienced. They are pricks to you by default.
It isn't wise to dispute a blanket statement by making another blanket statement. Sure, the job does tend to attract people who want power over others, and the demand for police (it's a dangerous job with terrible pay) will likely keep the barrier for entry fairly low. However, I've met just as many policemen who took the job for far more noble or practical reasons. The truth is that any encounter with a policeman is a roll of the dice, and given the potential result of any such encounter, many people choose to avoid them. This is obviously particularly true of those from backgrounds where police experiences are typically bad: racial minorities, low income individuals, etc.
What likely happened here is as you'd expect. Some idiot police harrassed the defendant and when they discovered there was a tape of their behavior (most people ignore security stickers and such unless they're looking for that sort of thing) they decided the best course of action was to lean on the guy in hopes that he'd either be cowed into not reporting them or that they'd luck out and get the original tape as "evidence" in the short time before their case was thrown out as baseless.
A friend's father found himself in a similar situation a few years back. He was riding his bicycle through a park in a fairly nasty city and a policecar sped by and clipped him, knocking him off his bike, injuring him, and wrecking the bike. The bicyclist got up and made a rude gesture as the police car sped off and the police car stopped, returned, and the policeman arrested the bicyclist for "obstructing justice." The case was thrown out shortly afterwords, but as far as I know the policeman was never brought up on charges of a hit & run or anything like that.
Only if the guards haven't seen you. Once they do, I believe the headshot kill feature is disabled, similar to how blackjacking a guard on alert doesn't work. I suppose it's worth mentioning that the point of the weapon system in Thief was to reinforce the intended form of gameplay, that being combat avoidance. If you could run & gun through the mission then Thief would just be another FPS.
I haven't seen any philosophical discussion in any of my theoretical computer science courses besides some simple logic. Is it the same elsewhere?
Yes.
How often do philosophical concerns play into Computer Science education as a whole?
Very rarely.
What role does (or could) philosophy have in Computer Science or Information Technology?
Huge. Aside from logic and mathematics, compiler design is built directly on language theory defined by Chomsky and his contemporaries, artifical intelligence research is built directly on theory of mind, linguistics, etc, and so on. However, the role of Philosophy is almost completely overlooked in computing circles and, in my experience, is traditionally regarded as useless pseudo-intellectual garbage. But then most of the people I've talked to who feel that way aren't folks I would consider Computer Scientists--a term I reserve for folks like Donald Knuth. However, nearly all university level CS professors I've met also don't realize the connection between Phisolophy and Computer Science, probably because Philosophy is typically categorized as one of the arts these days and so very few actually have any direct exposure to the field.
When Valve announced Steam I'll admit I was skeptical it would be a success, but it certainly has been. The thing is, while development costs of games are undoubtedly skyrocketing with the ever increasing focus on high-end graphics and audio, new distribution avenues are coming available that are, for the first time ever, a potentially viable alternative to obtaining shelf space at K-Mart. Online distribution alone may not yet result in enough revenue to pay for the development of a modern title, but it might be sufficient for a quirky indie game developed on a smaller budget. Heck, Serious Sam was developed for next to nothing and turned out to be a resounding success despite somewhat shoddy graphics, poor audio, and limited distribution. I agree that indie developers are taking a huge risk by attempting to compete with established game developers, but that's not the same as saying they're doomed to failure. It also helps that, like Hollywood, large game developers are now ruled by misguided market research that absolutely prohibits innovation as an unnaceptable risk. Just as Hollywood is seeing the end of the blockbuster era, so too will the game companies eventually realize that gamers aren't all mindless drones intent on buying every new rehash of a tired old idea just because it's made so So And So or because it has a well-rendered half-naked girl as the main character.
Biometrics is "something you are" not "something you have." A chip, even embedded under the skin, qualifies as "something you have." It being embedded under the skin just makes it more difficult to lose.
It sounds nice, but there's still the required purchase of Mac hardware to deal with. This may not be a big deal for the fellow who simply buys a new PC every few years and discards the old one, but it is for the more hardware-oriented (or poor) folks who either upgrade piecemeal or insist on a specific hardware configuration. I may not be Apple's target market, but I've owned a PC since 1989 and have *never* purchased a pre-built system. And while I'd absolutely love to switch to OS X, I won't do so until it runs on arbitrary hardware... or perhaps years from now when enough changes that I have to replace my entire system to upgrade.
Besides that... while I think OS X is a great OS, it's all about the applications. I felt similarly about OS/2 years ago and finally decided there was simply no point in using an OS as a glorified task-switcher between emulated application sessions. Now, the last great barrier for me is games, and that's an area in which OS X has yet gained little traction. Hopefully that will change now that they're on x86, but I suppose we'll see. By the way, I don't consider dual booting an option. I've done it in the past and it's far too annoying the day to day use. Virtualization may be preferable, but that will require a ton of RAM to be feasible, even with CPU support.
Telecom and cellular providers periodically offer competitive rates to support some ad campaign or other. These rates are rarely advertised--by phone you oftne have to ask about them specifically--but they must exist during the campaign so the company can't be accused of lying. The thing is, these deals are far better than the usual fare, and many are not time-limited. Over the years, I've gotten a wireless plan with more than twice the minutes of my provider's current offering for the same price, unlimited mobile to mobile (which isn't even offered any more), etc. Sure, this requires an occasional glance at your provider's website and in some cases renewing your contract, but if you don't plan to switch providers regularly it's definately worth it.
I really must wonder how such an arms race can be profitable for Skype. After all, what technology are they trying to secure? Unless they've hidden features in the application that they are't telling customers about, Skype merely performs p2p voice messaging. Who cares if people are able to hack it? Is this an attempt to protect IP from competitors?
back in the days of yore there was an "Orcs & Humans" minigame insert meant for tabletop play. Warcraft is an exact implementation of this game, so I suspect that the tabletop game's creators work at Blizzard, though some quick googling turned up nothing on the magazine insert I remember. Perhaps a bigger geek than I knows what I'm referring to?
D has been featured here on slashdot a numberof timesbefore. And for anyone who hasn't checked in a while, D has made tremendous progress since it was last reviewed. I think that anyone with use for a systems programming language would do well to look into it.
Q. Why not just let casual players get rewards comparable to those from raids?
A. It would be almost impossible for us to do, and this is a philosophical decision. We need to put a structure in place for players where they feel that if they do more difficult encounters, they'll get rewarded for it.
Sadly, the above quote indicates that difficulty in the mind of WoW designers has nothing to do with player skill so much as the ability to follow a narrowly predetermined script for N hours. The sad truth is that it's really fairly simple to macro instance runs down to putting your character on "follow" mode and taping down the macro hotkey. This simply isn't the case for 5-man content as it requires a wider set of skills and the ability to adapt, since the loss of even one person can be disastrous. Now, even 5-man dungeons in WoW aren't really difficult as they too have a predetermined script to follow, but the more granular party makeup at least makes it less likely that this can be accomplished by some well-written macro code. I've long since given up on WoW's item acquisition fetish bent for Guild Wars, in which the best items in the game can typically be bought in town. In practice, this seems to refocus the game on player skill and cooperation, and "winning" the game simply can't be achieved through perseverance.
I'm pretty sure that isn't it. This was a project that had been going for a while and the involved parties weren't able to continue development. Thus it was left unfinished, last I heard. But then I haven't been on the Boost list for a few years now.
Slashdot Mirror
It must have taken them a while. A report from someone who was in the Heathrow airport at 6AM said the shops were still open, so I suppose they've since closed them. That said, my reply was actually about US airports, as the OP seemed to be referring to those in particular.
not at the gate. So I suspect you'll still be free to pay inflated airport prices for your food and water and bring that on. Along with toothpaste and the mass of other stuff they sell in airports behind the security barricaide these days. Good thing the people that work in airport vending areas are subject to thorough searches, along with all packaged products being delivered. Oh wait...
Actually, they "hate" (i.e. target) those that can afford to fly. Do you think the hype would fly that high if they targeted, say, Greyhound?
Travel by train these days is no cheaper than travel by air. And if you've ever taken the bus from coast to coast you'd probably agree that a little bit more to go by plane is well worth it, even if you have to save up a bit.
But, how many times are you going to make a similar 'mistakes'?
Rarely. In fact, this is the first time I've offered such advice outside the occasional rare conversation with a friend where there is ample opportunity to sort out the details more clearly.
For example - "how could suggesting someone invest conservatively be considered harmful?". Well, given that interest rates on many "conservative" investments are lower than the inflation rate (which is horribly understated by a government which needs to keep the posted CPI down to 1) protect the dollar, and 2) save it billions in COLA), that advice means the OP's investment erodes over time.
Yes, I'd intentionally hinted at this in my original post with "investing with borrowed money is only advisable if your return will be higher than the interest you owe on the loan," but decided it might be overkill to provide more detail. Personally, I do think plain old savings accounts and such are a waste of time insofar as their appreciation is concerned, but as they can be useful for avoiding accidental spending of "savings" dollars (and for encouraging a more proactive approach to living) I wouldn't advise against them.
To me, that's harmful. Sure, you should always have a cash component in your portfolio (and mine was as high as 60% in 1999), but you need growth components to combat inflation.
I think the interpretation of "harmful" is largely a matter of semantics insofar as this particular situation is concerned. If the alternative is having no savings at all and perhaps even running up debt then I don't see it as a bad thing. As for the cash issue, sure. Though in my experience "cash" is somewhat of a general term as well.
Plus we really need to understand the OP's situation - when does he want to retire, is he married, does he own or rent a home, etc., etc.
Personally, the best advice I ever got back when I began my career was to always allocate the maximum allowabe percentage to whatever 401(k) the company offered. That the money never even passes through my hands is a great encouragement for savings, and the pre-tax aspect is a great perk. It seemed really weird at the time to be planning that far into the future, but I'll admit it beats the idea of praying Social Security still exists when I'm ready to retire. That said, there's no guarantee that a poorly allocated 401(k) will make much money at all (not to mention the past mess concerning shady retirement plans and such). So as you say, it's always better to spend a bit of money now to protect the rest of it then to think you know what you're doing and end up with nothing later on.
Well, you qualify as a complete moron, and so insults are warranted.
No offense, but for someone in a service profession you seem to lack people skills. And how could suggesting someone invest conservatively be considered harmful? I do hope that you keep such sweeping and inaccurate generalizations out of your professional advice. Or perhaps that particular sweeping statement is a special case intended to foster job security? That aside, the term I had meant was "mutual fund" and "money market fund" came out instead. It's an honest mistake (as money market funds are a class of mutual funds), and one I have already apologized for. But I won't withdraw my advice, because I do feel it's useful--investing without consideration for external factors is a bad idea. After all, many people invest in real estate these days because it's seen as a "safe" investment as well. A financial advisor may say otherwise, but how many people truly consult a financial advisor before throwing their money at something? After all, good financial advice costs money.
There's plenty of loan money to go around. If a bank is convinced you'll be able to pay it back, they'll lend you money. If they don't have the money to lend you, they borrow it from the central bank, then turn around and lend it to you. Also, banks are allowed to loan out money they don't actually have (to a limit - I'm not up on financial law, I can't give you hard numbers). What I'm saying is, there is more than enough loan money available to easily loan money to anyone and everyone who wants it and is able to pay it back.
Yup. After I submitted my post I realized I was thinking of scholarship money, not loan money. Loan dollars are indeed effectively limitless, as the asset-backed security cycle can magnify the value of a dollar substantially. It's no wonder everyone and their brother is issuing credit cards these days, as it's practically free money for the issuer.
Please don't give people financial advice until you learn something. Money market funds do NOT invest in stocks. They invest in various short term financial loans (T-bills, commercial paper, etc.). They NEVER go down in value - they are usually priced on a par value of $10/unit, and you get your $10/unit back (unless there's been a complete financial meltdown), plus whatever interest has accrued. That interest is usually paid monthly, and usually (if you select the DRIP option) starts compounding for you.
Please don't offer feedback until you can avoid being insulting. I suppose I misspoke, as by money market funds I meant those offered by investment firms--Fidelity's Magellan fund being the first one that comes to mind--as these can span any investment type. And if you think such funds can't decrease in value, then please query the historic price of FMAGX (Fidelity's Magellan).
Probably create a market for ways to verify that a video stream is in its original state, along with the obvious hacker response. The authenticity of the footage will have to be proven to a reasonable degree of certainty, and the opposing team of lawyers will do their best to discredit this claim. Video could also be made more difficult to fake simply by increasing the overlap of surveillance points, perhaps combined with high-resolution positional audio (from which voice prints could possibly be verified), etc.
If it hasn't happened already, I think the network security, data archival, and location security services will eventually merge, and that most companies will let such a firm handle everything. In such a situation, the chance that data could be faked is essentially nil.
A money-market fund at a major brokerage (keep in mind that these are not FDIC-insured)
Also keep in mind that money market funds can go down. Say you buy one that represents a selection of normally reliable stocks and then the stock market declines as a whole (like it has been recently). Money market funds are generally a good choice, but you still have to consider overall market behavior if you aren't interested in long-term investing.
Six-month Treasury bills or a two-year Treasury note.
Threasury bonds are generally the way to go. They have a set amount of interest (which is typically higher than you'll get from a savings account or CD), and price fluctuations are so small as to be insignificant for the average investor. Because of how yields are figured they're generally a better buy when you think interest rates will be declining, but for normal investing this doesn't matter too much.
Pay back the loan
Definately. Investing with borrowed money is only advisable if your return will be higher than the interest you owe on the loan. For student loans that probably going to be the case, but it's worth keeping in mind. Carrying debt that can be paid off is rarely a good idea.
Finally: have you thought about the ethics of using your student loans in this way? Were the loans given to you in order to help you pay for your expenses as a student? Do you think it's okay to ask someone to loan you money for one thing and then use that money for something else?
Not to mention the fact that it screws other students who actually need the money, because that money supply isn't infinite.
The New York Daily News reported that the scheme was to blow up the Holland Tunnel, the most southern road link between Manhattan and New Jersey, with the aim of causing a torrent of water to shoot out and flood New York's financial district.
The problem with this statement is:
* The Holland Tunnel surfaces in Manhattan near Canal Street, which is still a good ways North of the financial district. Even a "torrent of water" wouldn't make it that far.
* Manhattan sits above sea level, and given the laws of Physics, I don't think such a torrent would escape the tunnel in the first place.
* Any terrorist attack via water outside of blowing a large dam sitting above a flood zone isn't going to cause much fuss as water disperses rather quickly with adequate drainage.
That said, if it were possible to make the Holland Tunnel non-drivable for any length of time it would have a large impact on business in Manhattan simply because most workers are commuters and most products are delivered by truck (Manhattan is an island). On the other hand, there are two tunnels between NJ and Manhattan (the Holland and Lincoln tunnels) very close to one another, so taking out one would just double the traffic at the other. This would cause irritating and large delays, but it wouldn't be cripping. Finally, the George Washington Bridge would still be available for delivery trucks and the deteremined financial sector commuter, though if both tunnels were crippled I would expect more commuting to occur via the rail system, PATH system (subway from NJ to Manhattan), and ferries instead. Prices in the city would skyrocket because of the difficulty in transporting goods into the city, but it wouldn't stop business.
then either your engineers stink or you've put them in an impossible situation. A good engineer will rarely miss an estimate made with sufficient information unless you're pressuring them to commit to an unrealistic timeframe, asking them to develop something for which they had no input or control at the design phase, or you keep surprising them with other work that has a higher priority than their project work. As for sufficient information--if the engineer doesn't know enough to make an accurate estimate it is his responsibility to say so, and if you ignore that then it's not his problem when he misses a date. A relevant article here is Joel's piece on "The Development Abstraction Layer": http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Development Abstraction.html
For instance, what are the odds of getting killed in your car opposed to being killed by "terrorists"? And why the discrepancy in response, other than stupidity on the part of the manipulated and cold calculated fear manipulation by those who will get infintite power and endless wealth making people "safe" from nearly nonexistent threats.
Blame. If you crash your car it's difficult to point your finger at the government and claim they're reponsible... that "someone should have done something." But if you were hit by a drunk driver you can blame the person who served him alcohol--no matter that the driver was the idiot who got behind the wheel intoxicated. And if you're harmed by a terrorist (ie. someone with a vaguely political agenda) well then the government is completely responsible for his existence and for not protecting you from him! The US stayed in Vietnam for years longer than it should have simply because we were unable to admit we were wrong. Policy changes are unheard of, even if a new strategy is proven to be better. After all, to change policy would shake the public's confidence in its leaders. And besides, a public that lives in fear with agree to anything if they think it will protect them. If there was any doubt of that it was shattered by Nazi Germany... not to mention Stalinist Russia (though Stalin didn't write a book about it first like Hitler did).
We live in an age where the pen is truly mightier than the sword, an age where publicity is all important. The Gulf War was sold to the public as a "clean and moral" war. A war where we could drop smart bombs from magical airplanes high in the stratosphere and those bombs would destroy weapons factories with no collateal damage, no mistakes, and no loss of human life. And the public bought it hook line and missile video camera footage. Or at least they did until the media began running stories about the bad intelligence we received and occasional hospital we blew up by accident.
The War on Terror is a propoganda war in the truest sense of the word, and the goal was multifaceted: revitalize the US economy, secure a new military location in the middle east, and hopefully secure a reliable source of oil to boot. The plan sort of worked even though the war itself was horribly botched. And because the US claimed to be acting against "terrorism" (ie. Arabs, not to be confused with the prior definition of 'terrorist' above) the public will never know if no futher disasters have occurred because of something the government did or simply because there was no danger.
If the public were interested in addressing the true dangers to human health we'd be spending more on cancer research and addressing automobile safety. If we were interested in protecting our children we'd talk to them every so often instead of treating them like fragile possessions. And if we were interested in actually changing things we'd take responsibility for our actions. But it's much easier to pass blame, and people are lazy.
I've never had such experienced. They are pricks to you by default.
It isn't wise to dispute a blanket statement by making another blanket statement. Sure, the job does tend to attract people who want power over others, and the demand for police (it's a dangerous job with terrible pay) will likely keep the barrier for entry fairly low. However, I've met just as many policemen who took the job for far more noble or practical reasons. The truth is that any encounter with a policeman is a roll of the dice, and given the potential result of any such encounter, many people choose to avoid them. This is obviously particularly true of those from backgrounds where police experiences are typically bad: racial minorities, low income individuals, etc.
What likely happened here is as you'd expect. Some idiot police harrassed the defendant and when they discovered there was a tape of their behavior (most people ignore security stickers and such unless they're looking for that sort of thing) they decided the best course of action was to lean on the guy in hopes that he'd either be cowed into not reporting them or that they'd luck out and get the original tape as "evidence" in the short time before their case was thrown out as baseless.
A friend's father found himself in a similar situation a few years back. He was riding his bicycle through a park in a fairly nasty city and a policecar sped by and clipped him, knocking him off his bike, injuring him, and wrecking the bike. The bicyclist got up and made a rude gesture as the police car sped off and the police car stopped, returned, and the policeman arrested the bicyclist for "obstructing justice." The case was thrown out shortly afterwords, but as far as I know the policeman was never brought up on charges of a hit & run or anything like that.
Only if the guards haven't seen you. Once they do, I believe the headshot kill feature is disabled, similar to how blackjacking a guard on alert doesn't work. I suppose it's worth mentioning that the point of the weapon system in Thief was to reinforce the intended form of gameplay, that being combat avoidance. If you could run & gun through the mission then Thief would just be another FPS.
Nice to know that the distribution medium with essentially no production or distribution costs screws the artist in favor of the distributor.
I haven't seen any philosophical discussion in any of my theoretical computer science courses besides some simple logic. Is it the same elsewhere?
Yes.
How often do philosophical concerns play into Computer Science education as a whole?
Very rarely.
What role does (or could) philosophy have in Computer Science or Information Technology?
Huge. Aside from logic and mathematics, compiler design is built directly on language theory defined by Chomsky and his contemporaries, artifical intelligence research is built directly on theory of mind, linguistics, etc, and so on. However, the role of Philosophy is almost completely overlooked in computing circles and, in my experience, is traditionally regarded as useless pseudo-intellectual garbage. But then most of the people I've talked to who feel that way aren't folks I would consider Computer Scientists--a term I reserve for folks like Donald Knuth. However, nearly all university level CS professors I've met also don't realize the connection between Phisolophy and Computer Science, probably because Philosophy is typically categorized as one of the arts these days and so very few actually have any direct exposure to the field.
When Valve announced Steam I'll admit I was skeptical it would be a success, but it certainly has been. The thing is, while development costs of games are undoubtedly skyrocketing with the ever increasing focus on high-end graphics and audio, new distribution avenues are coming available that are, for the first time ever, a potentially viable alternative to obtaining shelf space at K-Mart. Online distribution alone may not yet result in enough revenue to pay for the development of a modern title, but it might be sufficient for a quirky indie game developed on a smaller budget. Heck, Serious Sam was developed for next to nothing and turned out to be a resounding success despite somewhat shoddy graphics, poor audio, and limited distribution. I agree that indie developers are taking a huge risk by attempting to compete with established game developers, but that's not the same as saying they're doomed to failure. It also helps that, like Hollywood, large game developers are now ruled by misguided market research that absolutely prohibits innovation as an unnaceptable risk. Just as Hollywood is seeing the end of the blockbuster era, so too will the game companies eventually realize that gamers aren't all mindless drones intent on buying every new rehash of a tired old idea just because it's made so So And So or because it has a well-rendered half-naked girl as the main character.
Biometrics is "something you are" not "something you have." A chip, even embedded under the skin, qualifies as "something you have." It being embedded under the skin just makes it more difficult to lose.
It sounds nice, but there's still the required purchase of Mac hardware to deal with. This may not be a big deal for the fellow who simply buys a new PC every few years and discards the old one, but it is for the more hardware-oriented (or poor) folks who either upgrade piecemeal or insist on a specific hardware configuration. I may not be Apple's target market, but I've owned a PC since 1989 and have *never* purchased a pre-built system. And while I'd absolutely love to switch to OS X, I won't do so until it runs on arbitrary hardware... or perhaps years from now when enough changes that I have to replace my entire system to upgrade.
Besides that... while I think OS X is a great OS, it's all about the applications. I felt similarly about OS/2 years ago and finally decided there was simply no point in using an OS as a glorified task-switcher between emulated application sessions. Now, the last great barrier for me is games, and that's an area in which OS X has yet gained little traction. Hopefully that will change now that they're on x86, but I suppose we'll see. By the way, I don't consider dual booting an option. I've done it in the past and it's far too annoying the day to day use. Virtualization may be preferable, but that will require a ton of RAM to be feasible, even with CPU support.
Telecom and cellular providers periodically offer competitive rates to support some ad campaign or other. These rates are rarely advertised--by phone you oftne have to ask about them specifically--but they must exist during the campaign so the company can't be accused of lying. The thing is, these deals are far better than the usual fare, and many are not time-limited. Over the years, I've gotten a wireless plan with more than twice the minutes of my provider's current offering for the same price, unlimited mobile to mobile (which isn't even offered any more), etc. Sure, this requires an occasional glance at your provider's website and in some cases renewing your contract, but if you don't plan to switch providers regularly it's definately worth it.
I really must wonder how such an arms race can be profitable for Skype. After all, what technology are they trying to secure? Unless they've hidden features in the application that they are't telling customers about, Skype merely performs p2p voice messaging. Who cares if people are able to hack it? Is this an attempt to protect IP from competitors?
back in the days of yore there was an "Orcs & Humans" minigame insert meant for tabletop play. Warcraft is an exact implementation of this game, so I suspect that the tabletop game's creators work at Blizzard, though some quick googling turned up nothing on the magazine insert I remember. Perhaps a bigger geek than I knows what I'm referring to?
D has been featured here on slashdot a number of times before. And for anyone who hasn't checked in a while, D has made tremendous progress since it was last reviewed. I think that anyone with use for a systems programming language would do well to look into it.
Q. Why not just let casual players get rewards comparable to those from raids?
A. It would be almost impossible for us to do, and this is a philosophical decision. We need to put a structure in place for players where they feel that if they do more difficult encounters, they'll get rewarded for it.
Sadly, the above quote indicates that difficulty in the mind of WoW designers has nothing to do with player skill so much as the ability to follow a narrowly predetermined script for N hours. The sad truth is that it's really fairly simple to macro instance runs down to putting your character on "follow" mode and taping down the macro hotkey. This simply isn't the case for 5-man content as it requires a wider set of skills and the ability to adapt, since the loss of even one person can be disastrous. Now, even 5-man dungeons in WoW aren't really difficult as they too have a predetermined script to follow, but the more granular party makeup at least makes it less likely that this can be accomplished by some well-written macro code. I've long since given up on WoW's item acquisition fetish bent for Guild Wars, in which the best items in the game can typically be bought in town. In practice, this seems to refocus the game on player skill and cooperation, and "winning" the game simply can't be achieved through perseverance.
I'm pretty sure that isn't it. This was a project that had been going for a while and the involved parties weren't able to continue development. Thus it was left unfinished, last I heard. But then I haven't been on the Boost list for a few years now.