I posted about the amazing Singapore Changi airport a while back. Well, last week, a friend and I were talking, and we ended up chatting about some of the horrifying airport that we have flown into. The old Hong Kong Kai Tak airport came up right away. Imagine hills and high rise being either along your approach or your take-off, and you get the idea.
In fact, to give you some more visualization of how horrifying the airport approach is, you should look at this video.
I've flown into Kai Tak a couple of times, and it is disconcerting to see people's faces in their buildings looking at your eye level as you're about to land! I'm glad that airport is now gone!
Zz.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Goodbye, Sears Tower!
Today is the first official day of the significant name change tot he tallest building in North America - the Sears Tower. It will now be called...... wait for it .... Willis Tower.
I know many Chicagoans will resist the name change, some even dislike it. Still, the city has had several building undergoing such name change (Standard Oil building to Amaco building to... er.... what is it now?). It will probably take a generation or so for the name to stick, and by then, who knows, Willis might be gone!
So for now, as a stubborn Chicagoan, I'll still call it the Sears Tower. Or, I may change my mind and just call it the "Big Willie".
Zz.
Willis Tower will be introduced to Chicago by Mayor Richard M. Daley and others on Thursday during a public renaming ceremony hosted by Willis Group Holdings. The London-based insurance brokerage secured the naming rights as part an agreement to lease 140,000 square feet of space, and has said it plans to bring hundreds of jobs to the city.
I know many Chicagoans will resist the name change, some even dislike it. Still, the city has had several building undergoing such name change (Standard Oil building to Amaco building to... er.... what is it now?). It will probably take a generation or so for the name to stick, and by then, who knows, Willis might be gone!
So for now, as a stubborn Chicagoan, I'll still call it the Sears Tower. Or, I may change my mind and just call it the "Big Willie".
Zz.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The Joy of Re-gifting
Some of my friends think that I'm a bit odd whenever I bring a gift to them. I always tend to say something like "Now, if you already have this, or don't have any need for it, you are more than welcome to give this to someone who might want it, or to sell it on ebay."
I always say that because, while I certainly would love it if what I got for them is something they truly want, I do not want them to keep something simply because they feel obligated to keep it because it was a gift. I've seen way too many instances where something is kept simply because it was a gift from someone and the person simply does not want to "offend" that person by either giving it away, selling it, or simply donating or throwing it out, all the while the object is collecting dust and occupying storage space. I would feel horrible if someone receives something he/she doesn't have quite the use for it, or don't find it to his/her liking, but somehow feel obligated to continuing keeping it. That's why I always say such a thing. I hope that the person appreciate the thought and effort in the gift, but should feel free to pass it on to someone if he/she has no desire to keep it. I would not be offended at all!
This issue came up because a couple of nights ago, I had a conversation with a friend. She felt horrified (and maybe slightly offended) that the candies she got for me were being "shared" by my co-workers at work. I told her that I brought the candies to work and put it in my candy jar. While I do sample the candies now and then, I also share it freely with everyone at work. Somehow, she wasn't too pleased with that information. I think she wanted me to "cherish" it and enjoy it, because she went out of her way to get those for me.
While I certainly didn't mind receiving the candies, I also don't see how I was expected to eat every single piece of it whether I like them or not. Besides having no desire to consume that much candy in the first place (think of all the calories!), I also did not realize that such gifts come with an implicit obligation. At what point does the gift becomes mine, and I can do whatever I please with it? If I wish to share it with other people, shouldn't I be allowed to do that? After all, those candies WERE mine!
So I am one of those who truly believe in re-gifting. If you receive something, and it isn't quite what you want, or what you can use, then I find nothing wrong in giving it to someone who you think might appreciate it more. Of course, it is bad form and etiquette to re-gift something to the person who originally gave it to you. Even *I* don't do that. But other than that, I think this is a perfectly acceptable practice, and it is a prime example of recycling. Not only are you not wasting something, but you also save money!
Zz.
I always say that because, while I certainly would love it if what I got for them is something they truly want, I do not want them to keep something simply because they feel obligated to keep it because it was a gift. I've seen way too many instances where something is kept simply because it was a gift from someone and the person simply does not want to "offend" that person by either giving it away, selling it, or simply donating or throwing it out, all the while the object is collecting dust and occupying storage space. I would feel horrible if someone receives something he/she doesn't have quite the use for it, or don't find it to his/her liking, but somehow feel obligated to continuing keeping it. That's why I always say such a thing. I hope that the person appreciate the thought and effort in the gift, but should feel free to pass it on to someone if he/she has no desire to keep it. I would not be offended at all!
This issue came up because a couple of nights ago, I had a conversation with a friend. She felt horrified (and maybe slightly offended) that the candies she got for me were being "shared" by my co-workers at work. I told her that I brought the candies to work and put it in my candy jar. While I do sample the candies now and then, I also share it freely with everyone at work. Somehow, she wasn't too pleased with that information. I think she wanted me to "cherish" it and enjoy it, because she went out of her way to get those for me.
While I certainly didn't mind receiving the candies, I also don't see how I was expected to eat every single piece of it whether I like them or not. Besides having no desire to consume that much candy in the first place (think of all the calories!), I also did not realize that such gifts come with an implicit obligation. At what point does the gift becomes mine, and I can do whatever I please with it? If I wish to share it with other people, shouldn't I be allowed to do that? After all, those candies WERE mine!
So I am one of those who truly believe in re-gifting. If you receive something, and it isn't quite what you want, or what you can use, then I find nothing wrong in giving it to someone who you think might appreciate it more. Of course, it is bad form and etiquette to re-gift something to the person who originally gave it to you. Even *I* don't do that. But other than that, I think this is a perfectly acceptable practice, and it is a prime example of recycling. Not only are you not wasting something, but you also save money!
Zz.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Social Security Numbers Are Easy to Guess
This is rather disconcerting.
This report discusses the fact that many of the things that the Social Security Administration does to prevent fraud, and what some people put out (such as their birth dates) on social networking websites such as Facebook, may allow crooks to make a good guess at their social security numbers!
Horrors!
This paper is an open access article which you can get from here.
Zz.
This report discusses the fact that many of the things that the Social Security Administration does to prevent fraud, and what some people put out (such as their birth dates) on social networking websites such as Facebook, may allow crooks to make a good guess at their social security numbers!
On the surface, the process seems like it would lead to randomized--and thus secure--numbers. But it doesn't. When economist Alessandro Acquisti and computer scientist Ralph Gross of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, compared SSA's public death records with birth data, they found that area numbers are not rotated until all 9999 serial numbers have been assigned. So instead of each of New York's 85 area numbers being the possible starting three digits for any Social Security number on any given day, Social Security numbers are assigned essentially in order: 576-32-0001 is followed immediately by 576-32-0002, etc. That means a potential thief can narrow down a number simply by knowing the date (often some 6 to 11 weeks after birth) on which one received it. After 1989, individuals started receiving Social Security numbers at birth, rather than at their discretion (often when they began their first job), so pinpointing these people's numbers is especially easy, says Acquisti.
So easy in fact that Acquisti and Gross were able to do it themselves. Using fairly standard computer algorithms, the duo predicted the first five digits of Social Security numbers for people born after 1989 44% of the time on the very first try. On a handful of attempts, they managed to get all nine digits on the first try, but at the very least they could predict the full numbers of 8.5% of those born after 1989 in fewer than 1000 tries, they report online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Horrors!
This paper is an open access article which you can get from here.
Zz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)