Anyone else think this is strangely similar to the Deathstar? Who builds multibillion dollar device that can be destroyed a bird and some bread? Surely they might have thought to protect critical areas that can overheat? No wonder the project hasn't been off to a good start.

Not sure what countries you are flying to and from, but I've done a fair bit of air travel in my life to varying countries around the world, and I've never once had a problem bringing my own food.

Of course you can't bring your own water (that must be purchased after the security check point), but as long as you're okay with your food being pelted with x-rays (which is undoubtedly healthier than the food typically sold in most airports), you should be fine.

Of course there are restrictions on certain types of edibles, mostly fresh fruit and other things with seeds. Just pre-package a meal with your fruits in it all cut up, and they won't say anything.

Are you American by chance? I only ask because I sense a hint of that "right to bear arms" philosophy there.

I'm sorry to inform you, but you've been brainwashed. There have been many studies done by reputable groups showing a direct correlation between firearm availability and gun deaths. (Staring point: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html)

I think it's a valid extrapolation to apply such logic to nuclear weapons, since world leaders are pretty much like children (but with infinite money, power, and weapons).

Simply put the more of these we have, the more chance we have of using them. And no I am not happy the US has a ton of them, but it's a lot better to have as few countries as possible with the ability to destroy the planet, rather than the other way around.

Untrue. As someone who has (in the past 3 years) both tried to find a job with a Bachelor's degree and then with a Master's degree, I have personal first hand experience on this.

First of all a job will never teach you what you learn in a Master's program and vice versa. The experience of focusing on one problem and becoming a world expert on it is hugely different that working in a commercial setting. Unless your job is working in R&D and doing academic research, the two things are pretty polar.

Which brings me to my next point. In computer science _especially_ not only will a Master's degree open up doors that would have never been there if you simply had a Bachelor's but the pay will be higher.

This is a world where every one has an undergrad degree, and it's also a world in an economic recession. The best way to differentiate yourself from your peers is to spend the two years, and prove you that you can focus on one thing and become super knowledgeable. You'll have your undergrad degree to show you can learn a breadth of topics, and the Master's will be something that sets you apart from the other applicants.

I do agree that spending the time on a PhD is a complete waste, unless you want to go the pure academics route (and become a professor, etc). The pay over a Master's degree is negligible, and it may actually close some doors since the perception is there that you'll want a lot more money.

That being said I also agree that experience matters more than anything. Spend every summer working in your field. Take advantage of co-op and internship programs. Work part time doing anything related to the job you eventually want to get.

And absolutely yes, if you want a Master's degree, get one. It will help significantly, and it will also get you more money.

Should I suck it up and learn to do all my programming in C++/Java/(insert other well-supported, popular language here) and unlearn ten years of philosophy, or is there hope for the multi-language development process?"

What you should do is suck it up and learn a modern build tool like CMake (which you even mentioned in your question).

I have successfully and painlessly used CMake as a build tool for multi-language projects. It's actually quite trivial -- you don't even need to do that much. For example, one source dir might use C++, another C, another D, etc, etc. It's no problem! CMake does all the hard work for you.

The whole question is actually moot to me. Multi-language development is alive and well and has been going on for a long time. It's not even a problem that really needs solving anymore.

I work for IBM, and we have a bunch of PS3's, ping pong, pool tables, shuffle board, fooseball, etc., that people can play whenever they want.

No it doesn't hurt productivity, in fact quite the opposite. Sometimes you just need to decompress, go do a few laps around a track, shoot a few balls, or get in some socializing with co-workers over a friendly game of ping pong.

The motto at IBM is that management trusts their employees. As long employees get their work done who cares what people are doing or when they're doing it!

You can just as easily slack off at your desk as you can in front of a game console. What people notice is results, and happy people produce better results.

I don't think you need to give every developer a console, and I think that would ruin a perfectly good opportunity to create more social interaction. Put all the games in common areas where people can gather.

I've solved more problems while chatting with colleagues on a break than I could begin to count.