green_lunch

Maybe...and maybe not. Hopefully they won't decide to play WoW in the background and not get any work done.

I've had this experience with remote teams and sadly had to let many 'gamers' go.

“Websites should be changing their password policies to make users’ lives easier. The security degradation is pretty small.”

Security isn't supposed to be convenient. Autocorrecting passwords sounds like a bad idea all-around and will be exploited.

"nothing posted in HangBee, except for listings in Marketplaces, is ever permanently saved, no matter what. Keep reading to learn about everything HangBee has to offer; we hope you join us!"

If this gets big enough, you will eventually need to keep some sort of record to comply with various law enforcement agencies.

I honestly don't see anything different than any other social networking site. Social networking sites are expensive to run and difficult to monetize.

Eventually you will need more money to keep the site running and when you do, privacy will go out the door.

Leave it to Vox to expect the government and the system to figure out all of life's problems for you. This has to be written by a millennial.

Would you say that I am 'unpaid labor' because I have to do all the work of finding a good university? How about buying a new car?

I've dealt with many government agencies and if you think government-run care will be any better than what you describe, you're dreaming.

They are adding jobs.

However, we now having more people making less money for essentially the same job. It's a win for consumers, because it's more convenient and in some cases, cheaper.

But it's a lose for the people that actually made a decent living driving who now are competing with college kids that are doing the same thing in their spare time without having any of the same startup costs.

Uber and Lyft removed the barrier to entry by breaking the law and the monopoly the Taxi unions had over the entire industry. But the result is lower wages and benefits.

"We do not allow individuals to negotiate their salary separately from their position. If you have the same position, you make the same salary."

This is great from a company perspective, but it essentially allows a company to get an employee at a much cheaper rate. Employees with more experience will get the same pay rate for the same job as someone with potentially much less.

Since all companies don't do this, I probably wouldn't ever work for your company knowing this is your policy. I bring much more value to a company with all of the experience and knowledge that I've gained.

At my last 9-5 job, I was able to get paid almost 20% more than many of my co-workers because of my negotiating skills and experience.

I just have to shake my head when I see so many people fighting for less power, rights, and inevitably less money and calling it a 'win'.

But, this doesn't really matter to me anymore. I've owned my own company for the last 5 years and don't need to negotiate my own salary.

"This is exactly wrong. Profiling does not increase safety whatsoever. Bruce Schneier argues it much better than I would:"

You may say it doesn't 'increase safety', but Israel is a great example of it working. The attacks, hijacks, and deaths have nose dived to nearly 0. They have a hybrid system that involves both random checking and profiling.

I'm not saying we should lock up anyone that fits a specific racial profile. The problem is that when we use data and risk assessment to question specific people that may be suspicious, it's seen as racist if the person is anything but white.

The two articles you linked mention hijackers that happened pre-911. I don't think people are hijacking planes and diverting them to central america nor do we have IRA militants bombing planes.

We need a hybrid system between random checking and profiling. Random checks work so far, but will not help with long lines because everyone needs to be checked equally.

To reduce long lines, we either need to scale-back security (which is a bad idea) or use information and data to make the process more efficient (IE: profiling).

Some profiling is a good thing, but we can't completely rely on it.

"other than race, religion, or national origin."

Let's look at the terror watch list: I can bet 9/10 people on the list are from similar middle eastern countries, similar skin color and are from the same or similar religion.

Profiling based on this information isn't profiling based on any of these things, but based on risk factors and previous history.

The problem is that you can't even profile based on obvious history without also being accused of profiling based on religion or skin color.

This is what I'm talking about when I refer to 'political correctness'. Suspicious people can't be singled out without the PC police coming out in full force.

"ignore political correctness and do it based on something other than race, religion, or national origin."

I wish the terrorists bombing planes and killing innocent people were from different countries with different religions, but it's just not reality.