If you still haven't found a decent job you want to stay at in a 7 year time span, you're probably willing to consider a lot of unpleasant options...

Or, you wanted raises larger than 1.5%. The only way you get a raise of any significance (or a promotion) these days is by switching jobs. After all, your current employer has you right where they want you; why would they want to spend more on you if they don't absolutely have to? They probably resent every dime you get paid and would love nothing more than to chain you to your desk and make you work for nothing. But, since, technically, that's "illegal" (some large-government bullshit like "slavery is illegal".. why can't they let the free market work?), they resort to other methods of minimizing costs at the expense of their employees.

Fearing the other, along with aggression, blind loyalty, lust, anger, etc. are primitive emotions that originate in the "reptile brain" that we all have in our heads. Ever since the cerebral cortex (the "mammal brain") evolved, those two systems have been in a death struggle for control of the organism. We see the results of our baser dispositions every day. War, aggression, rape, cults, greed.. you only need to turn on the news to find examples of this struggle.

LOL at 'white supremacists'. Do you mean "White people who simply want to live around their own kind, without having any contact whatsoever with other races"?

You have a point. "Racist assholes" is more accurate. What they do in their private lives is their business; freedom of association is in the First Amendment. The problem comes when they try to apply their own prejudices to public spaces; for example, refusing to serve black folks at a lunch counter, refusing to rent an apartment to a black couple, etc.

If so, what's the problem? You seem to believe that white people are superior to other races, and have something 'special' which we would be depriving other races of, by refusing to allow them to live in our countries... so YOU are a 'white supremacist'.

Did you read the same comment that I did? There's nothing in that comment to lead you to that conclusion.

Otherwise, please explain why you think white people shouldn't be allowed to associate with only their own kind

See above. What people do in their private lives is their business; the problem comes when they try to make decisions for the rest of us based on their own prejudices.

and also explain why you aren't calling the billions of non-whites in Africa, India, China, etc. "racists", because they are happily living with THEIR own kind, and aren't demanding that millions of people of other races move into their countries...

Now I don't have any fucking idea what you're talking about. Chinese people live in China because they were born there. Who is demanding that millions of people of other 'races' move to America? I think you're off your meds.

Found the marketer. Well, I suppose C students need jobs too.

Time to change the tinfoil in your hat, Sparky.

Killing thousands (mostly civilians) is always reprehensible, but you're right that there are probably degrees to it.

You're quite correct about the casualty numbers. I stand corrected.

And I'm not arguing with you about the justification for using the bomb. In another comment I lay out basically the same theory. It's reprehensible in a vacuum, but considering the circumstances, it's at least defensible.

Well, it's more complicated than that. There were military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Consider the alternative, though: We now know that Japan was going to basically fight to the last man if we invaded, they were projecting losses of up to 20,000,000 people. You could argue that we saved 19,000,000 lives by dropping the bomb. It doesn't make it less reprehensible, but it's a factor that should be considered.

And then a million people (men, women, children, civilians all) died when the only atomic weapons used in combat were dropped on them. I'd say that balances out Pearl Harbor a bit. I don't think they "got away" with anything.

Dammit, /r/ammosexuals is leaking again.

Go grind your axe somewhere else.

If they had any ethics, they either wouldn't haven gotten into this obviously immoral or at least amoral game in the first place, or, going in knowing full well what they got into and why, they'd have the balls to see this through now. So I call them cowards. Spineless cowards. Contemtible wretches.

It's ok, though. They made money.

Ease of use and security need to go hand in hand.

The trouble is, as I've also stated below, that it's very hard (read: expensive) to have both. Try to implement two-factor authentication and listen to your users howl. Require the use of a VPN in a corporate environment and listen to your CEO threaten you with termination if you don't make an exception for him. Make PGP keys available and watch nobody at all use the service. Require passwords to be updated every 90 days and prepare for your help desk to get a thousand whiny calls every three months.

People are stupid. People are lazy. People don't care about security. When people start caring about security, then we'll get somewhere. But it's like trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes time and annoys the pig.

No. Secure, convenient: pick one.

It's not impossible to have both, just extremely expensive. Since there's no perceived benefit to improved security, and doing something (anything) is a pain in the ass, that money will not be spent.

And if you're a continent-spanning bank or other long-established "respectable" business, it means that you have absolutely no business at all going for the fast-and-cheap.

Why do you hate America?

The point of for-profit capitalist companies is to make profit. You make more profit by reducing your costs and increasing your revenue. Building more-secure software increases costs and has no straight-line effect on revenues. Simply put, there's no market value in making secure products, because your average mouth breather doesn't understand security, and, more importantly, doesn't care that they don't understand. They're not likely to buy or use a product based on how secure it is. Adding features that nobody wants hurts your bottom line.

Until people understand that security is important, companies will be able to make more money building shitware that appears to work, but is really millions of lines of outsourced developer-produced garbage that only works due to some glitch in the Matrix. When there are data breaches (Target, Home Depot, etc), as soon as the news coverage starts talking about anything even close to the technical details of the problem, people's eyes glaze over and they change the channel.

TL;DR: Internet security is a bad joke because people don't care.

You should "waste time" getting certs because HR exists. Certifications are like bachelors' degrees: all they do is get you past the first round of keyword matches that the C students over in HR use instead of actually looking at a candidate's experience and skill set. After that, when your resume actually is in the hiring manager's hands, certifications are completely worthless.

HR should not be involved in screening candidates for technical positions with skill sets that they don't have a prayer of understanding. Let the hiring manager see the resumes, weed them out based on actual useful information instead of keyword matches, and watch your hiring quality go up.