It doesn't make it any less short sighted. It takes months at a minimum for new staff to come up to speed and work well in a new environment. Short term staff have no reason to care if the company they work for even continues to exist beyond the end of their contract. They surely have no incentive to make sacrifices and difficult choices out of concern for the long term health of their employer.

I think it's because they know we read and comment on the things that piss us off just as much, or more than content that is actually interesting. Any half-ass SJW opinion piece is bound to get 300 comments in no time. Congratulations Dice, you annoyed most of your female readership with your patronizing nonsense.

I'm glad to live in a somewhat less insane area than SF, but yes moving to the country would be a nice option if you can make a living without commuting. I've got six months on contract and then I'm ready to run away from this madness at least long enough to clear my head and take a fresh approach.

It seems like just what is needed in places like San Francisco. When space is so precious many people need an option that provides less space. The communal space is good to add to the mix so people don't get cabin fever being cooped up in a tiny box for too long without social interaction.

We can't just wait around for the evidence! That would we put on the news tomorrow if credible people didn't speculate? Sure we know what's likely, but I'd rather we let the country with the dead citizens make a conclusion based on some clear evidence.

I need comfy arm rests and a split keyboard so I can have my arms supported and relaxed at my sides to complete my vision of a relaxing prone computing experience. I prefer to use a mouse with a trackball, so it would work just fine glued down.

http://kadavy.net/blog/posts/s...

Pretty soon instead of blackholing domains I don't trust, I'm going to to have to start whitelisting the few that I do trust. Nice job corporate assholes, you ruined the internet.

My impression was ISPs didn't look at much data because they potentially lose the safe harbor protections for copyright and other criminal acts their customers might engage in, but with some of the monitoring of usage type the lines may be a little blurred.
Has this changed in some meaningful way?

"fully integrated systems that will allow for the detection, tracking, interdiction, engagement and neutralization of small â" less than 55lb â" unmanned aerial system."

Sure no problem, I'm sure that will be a highly successful project. It's good they didn't set an overly ambitious goal. Nothing a few sharks and laser beams couldn't handle. Plenty of cheap prison labor to dig the shark moat.

I think the phone privacy issues are a matter of selective ignorance. People know vaguely what power and potential for abuse exists in smartphones, but it isn't enough to deter their use. They choose to ignore the issue because most people don't have a clear available alternative that still provides the utility. I know how phones can be abused, so Android gets a Google account under a fake name, I refuse to use apps that ask for excessive permissions, I will never install any social media app, basically I self impose a number of restrictions. I'm also fully aware that my phone leaks all kinds of data I wouldn't want to share. At some point it just becomes more important to have the utility of the smartphone and not to have to spend hours rooting and fully privacy protecting my phone in what still might not be an effective effort to have complete control of my information sharing. I just treat my phone as an untrusted device, I limit what information I access and in what interactions I engage. My girlfriend on the other hand would simply say WTF would she have a smartphone if she can't use Facebook? The things I do are only partially effective and they are still steps 95% of the population isn't going to be willing to bother with.

I have my doubts that our current programs are really that ineffective. When they take someone who doesn't fit any profile and send them through knowing that if they get caught they are authorized to do what they are doing, it's different than a real world threat scenario. I'd love for them to reduce wasted time and money and I would hope budget cuts will trim them down over time. I'm not hopeful that public opinion is going to make much difference in their approach up until the point that it starts to affect the number of people traveling. I'd bet if ticket sales declined they would respond to that, but so far everyone just adapts and tolerates their invasive stupidity.

That's why I only use Gmail to feed Google self promoting propaganda.

Google: Would you like us to read your email and generate automatic responses?

Me: Go fuck yourself.

Google: I knew you were going to say that.

That's where I'm afraid we are headed. Credit scoring should not include subjective non-financial personal information. Exactly because it's a slippery slope. You can find a statistical basis to tie all sorts of random data to likeliness to repay debt, but it doesn't mean that correlation is always present. We should stick to actual non-subjective financially relevant facts.

Imagine someone owned a drug rehab center and they discussed their work on Facebook. Should that person have their credit harmed because they use too many red flagged keywords in their posts? Big Data has huge risks in being able to make associations that may be entirely meaningless without context.

Yes, that's why I wish people would stop publicizing their failures. After the initial reports came out a while back the security lines got noticeably slower. If they are ineffective, then fine, but if you tell everyone they are ineffective then "something must be done" and it just makes things worse. I'm comfortable with risk, but I'm not comfortable wasting hours of my life at the airport.