If you're using OpenStack for general virtualisation I'd say you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The OpenStack feature set shines when you actually need things like on-demand scaling, completely API driven infrastructure, instantiation of servers with lifetimes of minutes to hours, etc. To be used in the way it's designed for it pretty much requires applications written to function that way.

If you're just virtualizing traditional workloads you're better off with using RHEV or VmWare or some other ordinary virtualization platform and automating it with added orchestration.

Yes, apples and oranges in that personal taxation is really beside the point here, the main point is corporate taxation.

But no, the US isn't that unique in taxing non-residents, most countries seem to. I have several friends working in various European countries, and they have to file taxes both in their country of citizenship and in their country of residence. Due to the tax treaties they do not have to pay taxes on the income earned but they do have to report it, and the exemptions from taxation seems to apply only to wages.

I'll agree that the US rules certainly seem more complex than the other examples I've seen, but it is in no way unique in taxing citizens wherever they are.

The default for pretty much all states is to tax extraterritorial incomes. Some countries have treaties specifically for personal income that exempts workers employed in a different country from double taxation. I have never heard of any non-tax shelter country allowing repatriation of tax-evaded profits once they're finished with the picking and choosing where to claim the profit 'happened'.

And no, the accountant and the janitor at the Caymans office does not count as significant amounts of 'jobs pushed overseas'. Nor will lowering corporate tax rates increase collection as the tax rate achievable through these arrangements is zero which means that any non-zero tax rate still will not result in profits being taken anywhere but in the tax shelter.

At least the double Irish may be getting fixed, but frankly, barring legislation that creates a significant risk for accountants, CFOs and CEOs of actually landing in jail permanently for tax evasion, it will probably be followed by some new structure followed by whining about untaxed profits being stuck in some other place they decided to put them in.

You're right, of course, the assistive technology will be handicapped by driver expectations. Personally I expect the full blown automation to be less subject to that as it reverses the pattern of interference. The reluctance to interfere with a driver unless you're certain he's missing something goes both ways, and 'passengers' in a fully automated vehicle won't be more prone to back seat driving than anyone usually is in a taxi or a bus or other vehicle they're not themselves in control of.

A self-driving car doesn't have to anticipate stupid drivers, it can keep appropriate distance and planning needed regardless of the inferred skill of the drivers. For example, why is anyone not exiting the freeway even in the lane that you know will get 30% bad mergers 500 meters ahead?

And frankly, yes, it's not hard to spot the stupid drivers and you could probably have algorithms for that. But the obvious stupid drivers aren't the danger, it's the good ones missing something as you won't be expecting them to do something idiotic. It's the biker you see slowing down and classifying as 'smart' who then rams straight ahead when you're looking in the other direction. It's the merger who perfectly accelerates up to the right speed, starts blinking, and then just doesn't see you. It's the guy who's stopped at the same red light a thousand times, but who's brain played a trick on him the 1001's time and had him think the green light for going ahead was the one that applied, not the red one for the left turn he just blew straight through.

A smart car will assume that everyone is stupid and that it, itself, has to be capable to counter any physically possible action. We should, as well, but the fact is that we're constantly hampered by our intelligence, assuming things that fit the general rules, anticipating based on experience, projecting states and emotions onto everything else. We shorten distances as we know that will make the driver ahead of us remember that he's forgotten to get out of the passing lane (or get uncomfortable enough to move out of the way). We maintain speeds that are usually ok, even in rain, when its dark, and our visibility is half of our stopping distance. If there's a stupid pedestrian about to pass we'll notice on the bump-bump. When we're the fourth car about to merge in to the freeway, do we stop and wait for the three idiots doing the bumper-to-bumper merge to get onto the freeway? No, most of us will at best give them a slightly wider berth, but most likely we'll see if we increase distance a bit and plan a higher acceleration and cut two lanes and get past them as fast as possible.

A well programmed smart car should know better than to get into a situation where an accident is inevitable, and it would at least theoretically be better at that. And the fact is, when the choice comes and it is inevitable I'd rather trust the car, because frankly, I've never, _ever_ been in that situation and I have absolutely no idea what I'd actually do or any time to think about it. The car, at least, might have knowledge of the statistics, its own capabilities and the physics of the situation.

I'd like to be one of the subscribers they shed. Where do I sign up?

Isn't google dumping XMPP completely in less than a month?

As far as I can tell, she objected to github claiming to be a meritocracy because other feminists would bully her and other females at github about it and wouldn't let them be in their clubs. Which seems fairly on par for that specific social context. We all have our cultural norms to conform to.

And the problem with meritocracy isn't that it isn't a meritocracy, the problem is that people who have fewer advantages have less opportunity to prove their merit or to reach their capacity (even besides all forms of subjective qualities that tend to influence anything but the absolutely most objective dispassionate standards). Which means that meritocracy isn't necessarily a tool to promote equality and certainly not a reason to claim that a workforce composition looks the way it does specifically due to the specific inherent merit of its membership. Which, depending on your philosophy, ideals and political priorities may or may not be its purpose anyway.

If he reached the same position as you did in with less effort, chances are he'll continue reaching the targets he has faster and with less effort. Learn from it, or you're going to be angry and resentful the rest of your career, and as the biggest companies in the industry are run by drop outs you may very well end up working for them.

Looks like snhenson most recently committed the two places final s2n() macro call the above linked article identifies as the line that finally sends data, as well as the n2s() that got data from the remote connection:

https://github.com/openssl/ope...
https://github.com/openssl/ope...

Not sure which is worse, using the unsanitized user input (which it seems he MUST have known was user input) or the copy-n-paste coding.

Sorry for the public shaming, but it seems he'd better at least make a case that he's not on the NSA payroll. Of course mistakenly relying on user input is the sort of mistake we've all probably made at least once, so it's quite believable that it was an honest mistake.

This isn't the '90s. Compared to hardware resources today, yes, an operating system is a thin runtime environment. Most of the resources are shared and usually they are abundant.

Using containers simply means you get yet another abstraction layer, that needs to be managed in yet another way, that will eventually evolve into being exactly the same thing as that operating system you tried to get away from.

Frankly, I'd rather be managing 1000 guests with 1000 apps, because once I have enough automation to spawn and manage guests on demand I don't want them being unique snowflakes and get the accompanying maintenance nightmare because they each host so much that they create infrastructure dependencies.

For most small to medium scale operations the main cost will be the personell needed for management. If you're only running a lot of things you can deploy and support on something like containers or even better openshift, that might be the better option. But if you're running a lot of things that you need to dink around with, even to a minor extent, and will run into support issues with, then you're just creating a resource drain on the one resource that's actually expensive: your admins time.

And that's pretty much why Turkey should be kept outside the EU. Europe does not need an influx of 50 million voters of whom a significant portion can even consider voting for someone like Erdogan.

The accession talks should end. Turkey can fall into the dark ages on its own.

I would consider it far more likely that Putin annexes parts of the Balkans. Estonia or Latvia would be a whole other ballgame as they're EU and NATO members. That would basically force the EU and NATO to engage as the next step after that would be Poland and East Germany. It would be obvious that there's no intention at all of stopping at all.

As that point at least Britain and France might very well start pressing nuclear buttons.

Where the heck do you live that you can buy even a studio apartment for $10k? And even if you can, you'll spend $20k/year in gas getting to your job (not to mention the time you waste in the car). Okay, maybe if you get mad cash working an oil field in the boonies, but for most of us who have to live in a city to be reasonably close to work...

I agree with you that people should consume less, not demand huge, new houses, drive their cars until they can't possibly be fixed, and I do all that. My car is a 1998 I live 45 minutes from work because houses cost twice as much near my office. And I have a family, so I can't just rent a room (which is how I lived cheaply when I was single). But for the $800 of our mortgage payment that goes to interest, taxes and insurance, we can only rent a small apartment or condo, so borrowing and buying truly makes more sense.

What I'm really complaining about is the tax code and the fed's monetary policy. If you're paying 3.5% (i.e. earning -3.5%) on a mortgage and the stock market earns, on average, 8%, every extra dollar put in your 401k instead of paying down your mortgage is earning you 4.5%/year. But now that money is at risk for those years (and we have one once or twice a decade) where the stock market actually drops.

Tax and monetary policy should encourage people to save, not gamble. It /should/ be smart to pay off your mortgages and thereby distribute wealth rather than consolidate it at the top. Tax the capital gains the same as income. End the mortgage interest deduction but let us withdrawal from retirement accounts without penalty or taxes to pay off the mortgage on a single, primary residence (with some reasonable cap, say $500k). When Americans start actually owning their homes instead of the mortgage company owning it, we'll have less need for social security and medicare and be less resistant to cuts in those programs. And we'll save cash too, now that we've paid off our mortgages early, making us dependent on ourselves, not handouts from the Uncle Sam.

And the feds should NEVER bail out the markets. If we'd all owned our homes instead of having so much of our asses in the markets, we could have just let the big firms fail -- only a small percentage of very wealthy Americans would have been hurt much by that, and all of them could have afforded it.

And the fed should target a 0%, not 2% inflation rate. Would this hurt stock market growth? Of course, but that's fine. This free ride of a market averaging 8%/year just makes the rich (who have a larger % of their assets in the market) richer. Let it fail. Let it decline. But let the middle class get out first.

Okay, stupid name aside, this is awesome. I've never had a single good thing to say about Facebook or Mr. Zuckerberg, but this could totally change that. Lots of devs disparage PHP, but they're all idiots -- PHP is heavily used because it's heavily useful. I haven't used HACK yet, but if it's not a buggy piece of junk might truly be great. I've yet to find a language that lets me go dynamic when I'm prototyping but gradually type when I see fit. So...Sweet!

That said, static typing isn't all it's cracked up to be. Java being the prime example, it makes for some very wordy code that's often tedious to change. And of all the bugs I fix in dynamically typed languages, very few are caused by treating something as the wrong type.