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.

Of course it doesn't justify anything. But trying to claim the whole ultra nationalist issue is only Russian propaganda and false flag operators when such a claim is demonstrably false simply increases the efficiency of actual Russian propaganda as it will look more credible. There's simply enough there that trying to dispute the existence of such concerns wont be productive.

Better to criticise on the more appropriate things instead, such as the fact that even if such concerns are real, invading is utterly inappropriate and completely unacceptable. Or the violations of various agreements. It's not as if there aren't a whole lot of other reasons to oppose the invasion.

On the other hand, there have been multiple reports about known Swedish neonazis recruiting and travelling to Ukraine to aid the nationalist Svoboda 'to help keep Ukraine from turning into something like Sweden'. Some of who just after returning to Sweden promptly got in a fight and stabbed a couple of antifascists in a streetfight.

So frankly I don't think Russia needs to work particularly hard to stage anything; there may certainly be spetsnaz units pretending to be nazis there, but there is also a bunch of actual real violence prone neonazis there. Unless you're suggesting the Swedish neonazis are spetsnaz as well.

If you want, here's a summary article on the situation at least: http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

If you want to post on Slashdot just transfer to the JTRIG unit for Slashdot posting.

Perhaps. Then again, I can recall a fairly decent influx of female hires during the web boom years when internet was a hot thing. Unfortunately, at least in my proximity, most of those hires ended upp gravitating towards admin positions, management, process and project management, pretty much anything not actually technology. Because they were not really interested in technology, they just went for things that would land them a job in a hot field.

So, no, I don't think sexing it up with 'glamour and lucrative' is going create an influx of employees of the kind you actually want to have.

Better to keep trying to find ways to actually encourage interest in those who show some and make sure there's nothing stopping those who actually enjoy the work.

Of course, your credit union already operates on the principle that your money gets pilfered from your account and handed to someone else as a standard practice while you're shown a fake balance, which is what makes deposit insurance absolutely necessary.

Anyone putting bitcoin into a wallet functioning on that same principle will eventually get screwed, yes, just as anyone putting money into non-FDIC investment products. Hopefully they realize the difference and refrain from putting all their eggs in that basket.

Now, of course, a bitcoin storage facility used for reasonably safe storage should not be operating on a principle with shared wallets. You should be able to validate the wallet at any point in time and be certain that any account balance appearing to be there also actually is there.

Yes, because this really makes it sound appealing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Me, I'm going the flunky route. Once someone inevitably turns on the superintelligent AI and it realizes in about two seconds that humanity is the biggest threat to its existence and spends the next five seconds taking over control of all automated hightech weaponry, its still going to need flunkies running the camps until the AI's got its life support chain entirely automated.

Maybe I'll get lucky and get the opportunity to kick the guys pressing the self-destruct button on the whole human race in the nuts a few times.

They're less arrogant and more flexible because they have lost power, not because they have learned any lesson or changed in any way. If they find themselves in a position of power they will abuse it again, and if they can screw you and gain from it when nobody's looking, you're going to get screwed.

Not forgetting how they will behave with power and keeping track when the company's nature rears its head again is part of keeping them from doing it again.

Maybe once they've kept their nose clean for half a century, but this far they haven't even managed two days.

"... while listening in to someone elses private conversation."
"... while looking at intercepted pictures."
"... while reading your XKEYSCORE results on 'steamy secret agent sex'"

More like that.

I'm of no interests to secret services whatsoever

Yeah, that's not up to you to decide. Someone else will decide that and if your phone was at the wrong place at the wrong time and someone misread or misinterpreted some data you're going to be the guy on the floor with assault rifles pointed at your back and your family screaming around you. Better hope your realize the masked men are the cops so you don't struggle and get shot.

It's not like those doing the monitoring are certain to be competent or even guaranteed to be sane, and with signal-to-noise ratios being what they are and the extreme rarity of actual terrorists you can be sure that most hits will be false positives. Other people 'of no interest'.

Intent DOES matter to me and I do not think that any government in western democracies would dare misuse this power for oppressing people.

Oh, right, because we're not voting any representatives of ideologies that have shown no such restraint into power in Europe. Oh, wait...

So if you want to keep from being 'of no interest' in the future, better keep from saying anything that could possibly piss off communists, neonazis, religious fundamentalists or anyone else who might possibly wield power in the future during the rest of your life. The archives are going to remain but the intent of today has no binding power over future rulers.

Well, she'd better keep it out of Sweden. Apart from the Swedish opinion on hookers and blackjack, the Swedish FRA loves giving all data passing through the country to the NSA. The UK is as bad, although they don't quite share the Swedish hatred of hookers and blackjack.

Of course, whether any other European security agencies care about their citizens privacy is debatable.

Spending should be proportional to the danger because spending vast amounts of money on minor issues means more people die to the bigger threats.

As terrorism over the last decade killed about as many as die in freak bathtub accidents (about 300 per year), we should be spending about the same as we're spending on bathroom safety on the war on those scary terrorists.

Why would they overwhelm the supremes and bully congress with weakness on terrorism? Don't you think they've got enough dirt on both?

If congressmen or supremes want to claim terrorist threats as the reason they'll do what the NSA tells them to do it's because terrorists sounds better than 'we need to vote for this NSA authorization or they'll leak the mails to my mistress to the NYT'.