You could mount a network volume on all your mesos hosts and make that available to the DB container, so that no matter which host handles that job, your data will persist easily.
I think the fear is less "f*ck the police" here, and more "an unknown entity is breaking into my house", which is a pretty justifiable response. If he knew it was the police, I don't think the first reaction would be to shoot them.
Private companies often don't serve (or underserve) those less populated areas. Their solution to that problem is to not provide service as they aren't required. Municipal broadband which is provided as a public service/utility, however, is better suited to serve everyone, as they are often required to do that rather than only focus on the areas that generate the most profit.
Also, reducing entitlement spending but increasing spending on teachers will somehow improve education numbers, even though a large percentage of lowest scoring students are also those who most rely on things like welfare to get by. There's a pretty direct correlation between being poor and doing poorly in schools.
So, the most important works end up going where they are seen by the most people? I think that's a reasonable consequence. Much better than hiding them away on some billionaire's private property.
The problem is that, if their feedback is "you were a woman so we didn't hire you", then signing away your right to sue is a big problem. And you can't really know if their reason is legit or not until you sign.
Depends on your definition of Extremists. Within the State Dept., I'd imagine there are plenty who think that anyone who supports Snowden is an extremist.
Depriving someone of profit isn't a crime though. If I choose not to buy your product, I am depriving you of that profit. If I make a better product and consumers choose mine over yours, I'm depriving you of profit. Neither of these things is or should be illegal.
Well, that's assuming that the people who did this actually consider these mistakes (they don't) and that they will be held even a little bit accountable (which looks unlikely). As it is, it's as much bragging as it is auditing: nothing bad will come to those who committed these heinous acts, and it will provide no discouragement for those who come after and have to make the decision about whether or not to torture.
It's also been argued that the White House really wanted to prevent the release, and reasoned that if they could prevent it from coming out until the new (republican) senate takes office, that republican congress would likely kill it entirely and let the white house claim the high ground despite actually doing the opposite. Kerry's actions certainly support that theory.
I feel like they've already done that far more effectively than they probably dreamed. Look at what's happened to the US after 9/11 and tell me we're still adhering to our principles and possess any moral high ground in the world. This report is a pretty obvious indication that the powers that be have given up on following the rules.
Isn't this basically Rupert Murdoch's MO, in countries around the world including the US and Australia? I'd suggest "still is" rather than "used to be".
And how do you plan to increase competition? The current climate doesn't do that. The barriers to entry are far too great for realistic threats outside of companies like Google that have money to burn.
By regulating the ISP as common carrier, you are actively encouraging competition, by forcing them to lease out the last mile to smaller providers who can give real service and actually have to compete. Net Neutrality is aimed directly at providing more competition on the last mile, where our current providers have failed so badly.
I don't think there's necessarily a big difference. Let's take the political belief "women should be allowed to vote". Do you truly believe that it's valuable to have a diverse set of opinions on that subject?
False equivalence in scientific opinion isn't any different from the political sphere, its just that many political issues are actually more highly debated because of a lack of hard science behind them.
You just listed how the Canadian policy lets the husband take time also (more time, if they want, such as in your case). That suggests that companies would be equally "punished" by hiring men who want families. Why would that policy only harm women's employment options?
I do this a lot in the ipython REPL. You can type "method_name?" and see the docstring and some other basic info about the method (like args), its extremely helpful.
You could define local functions inside your larger sequential function, and then call immediately. Not 100% the same, but in terms of reading-code-in-order, it would have the effect, and it would create the same scope restrictions as the listed code.
Why should the US be obligated to let this foreign bank do business in the US and operate on the US stock market, if this bank refuses to comply with US tax laws and money laundering laws? There's nothing stopping this bank from operating on a European or Asian exchange instead. If they want the benefits of working with the US system, the US is totally within its rights to impose rules on that.
Within the realm of tested drugs, then sure, you won't find any with that mortality rate. But this drug had never been given to a human. There's no safe way to predict the exact effect it will have, and there is a realistic chance it could kill the intended recipient. This wasn't even trial medication, it hadn't reached that stage yet.
I would agree that in my personal experience, those people do tend to be quite intelligent. However, I have not found them to be more productive (and in some cases, they seem to be less productive, because they spend so much time fiddling and tweaking instead of just finishing things).
I'm not sure what right you are concerned about. There is no "right to not be bothered by political nonsense", but there is a right to free speech for other students. Just as you can't argue that billboards and talkative salespeople should be outlawed, I'm not sure you can realistically argue that students who want to talk politics should not be allowed near you.
Uh, its not like surge pricing is optional to get a faster car. If they price increases, there is no subsidizing going on. To take advantage of the theoretically larger supply, I will have to pay the higher price, and when the price decreases, there is no guarantee that the supply will remain high so I may still be unable to get a cab at the lower 'subsidized' price.
The US banking industry has shown no interest in even setting up a more modern intra-country wire transfer system. It's pretty unlikely they would support a better international system anytime soon.
You can't take one owner saying he will fire an employee to mean that unemployment as a whole will increase. What about another owner who suggests he will hire more people, since all his customers now have more money to spend and will increase his business? You're demonstrating exactly why microeconomics != macroeconomics: you can't just eliminate the vast number of other factors involved when trying to extrapolate a micro result to the macro sphere.