What really gave it away was this:
"The Falkland Islands will be a barely habitable wilderness, afterwards."
That would be an improvement, wouldn't it?
83 posts • joined 22 Jun 2009
"The Falkland Islands will be a barely habitable wilderness, afterwards."
That would be an improvement, wouldn't it?
I didn't mean that. But, if he's dead, he can't influence the proceedings anymore, and the thing might fall apart.
I applaud what he's doing and I really hope he succeeds, but people have been killed for less...
So you're saying that transferring user data to the US National Security Agency (NSA) doesn't protect EU citizens' privacy? Whoduvthunkit?
I wish I could give you 100 downvotes, but I'm limited to just one.
"Really would your Nan really give less then Two about doing what ever it was on a PC or a Phablet?"
Yes. But she's a touch-typist. But for my great-grandma, the screen would probably go blank before she found the next letter on the on-screen keyboard. And she'd have to squint quite a lot to make out some of the letters, be it on a phablet (strange of you to even mention a phablet as a viable choice), or even a large-screen tablet. But then again, a large, 12-inch, tablet costs as much as a basic PC with a 24-inch screen attached.
If you have 'umpteen thousand' machines running XP and you can't afford to upgrade them to a newer OS (be it a hardware or just OS upgrade), then your organization definitely has bigger problems than those machines:
- being broken into;
- suddenly becoming unsupported platforms for critical software.
If your organization could afford 'umpteen thousand' machines some 10 years ago and it cannot afford new ones now, you definitely have bigger problems than just IT.
Ok, cool, there's a use case.
- Did your PC stop working when XP support was discontinued?
- Did your software stop working when XP support was discontinued?
No? So what's the problem? Disconnect the PC from the network, or at least from the Internet and put a separate PC running a newer OS as proxy for the embroidery jobs.
Why did you want to virtualize it? How would it help your use case? If you put it in a VM on a secure OS, it doesn't suddenly become secure (if the VM is connected to any network).
Besides, even if you were virtualizing, you were probably doing it wrong. Did you use IOMMU (any sort) to virtualize the hardware that actually connects to the machine?
Four words: correct horse battery staple
Just be sure not to rely on one [walkthrough] utterly, as otherwise you’ll beat the game without any of those "Eureka!" moments of satisfaction.
Funny, I don't think people had "Eureka" moments in the E.T. game (yeah, that one) when they managed to get out of the pits.
And "Eureka" moments in adventure games in the olden days usually went like: "combine this broken metal rod with that plastic bottle in order to create a thingamajig that will combine with that torn piece of clothing which you then give to the king who will give you a cart full of dirt to take to the wizard".
Not in the least logical and if you didn't buy the official guide (usually about the price of the boxed game release!), you needed to hope for your games magazine would print tips for the game you're stuck with and that they would include that specific location and not the ones you guessed.
Eureka? Fat chance. More like sheer frustration.
This transportation system is point-to-point, and specifically between two population centers. They won't build loops, but two tubes. The train will be switched from one to the other at each end.
Indeed, it's costly. But Musk is betting the cost will be below potential revenue, and why not? If it works, and if it turns out it's able to turn in a profit, it can be extended (to multiple tubes, and to more connections).
Are these statistics even reliable? I live in Poland, and according to the first chart, the bottom 10% of population in Britain are at a worse socioeconomic status than the bottom 10% in Poland.
How the fuck is it possible that people would want to migrate to Britain, then (or Germany, or France, for that matter)? Assuming that it is the people on the bottom of the scale who migrate looking for a job and they can only get the least paid jobs in the UK, it would mean that they are worse off than they were before they moved. However, not only are they able to support themselves in UK, they make enough to send back home and support the family. Effectively, one paycheck is able to support two households.
Anyone care to comment?
"Each shrink in NAND geometry seems to require costlier manufacturing processes and more over-provisioning to keep endurance, expressed as drive writes/day for five years, up at acceptable levels."
And shingling, TDMR, HAMR cost nothing to implement?
Between 2000 and 2010, over some 10 years, mainstream hard disks went from ~40 GB to 2 TB, a 50-fold improvement without increasing the price too much (allowing for the overblown Thai flood hype). That's an average increase of nearly 50% per year. If this pace kept up, mainstream disks now would be almost 10 TB in capacity, and yet mainstream is still at 2 TB, very slowly moving towards 3 TB, never mind 4.
The recent breakthroughs that will allow more than 4 TB are ridiculously expensive and it seems that disk cannot break through this ceiling.
Going by the same chart, I see that SSDs are predicted to grow by almost 2000%, while HDDs only by 123%.
However, assuming the data for two last years and estimate for this one are accurate, this is an interesting extrapolation.
It predicts that HDD growth is expected to increase or keep at a steady rate, while SSD growth is supposed taper off, astonishingly so -- it grew by 120% in 2013, then 85% this year, and they are expecting this trend to continue and growth to decline further, while HDDs are not going to be affected at all? I call bullshit.
Oh, and they've got SSD endurance wrong. Taking a 480 GB SATA 3 drive at maximum speed (600 MB/s=52 TB/day) and 10000 writes/block, assuming you never stop and you never read this data, you get 92 days of useful life. That's still extremely high endurance. Lower this by a factor of 10, to 5.2 TB/day, and you get almost three years of useful life. However, 5 TB/day on a 480 GB drive? Who writes (and overwrites) this amount of data daily? If there's a usage pattern that fits this requirement, I suppose the user is getting paid well more than enough to cover disk replacement.
They did? Awesome. Point me to the NVMe drives and a motherboard with NVMe ports, thank you very much.
Depending on the implementation and controller, TRIM will destroy any meaningful way to restore the data from an SSD.
If the disk uses encryption and/or compression, TRIM will prevent any restore of the data since it also drops all pointers to how the data is arranged, how it is compressed or what encryption key is used.
And theoretical methods to restore data from magnetic drives are unusable on SSDs, the cells of which deteriorate/degrade much quicker than magnetic domains on a hard disk. Even if you were able to recreate the bits, you've no idea what they represent, if the data is encrypted or compressed and you have no way to rearrange it.
As for the Gutmann method, Wikipedia has an excellent article about it, and Gutmann himself says it best -- 35 passes was never needed for any drive. The first and last four passes are with random data, and there are RLL (two methods) and MFM-specific passes. MFM "needs" 18 passes at most, (1,7)RLL "needs" 26.
In case of modern PRML disks, these MFM- or RLL-specific passes do nothing special and are completely unnecessary.
When you have LTFS-LE (Library Edition), where a single translation layer presents a single hierarchy, where top-level directories are individual volumes, you can actually use tape as a drop-in solution.
500,000 hours? Wow, that's really a lot. It's nearly 21,000 days and almost equal to 57 years constant run time. I don't think there's any piece of IT equipment that could claim that long run time.
Not a neat trick. Just partial pressure. It's just that Helium has very small particles and there is so little of it in the atmosphere that for practical purposes, it's vacuum for Helium (and vice-versa, Helium-filled spaces are vacuum for all other gases).
As for neat tricks, it does have superfluid properties at extremely low temperatures, but while it's cool (pun intended), that is a frequently misunderstood phenomenon; do look up superfluidity.
So very true. By the end of the day, it's not like their data is stored in some fine mist with a cable dangling from it. The data has to be on an array somewhere, so they end up paying for the purchase, support, connection and on top of that, overhead and margin of their provider.
If you use a considerable portion of your storage, shifting to cloud makes no sense whatsoever. If somebody offers you a lower price per byte stored and transferred, they're cutting corners somewhere. The problem is, you don't know where. And finally, if they grossly underestimated costs or overestimated profits, their business model falls apart, they fold and you're left without a provider and usually without any way with which you can recover your data.
Did I make even the slightest hint that the work should be submitted full of errors?
1. The tool I suggested (focuswriter) has a spelling dictionary and checks on the fly or at the end.
2. Word is not better (or worse) in this regard.
The software you use is not an excuse for errors. However, let me point out that it used to be common to submit written works as typescript (or manuscript) and the writers did not have the luxury of spellcheckers or even error correction. And the quality of manuscripts and typescripts was vastly superior to some examples of today's works where the writer did not even bother to run a spellchecker on his or her text once.
However, it's Alastair Reynolds we're talking about. So your comment that the publisher would give excuses not to use your work is absurd. Mr. Reynolds has been published extensively and his publisher is definitely not going to give excuses not to use his work since it's basically printing money. Well, okay, I presume if he submitted utter rubbish, the publisher would firmly say 'no,' but otherwise, you're very unreasonable.
Your post reveals that you may have been rejected by some publishers. However, I would offer an alternative explanation. Whatever tools you use (or don't), they're not the reason you were rejected. And they were right -- they want "stuff" that's readable. Yours is not. It displays as three lines on my screen and I can say with all certainty that if I were to read through three thousand lines of such dubious quality, my eyes would bleed out of my eyesockets.
To be honest, I can't understand why anyone would want to torture themselves with a full-featured word processor to write anything serious.
You're the Writer, NOT the Editor. You're there to write, not to edit or prepare for publishing. If the writer is trying to do the editor's job, and even the best writer might be a mediocre editor/publisher, the primary task will suffer and the resulting book will be form over substance.
I can understand a writer emphasizing certain passages, introducing quotations, digressions, etc., but it's the choice of the editor whether to italicize or embolden, not the writer.
What any self-respecting writer should do is to submit his or her work in plain-text or at most in light markup (such as RTF, for all its shortcomings), and the publishing house should be the party to actually decide what the final form will be.
With that in mind, either use a typewriter (with a facility to save text, of course), or software such as focuswriter (it's free) that comes with features specifically for writers.
Do note that the alternative is to let the writer do everything, including (virtual) typesetting, preparing for publishing, sending to the printer, promoting it, hey, why not pay for the whole thing while he's at it, in effect self-publishing, but where the proceeds go to a publishing house that didn't do anything worth paying for.
There's one problem with this approach. Scale.
Think about it. You can go and buy a nice model aeroplane for, say, 50 quid, then put it together.
3D printing would allow you to print the same nice model aeroplane for, say, 25 quid, plus up-front cost of 5,000. That's not including energy prices, though, and if it takes days to print at several hundred watts of power, it's starting to get a little ineffective.
Worse still, you have to file off the bits sticking out, then wonder why the wings are uneven.
3D printing at a local shop will be a different matter. Let's say a plastic part failed in some appliance (say, a washing machine latch). The manufacturer will either say they don't stock spares, or they'll try to force you to buy the latch assembly, or the whole door, or at the very least, sell you the plastic bit, but charge 20% of a new washing machine.
One of the reasons is that you have to use the 3D printer regularly for the resin to not clog the nozzles. I had the rather sobering experience of using epoxy two weeks ago when it cured in the mixing nozzle within two minutes of being squeezed into it. I think 3D printers use thermal compound for this, but there are two problems with it -- if it doesn't re-plasticize after being warmed, you have to clean out the nozzle mechanically or use solvents, and either of these methods may damage the delicate nozzle. If it does re-plasticize, there's the question how you can heat all pipes that hold it and whether it will be stable in any useful application.
That might be exactly what Carl Bass implied all along -- 3D printing won't be ubiquitous at home, but local businesses will be built around it for sure.
In addition to AIT and SAIT that always were niche products meant more to showcase their media manufacturing capabilities than to actually turn a huge profit. Sony OEMs a lot of LTO media and sells some under its own brand as well.
Nobody in their right mind ever suggested that Fujifilm would release a new tape format when they announced joint work on Barium Ferrite. Now they even dedicated a site to BaFe:
Sony stated that their technology would allow storing 74 more times data on a standard BaFe LTO-6 tape. Fujifilm demonstrated a 35 TB tape, Sony now claims they could manufacture tape up to 185 TB in the same format -- exactly 150 TB more.
Since Sony is a media supplier, they are naturally interested in being the chosen media provider. LTO Consortium decided to adopt BaFe for LTO-6 (and presumably LTO-7). If Sony plays this right, they can get the LTOC board to adopt this as media of choice for LTO-8 (and Oracle's T10000x, and presumably IBM's future 3592 drive) and then make money on licensing manufacturing to other media suppliers. Right now, all LTO-6 cartridges *must* be BaFe. Every cartridge sold is an extra solid profit for Fujifilm and Sony rightly wants to jump on that bandwagon.
Wrong. If margin goes UP by a percentage and they're fine to report it, it means it was positive in the first place.
10% margin up 26% is 12.6% now. -10% margin up 26% is negative 12.6% after going up.
Note that nobody uses these statements when margin is negative and drops further down.
And what you're describing is a change that would necessarily be expressed in percentage points, not raw percentage.
There is just one problem with Putin. He was a KGB colonel. Have you ever seen a colonel commanding generals?
Putin may be deranged. He may believe himself to be the Czar. However, that makes him all the easier to manipulate and I can't shake that nagging feeling there's another power behind the throne and it's not even that hard to find.
Just goes to show you how little you can do with a MacBook Pro rather than the other way around. Seriously, why did you have a high performance laptop in the first place if you managed to completely replace it with a commodity appliance? For show?
What gives with just 45 MB/s performance sequential? With RAID 0, no less. A single drive is able to feed and digest 100 MB/s sequentially, with RAID 0, this should nearly linearly increase to 400 MB/s.
Apparently this is a problem with all hardware solutions, I can see. I had a Linux soft raid solution with five 1 TB WD Green drives in a RAID 5 configuration and I was able to get up to nearly 500 MB/s from them. Now I switched to an LSI 9260-8i and the performance dropped at least 10 times, which is ridiculous, and I'm considering going back, despite the sunk costs.
I can see the NAS boxes are even worse.
Aren't ARM SOCs going for as low as 50 cents? Let's imagine a proper dual core goes for 2 bucks, how much can they save by going lower?
First, the slave drivers there will not allow him to dig the stuff.
Second, nobody would buy from him. Companies do not buy such small amounts because they are not sustainable, and because it's hugely unlikely the ore would be of a useful grade (if an ore in the first place). You really need a lot of buckets (=a lot of hands), and you need some ore preprocessing on site, hence operations are set up.
Having recently read about the proceedings in Congo myself, I am appalled by this situation. Unsurprisingly, the corrupt government is not interested in resolving this problem, since they benefit from the minerals one way or another, and probably are involved in illegal dealings themselves.
Cue someone coming there, trying to enforce some humane standards, and be labeled a warmongering world police.
Man, that could be legally classed as a weapon of mass destruction. Or maybe something Atreides would use.
By all means apply. The problem is, they've got millions of readers and PA has a budget of several hundred thousand dollars, perhaps into millions now. The job will definitely suck hard. Of course it won't be a 160 hours per week job, they will expect you to squeeze the 160 hours into 40.
Sure, prioritization, but I seriously doubt they have a ticketing system and any SLAs. You'll likely be doing a few things at once, like trying to work out the network because there are some looming problems that might bring down the whole operation and fixing a printer because the printouts for the next month's presentation come out a bit too dark to the art director's liking. Guess who will demand you drop everything and solve his problem immediately. You'll end up fixing the network after hours, which nobody will notice since you're directly managed by people with no IT experience whatsoever.
If you are professional, if you prioritize and never take overtime, you'll have a working network, but you'll be kicked out because of ignoring the key person in the company. Hint: in a small organization, they are *all* key people and their problems come first. If they retain you, expect no raises because you're not doing your job well.
I read PA regularly and I appreciate their comic strip, but this ad really shows how easily you can lose touch with reality. I'm sure Mike and Jerry are perfectly happy to work their asses off for a measly reward since they own the operation and I assume they'd be happy with it even if they only barely broke even. But working behind the scenes, however important your job is, you'll never get the accolades and you'll never be in the spotlight, while you're still expected to put all of yourself into the job. Might as well get paid for it, no?
What would be the perks? Being able to talk to the owners? Play video games with them? Seriously? If that's supposed to cover for the ridiculous salary, they're really stretching it.
Problem is, it's a McJob. Expect poor pay, worthless experience and constant patting on the back, telling you how important you are to them. The problem with experience is that it will never be appreciated properly. It will be appreciated by other small operation webcomics, who will line up to fleece you at the same job just like PA is likely to, but any serious employer might actually balk at this, fully expecting that you just goofed off at the job. Finally, for all the work you put in there, you'll be laid off if they're ever merged into something larger.
Sure. A 'normal' and 'boring' job ad, outlining the actual challenges and any items specific to the job.
Once you accept a funny ad, expect your job to be funny (but of the black humor variety). Oh, and prepare to accept funny money for that, too.
I can't agre enough. Especially when looking at this:
- Annual Salary: Negotiable, but you should know up front we’re not a terribly money-motivated group. We’re more likely to spend less money on salary and invest that on making your day-to-day life at work better.
Improving day-to-day life at work? That still requires money that I would spend on things like a car, a good lunch, etc. The job should be paid no less than 4 salaries minus overhead of 3 extra people, so it should be something like 200-300 thousand dollars. And frankly, the ad reads more like expecting someone to come in to work for some 20-30 thousand.
So the mobes will hit the retail channel in November and they will only then be sent out to those who preordered and should get to them before the end of the year?
And to think they only paid €100 for the privilege...
What's IOP? The article uses a pluralization form of IOPs. Obviously IOPS is I/O Operations Per Second, but IOP?
Fruit flies? Of the radioactive mutant variety?
Let's discuss the flash solution. It could be made in small or large modules, each would have its own advantages and drawbacks. Even though it's frugal, flash still needs power to function. The larger the basic module, the more power it will use. Then there's the matter of reliability. Larger modules would fail more frequently per module than small ones. And ultimately, they would be more expensive per byte because they would need more complex controllers. These factors would favor smaller modules. However, smaller modules would require more complex routing, switching, finally it would need very complex controllers per each brick of modules.
Would it be cheaper than current flash technologies? Sure. Would it be cheap? Not by a long stretch. Flash is still 8-10 times more expensive than spinning drives. TLC doesn't bring the cost down far enough.
It's also not a matter of density. At the same node, I suppose flash makers could make features denser, but even if they were twice as dense (which is rather unrealistic), we're looking at only four times the raw capacity -- which is still more expensive than spinning media.
Interference would become a greater problem, and it would probably cause the usable capacity to not increase as fast as raw capacity did. Durability would suffer, of course, but as the guy said, it's not a problem for them, especially since they already don't delete the content, but keep it hidden.
Nevertheless, it's still not a solution. Perhaps Facebook will be happy with the resultant module, even if it's expensive, if they think it will save power, or if it would be less complex to build and maintain, but I don't think so.
Which brings me to tape. There are T10000C drives that offer 5 TB per tape, and T10000D on the horizon which will offer more -- that's beyond the LTO roadmap at the moment, so I'm not talking about LTO. Tape has the nice property that when it's idle, it's not using up power and when a cartridge is needed, automation takes care of picking it up and mounting on a drive.
That said, I realize that if he said that waiting times for spinning up disks are too long, waiting half a minute or so to access a tape would probably be much too long for a user to wait. Caching part of the content on disk to wait until a tape is mounted would probably alleviate some of this concern. However, the service is free of charge, so Facebook pretty much has all power to set SLAs for it.
What's so bad about DAB?
@Steve.T: Reading comprehension, man. It was obviously irony. Should I have used HTML5-compliant <sarcasm> tags?
They can be used for light gaming, assuming you're happy with 1366×768 resolution at absolutely lowest settings (some games provide Intel-specific setting, which offers quality even below the basic).
Oh, and funny you should mention AMD bought ATi. Remember Intel740? Thought not. Intel bought Real3D and released their GPU in 1998 -- eight years before AMD bought ATi. They had EIGHT MORE YEARS to develop the (admittedly rubbish at the time) solution into a solid product. When AMD bought ATi, they were struggling with their lineup, slowly recovering from 2000 series debacle with notably improved 3000 series, but they weren't well entrenched until releasing the 4000 series and Evergreen. Integrated GPUs from ATi were already vastly better than Intel's at that time and it was without much prior support from AMD that the GPU was excellent. Intel's GPUs continued to lag behind AMD's, and when AMD integrated them into APUs, Intel was again outstripped.
Between 1998 and 2006, Intel had time to improve their GPUs. They failed. They had eight years of possibilities to integrate the CPU and GPU within the hardware, even when the GPU resided in NB, but they didn't care about it. Since 2006 they have slowly improved, with each generation about doubling the performance, but it was still way behind the curve. Seeing Intel's lack of initiative I have to call bullshit on this 'Iris'. Maybe Haswell is not going to bring anything new to the table in terms of graphics (aside from increased clocks) and Iris is just a way to counter the lack of performance by doubling the number of GPUs.
As for playing video streams -- Intel's CPUs DO NOT use the GPU portion for decoding the stream. The CPU has a dedicated processing unit for this. And although it is impressive in its own right, it is supposed to play high numbers of video streams without breaking a sweat.
And your last paragraph -- as long as Intel is trying to stick x86 into everyone's face, they will continue to fail. And it's funny how Intel continuously claims that their target is ahead of them. When i740 was released, high performance GPUs were their future. They failed. Then they said their goal was best integrated graphics. They failed. Then they were supposed to release Larrabee, which was supposed to introduce Intel to the enthusiast GPU market. When that failed, they said Larrabee was intended for heterogeneous computing all the time and they never intended it to be a GPU. Now you are saying their goal is best performance in tablets? Ain't gonna happen. Iris isn't going to convince anyone, either.
Seriously, who are they kidding? Why not claim they are seventy-five HUNDRED (7500) times faster than ViRGE, the 3D decelerator? While they're at it, why not remember that their Core i7 CPUs are several hundred thousand times faster than 8088?
75×rubbish is just rubbish, but more of it. Their drivers are bad, the performance is in the basement compared to integrated GPUs from AMD. While they could be on to something with Iris, the competition would need to stand still for the last five years. Wake up call, Intel! You are NOT competing with 2006 chipset-integrated Radeon or GeForce! You're going to compete with 2014 APUs which are going to include hUMA (which for most users will mean PS4-like GDDR5 system memory). Your GPU may well be 75 times faster than in 2006, but AMD's GPUs made more improvement in the last 7 years and you are not going to fool anyone.
It launched in 1993. I remember reading the review, but frankly, there's scant info on the Internet and it's hard to find the information.
Nevertheless, I did find information on it. There were two models: 240i and 260i, differing in HDD capacity (40 and 60 MB, which was a lot for a notebook back then). Specifications:
- Am286LX at 16 MHz (1.5 µm node)
- 2 MB RAM
- Dimensions: 223×161×31 mm (smaller than original EeePC!)
- Weight: 1 kg (which is less than some EeePC models, at almost 1.5 kg)
- 7.5" monochrome displays (640×400 resolution, line-doubled CGA)
- Battery life: 3-4 hours on 5 AA batteries (!), you could use rechargeables (Ni-Cd at the time).
- Price: I can't remember now, but for what it did, it was cheaper than cheapest regular notebooks, at some $300-400.
It's hard not to draw parallels between then and now. The subnotebook was based on technology that was two generations behind the mainstream (486, color displays), which is about where netbooks are in relation to notebooks.
Obviously, technology has progressed since then, but in 15 years between this and the original EeePC, what did we get in return? Frankly, not much! Larger hard drives, color displays (sometimes they are even larger), more memory. But feature bloat caused the netbooks to not perform better than their old rivals. If you used 700 mAh Ni-Cd rechargeables with the Bicom, you got 3 hours battery life. With 2700 mAh NiMH rechargeables, you would get 12 hours -- compare that to 3 hours on an EeePC with batteries rated at 5600 mAh with higher voltage. Displays obviously draw the most energy, but 15 years of progress should have brought them at least to parity. If anything, turning off backlight (or the display altogether, and running on an external monitor), should allow the netbook to work considerably longer, but it doesn't.
Is it unreasonable to expect that you should be able to get a 9-inch notebook running a shrunk CPU two generations old (hey, it would be the original Nehalem now) -- not downclocked, mind you, with an SSD, weighing in at less than 0.5 kg, with dimensions of an A5 sheet of paper and at most 5 mm thick?
You're welcome. And no, I didn't mean absolute leadership, but some of the names and companies should have never made the list.
What about Storagetek/Sun/Oracle and tape? What about IBM for that matter? You mentioned HP, which might go bankrupt and assets may disperse between various other companies, but both IBM and Oracle tape equipment right now holds more data (an order of magnitude more) on tape than is kept on disk. Tape still has the edge over flash for overall TCO, and flash vendors have to catch up with tape, not vice versa.
I understand that you may be enamored with the new technologies, but as it stands, the list is woefully inadequate. Dropbox, Facebook and Amazon? Pretty much equivalent in terms of web storage -- pick any one of the three or add many more to the list if you really believe that they matter. How about adding Rapidshare, then? Going further, I see fusion-io, which is apparently struggling, as you yourself reported:
Is this the financial outlook of a market leader and a successful company?
It doesn't seem that Fusion-IO is leading in benchmarks, either. Or are you considering adding OCZ to the list as well? It certainly doesn't seem that competition has to chase Fusion-IO in anything.
Is this a contest of who makes the presentation most devoid of content and crams as many cliparts to a page as possible?
What do the gears even represent? How the hell are two completely different domains -- sourcing and monitoring -- supposed to drive one another???
Or is it just a classroom project of one of the execs' children?
I've yet to see Capitalism at work. The bailouts are precisely where the problems lie -- it's not Capitalism, it's thinly-veiled Socialism with tolerated Personal Property (unless said Personal Property needs to be taken over by the Government to support its own interests).
Why would it matter whether they are experts on global climate? The only conclusion of the research is the unprecedented scale of carbon sequestration in peat, and the enormous rate of growth of mires and bogs. The additional conclusion that the amount of carbon sequestrated might be high enough to offset human industrial CO2 emissions is added almost as an afterthought.
By the way, annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions are within the margin of error of estimates on amount of CO2 emissions from a medium-sized volcano eruption. How could human-made CO2 be responsible for anything? That's the thing that I've never seen climate scientists refute. It's like they're trying to explain how we can heat an ocean using a candle.
Given that indeed.com is a global site, and contains many more jobs in other sectors than IT, it's a big deal.
Even if it is not a huge percentage within IT, it's still significant.
Compared to other IT jobs, which include programming where the basic skill is a language, then there are generic IT jobs where no skills are required, web coding where you'll find the usual fare of CSS and PHP, Hadoop will be a significant part of the remainder of critical jobs -- like mainframe or Unix administration -- it might seem archaic for some, but it brings a lot of money.
Not everyone will have to know Hadoop inside-out, but those who do, and whose skills are required, will rake in the big cash.
Okay, so I'm risking a reply to what may be an obvious troll, but... The Soviets were thought to have enormous apparent advantage in rocket design 50 years ago, and well, look up N1.
Soviets couldn't build a "simple rocket" to reach the Moon, it makes the American Saturn V that much more remarkable. (Some try to say it was a lucky break, but the perfect safety record says otherwise).
Unfortunately (yes, I'm Polish), not much. It's not that a lot of the theoretical foundations weren't laid by Polish mathematicians, it's that certain political decisions caused them to fall by the wayside.
However you want to twist it, siding with the French in their code-breaking efforts cost them the chance to work at Bletchley Park. Turing was a brilliant mathematician and computer scientist and he did a lot more work in breaking the code than any other man.
Cheers to that!