In my experience, it's not much harder than finding developers with any other specialized skill set.

Hadoop and HBase are exposed as libraries with well-documented APIs. If you're trying to hire developers who can't read an API doc, you have bigger problems than database choice. If you want to hire someone who already knows what they're doing, then your prospects are similar to finding a dev who already knows a particular 3D engine, or kernel development, et cetera.

If you're hiring competent documentation-reading developers anyway, and are willing to pay the expenses while they learn the idioms of this particular library, then there's no additional difficulty in the hiring process.

None of the above.

A beggar would be easy to infiltrate as, so it'd be ideal for surveillance. A car dealer would make many contacts, so it's ideal for spreading material. An elected official has power, but he also faces a lot of scrutiny. An aide to the official, however, would be a reasonable choice. There's easy access to the power, less scrutiny, and much more capability to contact other aliens.

"Why not" is because the cost/benefit analysis is not in NoSQL's favor. NoSQL's downsides are a steeper learning curve (to do it right), fewer support tools, and a more specialized skill set. Its primary benefits don't apply to you. You don't need ridiculously fast writes, you don't need schema flexibility, and you don't need to run complex queries on previously-unknown keys. Rather, you have input rates limited by an external connection, only a few entity types, and you know your query keys ahead of time.

As an expert (relative to most of Slashdot) in NoSQL databases, with a significant amount of experience in Hadoop and HBase systems, I agree wholeheartedly.

NoSQL solutions can be ridiculously fast and scale beautifully over billions of rows. Under a billion rows, though, and they're just different from normal databases in various arguably-broken ways. By the time you need a NoSQL database, you'll be successful enough to have a well-organized team to manage the transition to a different backend. For a new project, use a RDBMS, and enjoy the ample documentation and resources available.

Ah, yes... Let's buy from Huawei, Sony, Samsung, and Baidu. Then US profits will fall, and those lobbying companies will magically realize that it's their stance on security that has been the reason for the change. It's not that their latest product's focus group was wrong, or that big quality-control scandal six months earlier, or even just the long-term echoes of a recent economic downturn... The obvious reason is a customer boycott because of vague security concerns.

Of course, once they realize that Asia is taking the lead, they'll pressure the government to be less intrusive. After all, we know that companies love to recognize their own failings, so they'll immediately want to improve product quality rather than just raise H-1B caps to snipe those miraculously-profitable Asian engineers. That's fortunate, too, because if they brought in more imported employees, the government would probably want to spy on them more...

Okay, Slashdot. Pop quiz time. Today's topic is... security! Three questions; no time limit.

First question: If you are a party interested in having operatives harm another nation, what is the best way to travel between your countries? Your choices are a local grocer, a privately-owned yacht, or an airline flight that someone else has paid for?

Second question: Once your operative arrives in your target country, how will you maintain control over them and support their mission? Will you have them set up a clandestine infrastructure, or use a pre-existing organization?

Third question: What kind of association would arouse the least suspicion when traveling to and from your home country? A large corporation, a religious faction, or an international charity?

And a bonus round, for extra credit: Of the associations in the third question, which would spur the most outrage if your target country's government were to investigate your activities?

It's a warning to everybody. The truck driver of the shipping company can know what vendor's parts go into the secret Foo Bar research. One of those vendors may have an overeager sales rep, who's all too happy to boast that their widgets are used on the Foo Bar project. Those widgets are designed by an engineer, who might be easily bribed into tweaking the design to have some subtle change. It's immaterial to the widgets themselves, but when embedded in the final system it might be enough to compromise the Foo Bars when they're used in the field.

A contrived and convoluted example, but not terribly far-fetched. The supply chain for new technology is often pretty big, and there are many places that are vital enough and vulnerable enough to be worth attacking.

TFA is just as bad. The short version is that the FBI releases a general warning about Russian espionage, and a bunch of Russian VC firms swear they're not spying and have never heard of anyone doing such things.

I've spent my share of time in counter-intelligence briefings. I was never warned about mass surveillance, firmware backdoors, or any other high-tech techniques. Instead, what seemed to be the biggest threat was the risk of foreigners listening in on casual conversations, or picking up organizational details to find good targets to bribe. They're probably not trying to corrupt company executives (further) or researchers directly, but it's amazing what poorly-paid janitors have access to.

It's not just "plausible", but in fact likely, that the FBI has a lead that there are Russians operating in Boston. It's a general warning, because it's a general threat. It's not some specific VC firm or some specific technology that's being targeted. Rather, there's probably just evidence of somebody in the area looking for any tech information they can get.

Dismissing obvious bias is valid. PRMan's bias is obvious, shown by the use of absolutes.

As for 60 Minutes' dubbing being obvious, Google can show us just how many people noticed or cared. Looking at the first several results, the only "LOTS of people" were Tesla enthusiasts already.

The point I'm making is that the claim that inaccurate sound is widely noticed is primarily the result of heavy confirmation bias. Incidents where a rough cut or particularly awkward clip were used are remembered because they align with the observer's preconceived notion. Incidents where the sound was mixed well are not remembered, because the audio quality was not notable.

This post probably deserves an off-topic mod. I know. With that out of the way...

I'll admit, since my comment on the last video, I've been curious what the next would be like. Roblimo, I don't know if you saw or cared about my comment, but I notice that this story is far better. As of this writing, there is not a single comment complaining about advertising, even though there's still only a single company directly involved. The focus is more general, and that makes the whole thing much more appealing. Kudos to you. It makes me happy to think that I might be improving Slashdot in some small way.

Granted, the subject is a bit under the typical Slashdotter's level of expertise, but that's beside the point. This would have been really nice when I was explaining to a former boss how SSDs should properly be used. He thought I was crazy for suggesting that the documents he wanted to have instant access to should be on the slower drive.

If you didn't notice an edit that matched your inaccurate expectations, you wouldn't ever know it worked. All you know are the few times you caught the edit. Good job. You and everyone you know, including your children, are apparently pedants.

The other 99% of what you heard while you were entertained? It was all fake too, but your confirmation bias doesn't care about that.

In short, no. The predominant audience for mass media are the same masses that care about the Kardashians.

That said, there are aspects of sound design that are being noticed. I've often half-joked that if I do my job right, nobody knows I'm there (noting that I mostly do live sound reinforcement, where there are fewer expectations to meet). It's getting harder to pull off the perfect unnoticeable audio edit... but on the other hand, the trend is now to have nearly-constant background music, so many of my mistakes can be covered.

What people notice more today are the cuts. Most audience members still won't notice that a particular bird call won't be heard near a particular tree, but they will be more likely to notice if an actor's voice changes between scenes. The old practice of having a professional singer dubbed over an actor is more difficult to pull off now, mostly because the audience is aware that such things are done. They hear the opening notes of the song, and it's become a game to hear the voice change.

I think the Wilhelm scream is also a great example. I simply refuse to use it. Especially with the influence of the Internet, the common effects are becoming a sort of secret society. Learning the clips and catching them in media is a moment of exclusivity. For just a moment you, the astute viewer, are immune to the effects of manipulative editors like me. Good for you. You've proven to yourself that you can still override your suspension of disbelief. All of those other silly folks in the theater are engrossed in the latest multi-million-dollar effects orgy, but you are better than they are, because you can see that the movie is just smoke and mirrors.

Yes, the squealing on gravel is still present, but gravel in general has fallen out of use, apart from period pieces (which wouldn't usually have cars, anyway). Most of the shows I've noticed lately have urban settings, or at least try to stay out of the dirt. It's hell on equipment, and gravel roads are rare enough today that it no longer breaks suspension of disbelief to see a country town with pavement.

In not-so-short, audiences are becoming more knowledgeable about the tools editors use, but I don't see them getting "smarter" about being able to notice equalization, mic placement, or most other things besides the obvious overused clips.

As I view audio as an art form, I also disagree with the very use of the term "smart" as you've used it. Appreciation of an art form, imperfections and all, is just as intellectual a pursuit as identifying regional bird calls. Should we call Michelangelo a moron, because David's hands are too big?

My comments are also getting to be far too big today...

Firefly is sci-fi, and it has a different intended audience than 60 minutes. That means it will have a significantly different directing approach, and scientific accuracy will be preferred more than the usual mass-market demographics.

As I've heard, 2001: A Space Odyssey was made with silent ships specifically because it would be unexpected. The jarring silence helps to establish the feeling of helpless solitude.