Yeah I can see Linux being important, I just didn't think companies put much stock in the certifications themselves, vs. work experience or interviews or other such screening methods. There was a period in the '90s when certs were a big deal, Microsoft's MSCE and Certified Novell Administrator and Cisco's CCNA and whatever, but in the 2000s the certs started being more ignored, at least in my experience, b/c they weren't that reliable a demonstration that the employee was actually any good. Maybe they're back, or the RHEL ones are taken more seriously?

the almost-death of Blackberry may help Microsoft somewhat here. Microsoft's strongest market is basically "business", mostly traditional business that isn't "hip" enough to be using Apple products. People who want nice Exchange integration, connections with Office 365, etc. Previously that market was totally sewn up by Blackberry, but as they're collapsing Microsoft might grab some of that market.

Well, the majority of web-facing servers anyway. According to Netcraft, about 30% of servers run Windows/IIS, and just about all the rest run either Apache/Linux or nginx/Linux (plus a few running *BSD, of course).

I can see companies caring about Linux expertise; after all, the vast majority of servers run Linux, so if you're hiring for someone doing devops you probably want them to know their way around Linux. But 44% prefer people with "Linux certification"? I know some companies care about stuff like RHEL certifications, but I didn't think it was that many.

Oh yes, I forgot that everybody pays taxes on their Bitcoin transactions. They must be self reporting them just because they're so honest.

It's like they set the system up to allow the Bitcoins to be stolen. There is a bit of Poe's law here where you can never tell if a Bitcoin site operator is merely incompetent or actually a scammer. That and there is always a better scammer out there preying on the scammers. Even Ross Ulbrict got scammed for more than a million dollars worth of Bitcoins.

Is there anybody with real authority actually looking for this? As far as the government is concerned someone might as well have stolen all of the WoW Gold or Eve ISK. Pretty much everybody else doesn't have the means or expertise to actually do the real world search. Somebody has a huge fat wallet that they're going to tumble over the months and eventually cash out and unless they screw something up there's not much chance of being caught.

Well that may have been true in the past. But this time is totally different. Sign up for the new exchange today!

It is depressing how many times people will fall for the same scam over and over again. Already we have heard of new exchanges "safer than ever" and people are lining up to put their money into them on the faint hope that it isn't a scam yet again.

Pretty much anybody funded by the Koch brothers. Clean energy is a direct threat to their business model.

You say that, but someone already thought of that.

I guess you don't know how the grid actually works. It does NOT involve running wires directly from the generator to some distant location. Again, I don't know that much about how it's set up in the UK, but physics there is the same as in the US. In the US, electricity is often sold across multiple states (easily far enough to reach another country in Europe). even when it's generated with fossil fuels. Since losing money isn't a popular hobby, I would have to say it makes economic sense.

It's a problem in two parts, but what it really comes down to is that when you double click, you don't actually know if data will be viewed or a program will execute. Is it REALLY a surprise to anyone that that's a gamble you will lose sooner or later?

Fundamentally, having the same action mean more than one thing is asking for trouble. There needs to be one action to open and another to execute.

Next, the icons themselves should indicate an executable even if it does not end in .EXE. Some sort of emblem should take care of it.

Given that the grid exists and power is sold on it now, it stands to reason that it can be done in an economically sound manner. Otherwise it wouldn't exist.