You don't know anything about the power industry.

In the rest of the United States, there are several levels of redundancy for all power generation. Five / ten minute failover, one hour failover, and 24 hour failover. There are backups and extras built into pretty much everything. FERC regulates it all, and there are extremely heavy fines for messing up. The way the grid is managed in the rest of the US is progressively more shoddy as FERC has its teeth pulled.

Under FERC rules, there are rolling fines as people lose power for longer periods. And this is weighted for rural users. Did you know that it is FAR more expensive to serve a rural individual than an urban one with electrical power? Probably not. But they pay a somewhat reasonable price, because Regulations. The whole idea of deregulating markets making life better for everyone is flat out wrong.

The problem with demanding this is an encryption application would take anyone with the right whitepapers a week or two of development to write. The whitepapers are public.

You can buy T-shirts that are classified as munitions.

It's not hard, and the computation power required to break the encryption scales exponentially. Make someone who's interested in keeping their secrets fundamentally private do it, and you might even end up with programmers writing encryptions with 1MB keys or something crazy. Completely unbreakable until the end of time, and such.

The amusing thing is that you'd think traditional Law Enforcement would be the first people to think attacking the human element rather than the technical one was smart. That's what they do now, that's the route hackers prefer anyways.

Hey, now. Remember the administration you've got.

'Ivanka Trump Cloud Services, Inc." has a better chance at this contract than Oracle, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon combined.

I mean, you can use a hammer for a lot of things. One of them is smashing yourself in the head for a couple hours.

I don't consider that the hammer's fault.

An absolute expert will have twenty tools in their toolbox for solving whatever problems they encounter, and each tool will have a different application. Just because there are programmers who range in skill level from, "Master of all things hammer," to "Barely able to hammer in nail without breaking thumb," to "Will use hammer to drive in screws and bolts, because they are an absolute master of the hammer," to, "Master of all things hammer AND SCREWDRIVER," doesn't mean the hammer is a bad tool.

I actually enjoyed writing Assembly more than C# and Java. My version of hell involves some idiot making me write factory classes to do basic RegEx comparisons.

Don't blame tools for the things that people do with them. You'll find the same problems wherever you go.

Actually, it's kinda a logical extension of their original (somewhat overblown) mission of collecting as much data as possible, organizing it, and disseminating it as useful information to people. Lots of people have tried it (there was a disaster a few years ago where Wikipedia was used as an information store, as I remember) and it seems like a decent thing to do.

On top of that, Google is an advertising-based Internet startup that seems to have incongruously lasted 10 years longer than its expected lifespan. What part of, "Jump on every fad," doesn't fit into that?

Not necessarily true. We have one onsite desktop support tech in an office of twenty or thirty people. He gets everything done in approximately half time, because we use Google cloud apps for a huge percentage of our overall applications. He also does purchasing of all new machines, etc. in that half time....

So, yeah, cloud stuff is slightly more efficient in my view. The backups required for all that e-mail, all the setup stuff, etc...... Just harder to do without cloud apps.

And, of course, there are consulting companies selling cloud apps like mad at the moment, too. Salesforce consultants are some of the most highly paid in the industry, I'm fairly certain.

There must be some way to solve a problem like that, where you have a series of pointers to files, if not the files themselves as well, with the ability to add markers of some kind to each of those pointers. (maybe we can call them, "Records!!!" like CD's used to be called) And then! Then! We can disguise how the management of these 'records' are organized from the user, so they don't have to think about it. And give them a simple, logical way to get data about those 'records' out of the big, organized whole. It'd be, like, a whole new basic way to store our records! We could easily find what we wanted in our basic data storage. I can't believe noone's thought of it before. ;)

My point here isn't that you should use a database to store your data about your files, (unfortunately, a unified markup system for files doesn't exist yet; it would be nice, but all that stuff is in the OS right now) my point is that the author of the article is missing that even if in-memory data systems do become extremely large, the underlying theory of the technology will not change much.

And the underlying theory relies heavily on caching, limiting how much of your overall dataset is currently relevant, and so on. While I will admit it's possible many databases' useful data size will eventually be outgrown by RAM-style memory storage, when that happens market forces will probably make it comparatively expensive to hold all your data in memory at once. Partially because clean, concise code is generally far more expensive to produce than sloppy crap that chews through your data storage.

Discarding data is something that, as a programmer, I don't often do. Too often I will need it later. Real time analytics are not going to change this. As long as hard drive storage continues to get cheaper, there's going to be more data stored. Partially because the easier it is to store large blocks the more likely I am to store bigger packets. I'd LOVE to store entire large XML blocks in databases sometimes, and we decide not to because of space issues. So, yeah, no. Datacenters aren't going anywhere. Things just get more complicated on the hosting side.

Note that the article writer is a strong stakeholder in his earthshattering predictions coming true.

That's what Champions Online was supposed to be. Same company, same theme, didn't turn out as well as hoped. Very sad.

That's weird, all my friends love it.

Yeah, one distro dominating is always a problem with Linux.

This opinion is inane, trollish, and should be modded into oblivion. The very idea that a major publication could do any reporting at all if they meant actual harm to the US military is ludicrous. Their embedded reporter numbers would go down in comparison to their competitors, their assistance in foreign countries would be less on the ball, etc. Life's rough for actual investigative reporting right now, anyways, so they're not picking any fights.

Want to see an agency with every reason to kick the US military when it's down? Check out the BBC. They're...... Not very nice. And actually more informative than a lot of our outlets.