Google 'isis' aalong with beheadings, rape, child slavery, sex slaves, burning people alive, burying people alive etc. Alternatively buy a newspaper from time to time.

Funny that you and many others got angry because I asked the question that you want to no longer have anyone ask.

Is each bomb going to kill ISIS, or might it do more? Then "why are we bombing syria" never stops being a relevant question to ask, and never one that is fully answered until the answer becomes that we are not.

Also there are lots of horrible regimes and atrocities around the world at all times. The reason we are bombing this one likely has nothing to do with any of the above, and so remains a valid question.

Probably not necessary. The Indian rockets are generally more cost effective and reliable than the American ones.

Cost effective, sure. But where have you read that they are more reliable?

Google PSLV. It's over two decades since their last launch failure (and 18 years since a partial failure). At least 26 consecutive successful launches since the late 90's putting over 70 satellites into orbit. it also holds the record for the most satellites successfully put into orbit in a single launch.

PSLV has a good record, certainly, at 28 launches with one full and one partial failure. It's not particularly better, though, than Atlas V (52 launches with one partial failure) or Delta IV (28 launches with one partial failure) or Soyuz-FG (49 launches with no failures). Ariane 5 (with 77 flights and 2 full and 2 partial failures--all at the early stages of the program) ain't bad either.

Number of satellites per launch is a curious metric. And a mostly useless one, I would think, considering modern cubesats, nanosats, and (soon) chipsats. I also dispute PSLV holding that record. PSLV C9 seems to have carried 10. Antares Orb-1 in January 2014 is recorded as carrying 34 spacecraft. If KickSat had worked, SpaceX CRS-3 would have ended up deploying something like 110 individual spacecraft.

Cubesats etc. are going to lead to a whole lot of new records that don't mean anything over the next bit of time. FWIW, Orb-1 was an ISS resupply, so you could argue that it didn't really deploy those satellites, just shipped them up to the ISS. However, a Dnepr launch back in June carried 37 satellites and deployed them in to orbit (11 of those belonged to my employer, Planet Labs). http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/19/dnepr-launches-37-sat...

I just glanced at the PSLV wikipedia page, and it looks like it's mostly for polar orbits. That's pretty cool, as it's quite different from the ISS' 55 degree inclination orbit that the commercial resupplies can get you, and changing inclination is expensive in terms of fuel.

As a guy with vested interest in getting more satellites up in orbit, this is great news!

Thanks for the info, looks like quite a few reliable launch vehicles out there. I was mostly just trying to counter the kneejerk comment higher up about insurance and Indian rockets.

It is still cheaper compared to 1984 standards.

Cloud isn't any more a buzzword than Internet is a buzzword or network or cumputer were buzzwords before that. From what I can see it looks pretty decent, just costs and arm and a leg like most books from Springer. If anything it will likely be quite dry and academic with lots of references.

It's enough cs for most practical purposes as a programmer (only from looking at the table of contents so far), which is probably the target audience.

After conducting many interviews of candidates I'm pretty sure that description fits at least 60-70% of experienced programmers.

Can someone without knowledge of basic data structures and algorithms be called an experienced programmer?

The book covers more advanced data structures too. You'd be amazed by the experienced developers was use basic arraylists, and occasionally hash tables without any idea if how they actually work. They get systems to work without knowing the underlying details, which for some industries is seemingly considered ok.