I chose to read the article from WIRED titled "Why Hadoop Is the Future of the Database" and I must say that I do not entirely agree with the statement in the title. From my experience, news articles have the tendency to stretch the truth and I would say that this is happening here. While the advantage of a Hadoop database (it's incredible speed) is most certainly a very valuable thing for the use case in the article, the problem of losing a query in the event of a crash is FAR from ideal. If you want to use bold words in your article title like "the Future of the Database" (as in using the word 'the' to speak of the entire population of databases) and expect me to accept the article, it at least has to be close to truthful. I can think of many different uses of databases where losing a query would be detrimental to the function of the operation. In my summer internship, I was tasked with writing a consumer/producer-structured alerts delivery system. The producer would put the necessary information into a Cassandra 'queue' database and a bunch of consumers would do the heavy work in building and sending the email, gathering the necessary information in the queue. If my consumers had the chance of failing to execute the query, my code would delete an entry from the queue database and the alert would be lost. That sucks. This article's title sucks. Even someone with as little experience as me can quickly find a contradiction. To those with little experience in the subject, the article is misleading. Those who do have some experience with databases are left questioning the accuracy of the article. Ultimately, this article is misleading and makes me wonder why anyone even reads stuff like this.