offshore

My experience has been that the more non-techies come on board, the more inclined the company is to offshore development.

The result is that trillions of dollars are rotting uselessly in offshore tax havens, when they could have been invested in future economic development.

In the Netherlands at least, onshore is far bigger than offshore: roughly 90% by capacity, 85% by production.

More often than not, you can't get cheap rates like that unless you offshore 20 developers and get a group discount.

Usually greatest output potential is far from people, be it offshore wind, desert solar, or even nuclear near large lakes for cooling.

I wish Gigster luck, but ultimately this approach isn't much different from what many offshore dev shops do today.

The capacity factor for offshore is more likely to be in the 45-55% range than in the 25-40% range for onshore - partly because the turbines can be bigger, and partly because it's windier offshore.

Sri Lanka has an IT industry largely based around offshore and services.

And, I'd make it much clearer that the viewer is likely looking at offshore outsourcing pricing as that is a very, shall we say, unique approach to new product development.

From a technical perspective, it's useful to keep in mind that the closest humanity has come to drilling to the appropriate depths offshore is...

The article cites $1tn/year being taken out of poorer countries by corruption, and $190bn worth of property in England and Wales owned by offshore companies.

If that's true (seems like it would be), I'd think the long-term advantage off an offshore wind farm is still advantageous.

All they can look forward to is low margin agriculture and exploitative "offshore" manufacturing.

I bet the offshore guys get a lot of work from all of the "I have an idea!" people though.

Offshore site is probably up before the week is over.