"as *SERIOUSLY* expensive as a terrorist attributed meltdown?"
The problem is that company shareholders and accountants are rubbish at understanding risk, consequences and costs. Risks with extreme consequences but which are very unlikely to happen are often ignored. Why spend money mitigating something that is unlikely?
For example, Tepco had to be strong armed by the Japanese government to install pressure release valves at Fukushima. Turns out that they need those. Without them Japan would be looking at the ruins of four exploded reactor cores instead of four minor meltdowns.
Tepco are in real trouble anyway. They were pressed by various engineers and inspectors to shutdown the old reactors at Fukushima years ago. Had they done so they would be looking at a minor loss of electricity sales instead of complete corporate extinction.
In comparison, connecting vital corporate systems to the Internet seems much more likely to result in complete corporate disaster. So why do it?
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- FLABBER-JASTED: It's 'jif', NOT '.gif', says man who should know
- If you've bought DRM'd film files from Acetrax, here's the bad news
- Microsoft reveals Xbox One, the console that can read your heartbeat