44 posts • joined Thursday 20th November 2008 03:10 GMT
The penalty wasn't for the competing vehicle doing something wrong
...according to the article, it was for one of their support cars breaking the speed limit.
Presumably the support crews have packing up to do after their car has set off, and then want to get to the next checkpoint and set up well before their sunshine-mobile arrives. This means going faster then their entry in the race - so breaking the 130kph limit might seem like a good plan, up until the point where you get caught and your team is penalized.
It is a bad choice of question anyway; most people incorrectly believe the answer is 'Yellow'; but in fact the sun is white. Indeed, the sun defines white. This is easy to test; take a white piece of paper and shine a coloured light on it, and it appears to be the colour of the light you exposed it to. Now, take it out into the sunshine. What colour does it look?
Re: Bigger issues first
Interestingly, in Australia, vehicles do already display an 'insurance disk' (All right, State and Territory registration stickers are oblong rather than round, so not a disk per se). CTP insurance is billed as part of the rego, and displaying a valid rego sticker in Aus DOES indicate that the vehicle is covered by compulsory third-party insurance.
CTP only covers third-party personal injury, and not property damage, but it applies to the vehicle not the driver - although it is invalidated if the driver is unlicenced.
Re: "Anyone would think..."
All of which is completely true, but not a point of difference from other means of generating electricity.
The key differences between the nuclear power industry idiots and the coal power industry idiots are that the coal power industry idiots are allowed to hide in the shadows, with zero attention paid by the media to the deaths and serious injuries they cause; while the nuclear power industry idiots are subjected to massive and unremitting scrutiny every time one of their workforce breaks a fingernail, or a member of the public is exposed to a dose of radiation equivalent to having a CAT scan.
On the whole, I would rather ALL industries were held to the high standards applied to nuclear power - it wouldn't prevent all industrial deaths and injuries, but it would massively reduce their number and frequency.
The reason that "Modern designs use passive cooling and don't have this problem", is that the people in charge of commissioning those designs are fully aware of what happens to them if they don't take safety very seriously indeed, and take appropriate steps to protect (as far as possible) the idiots from the consequences of their idiocy.
If only the same were true of other electricity generation schemes.
Re: People who've been around the block a few times...
>I am not saying your wrong
Very glad to hear that, as what you should be saying is "you're wrong".
>RBS is very ITIL focused
Ahh, you have hit the nail on the head. From Wikipedia:
"ITIL describes procedures, tasks and checklists that are not organization-specific, used by an organization for establishing a minimum level of competency."
Managers who think that achieving a "minimum level of competency" is sufficient should not be allowed to play with systems that require an above-average level of competency; and managers who think that their specific complex organization is best operated by using "procedures, tasks and checklists that are not organization-specific" should not be allowed to run a lemonade stand.
The fundamental problem is that there are people in positions of power who think that 'management' is a basic skill in and of itself, which can be applied successfully to running anything, from lemonade stands to multinational banking houses.
The "Lack of experience" problem started at the top, and the feeling in boardrooms around the world today is "We don't need detailed knowledge of our corporation's systems, so why should we pay through the nose for staff who do? Let's write down the instructions on a checklist and give them to someone in a poverty-stricken hell-hole like Hyderabad, Mumbai or Edinburgh, who will step through them for $17,000 pa and no benefits."
What could possibly go wrong?
Re: Investment in the backbone?
So the long-term solution to a problem caused by replacing experienced people with inexperienced people, is to replace the current, experienced executives - who are now as full of information on the perils of employing inexperienced staff as the dog that peed on the third rail - with new, shiny, fresh out of their MBAs executives who will repeat the same errors made by their forebears?
Surely a better solution is to fire no-one, but to re-hire (at great expense) as many of the experienced staff they originally sacked as they can find, while slashing the remuneration of the responsible parties, but keeping them in-house now that they have learned this rather expensive lesson?
Re: Don't forget...
Windscale was not a nuclear power plant; it was a plutionium manufacturing facility, producing the raw material for bombs. It was also amongst the worlds first nuclear facilities of any kind; including it in a risk analysis for twenty-first century power generation plants is like including Stephenson's Rocket in a risk analysis of the French TGV system.
Oh, and it is still called Windscale. Sellafield is the umbrella term for the various adjacent (but separate) nuclear facilities, notably Windscale, (a Bomb-making plant closed in the 1950s after a fire); Calder Hall, (a power generation and plutonium making facility decommissioned in 2003 after 47 years of operation); and THORP, (a reprocessing plant turning spent fuel into new fuel).
You don't hear about Windscale much these days, because it hasn't been in use for over half a century - but it is still called Windscale.
"Nuclear power is a wonderful idea until you realize that to power a world population of 15 billion at U.S. levels of consumptive energy waste, over 200,000 nuclear reactors would need to be constructed world wide."
World population will likely never exceed about 12 billion, and the fraction of that population who will use power at the crazy rate currently seen in the USA will likely remain very small - indeed, it could well fall, as even Americans will realize that they are better off using power efficiently than they are paying for more electricity than they really need.
"300 in Iraq alone."
Iraq has nothing to do with anything here; but even if we imagine a wildly unlikely future in which Iraq uses the same per-capita energy as today's USofA, we find that we are imagining a world in which they have the technical expertise to do so without difficulty.
"Currently the world has around 450 of them, and 4 have blown up over the last 50 years. Roughly 1 percent."
Really? One blew up in the Ukraine, because it was a poor early design abused by its operators; one blew up in Japan because it was a poor early design hit by a huge tsunami, having been built in a poorly chosen location. I don't know what the other two you are referring to could be; Three Mile Island is the only other incident that springs to mind, but it would be completely wrong to describe that incident as 'blown up' - except perhaps in the phrase "An incident causing no fatalities that has been blown up out of all proportion by the media"; a phrase that would also apply to Fukushima.
"With 200,000 reactors we should expect to see around 40 of them blow up every year."
But only if we were really, really bad at maths, and decided to extrapolate in a straight line for no good reason.
"No thanx. I'll continue to reduce my consumption thank you."
No-one is suggesting you should do otherwise; it makes good sense to do more than one thing to approach this problem. Replacing the current technology with one that is a couple of orders of magnitude safer and cleaner than coal does, however, seem like a wise companion to reduction of consumption.
At the end of the day, the question of whether nuclear power is 'safe' or 'clean' in some absolute sense is irrelevant; what matters is that it is demonstrably far safer and cleaner than the current coal-burning technology. If fission power was invented today, without all the historical baggage from the cold war, those calling for carbon footprint reduction would be clamouring to have coal power plants replaced by nuclear plants as soon as possible. It would save lives, and reduce not only carbon pollution, but also sulphur, particulates and even radiological pollution too.
Take your pick, tree-huggers -
You can oppose carbon dioxide emissions, or you can oppose nuclear power plants.
If you do both, you are opposing the continued existence of human civilization.
Of course, some people are explicitly opposed to the continued existence of human civilization; but even amongst the hard-core greenies, these are a minority. I hope.
Why do people like NREL waste time, money and resources on studies that prove* we can have low carbon electricity without nuclear baseload power? Could it be that the anti-nuclear lobby painted themselves into a corner during the cold war, and demonized fission power to the point that they no longer even think before saying "No thanks!"?
*As long as we don't mind paying vastly more, and it not working sometimes, and as long as we develop some brand new technologies that have yet to leave the drawing-board
Less is more
It doesn't matter how many minutes per hour of TV are devoted to advertisements - the total spend on TV advertising will remain roughly constant. In Australia, we have loads of slots on sale - so they are cheap, and Max Annoying can afford to make a ten second movie of himself standing in front of his dodgy used car lot screaming at me about how great this week's deals are.
In the UK (at least, back in the good old days when I lived over there, and beer was less than a pound a pint), there were strict limits on the ads per hour; and only one channel allowed to have them at all. This did not significantly reduce the revenue to be had by selling TV ads; oh no. The revenue was simply concentrated in a smaller space, and as a result, it was essential to advertisers that they made better ads - even if they were more expensive - with the result that Rutger Hauer sold us Guiness without screaming at us (even though it could cost more than a pound a pint).
The proliferation of TV channels, coupled with the insanely large proportion of all that airtime that is devoted to advertising in Australia leads to vast numbers of cheap, crappy ads that no-one cares about. It is simple inflation - increase the supply, and the value plummets.
Of course, if any one channel or network tries to improve the value of their advertising slots by reducing the number available, the other networks will happily grab their share of the loot. The only solution would be for the government to impose a legal constraint, limiting advertising time per hour across all channels. I am prepared to bet that not only would such a constraint not reduce the networks' revenue, but that it would actually result in better penetration of those ads that were still broadcast. Even Mr Annoying would benefit - he could spend his advertising budget on radio, billboards and other media that might actually reach his potential customers, instead of wasting it on TV slots that everyone fast-forwards through, and which benefit no-one but the sales droids at the TV networks.
Of course I won't be holding my breath waiting for this to happen.
In unrelated news...
...in response to a recent report compiled by the Bureau of Statistics, the Prime Minister today announced that there will be a special budgetary provision this year of $2.6 Trillion for basket-weaving societies and related hobbies. "This grant is an essential part of our government's commitment to ensuring that this previously under-funded pastime receives the support it deserves, and that Australian Working Families demand", she said, "In stark contrast to the paucity of basket-weaving support provided by the previous coalition government. While this should in no way be seen as a cynical grab for votes from the large, but hitherto unknown, Australian basket-weaving community, I will point out that Mr Abbott has made no basket-weaving policy announcements at all in the past five years, and voters should understand that his party would instead waste this money on football, pubs and casinos - pastimes which our research shows to be highly unpopular with the Australian public".
"The paper reports that if fertility rates remain at the rate they were at from 2005 to 2010, population projections for 2100 top off at a staggering 27 billion."
Yeah. And if my new puppy continues to put on weight at his current rate, he will be the size of my house in five years time.
According to less panicky sources, "By 2100 there is an 80% chance that global population will number between 6.2 and 11.1 billion"; and a 95% confidence that the population will be below 13 billion.
The most likely peak population for planet Earth is around 9 billion people, sometime in the middle of this century, tailing off slowly to about eight and a half billion by 2100.
Any study that starts with such a blatant piece of inaccuracy, with no obvious motive other than to instill panic and fear, needs to be taken with a very large grain of salt. Either these guys haven't done their homework, or they are deliberately attempting to misinform their readers. Neither possibility fills me with confidence in the value of their conclusions.
Coffee is served...
...Ahhh, the smell of freshly ground beans finally wafts across the nation. It has only been bleeding obvious that nuclear power is the best option in Australia for about half a century, so I doubt that it will take much more than another fifty years for our overlords in Canberra to wake up and catch a whiff of their impending lattes.
Of course, nuclear isn't perfectly safe; there are around 0.04 deaths per TWh for this type of electricity generation. That figure does compare favourably to the 161 deaths/TWh worldwide for Coal fired generation though. Still, given that coal is only 4,000 times as deadly as nuclear, I can understand why people always mention safety as a concern when considering replacing coal with nuke power. Oh, wait, no I can't.
Nuclear is significantly safer than solar and wind power - less risk of workers falling from heights - and even if we ignore the developing world's coal mining issues, there are still 15 deaths/TWh from coal power in the US of A (for example); so that is still 375 times the number of deaths from nukes, even when the nuke figure includes the piss-poor Russian death trap design used at Chernobyl.
Build nuclear power in Australia now. It has been overdue for decades. Bring in some French engineers to help out, if necessary. We have the fuel; we have the technology; we really, really need to stop burning brown coal to power our toasters - it is stupid, polluting, dangerous and seriously out-dated.
As security gets tougher to crack, the legitimate user gets more and more likely to destroy it himself, by writing the password/passphrase/answers to security questions/etc. on a post-it stuck on his monitor.
Increasing complexity is a diminishing returns game; the most secure system is therefore somewhere at the simple end of the spectrum. This is doubly true for 'unmonitored' security - the boss might come down on you for writing down your passwords at work, but no-one will know or care if you do the same with your iTunes passwords at home.
The old system was likely more secure than the new one. If you were the only person who knew your password, all was good - until you were required by poor memory and mandatory 'improved' security to have the information needed for your children/spouse/flatmate/etc. to change that password written down next to your computer.
I hope the ISS astronauts are big fans of cheese; if not, SpaceX really ought to consider sending some other foodstuffs as well in their supply runs.
At the very least, they should send up some crackers on the next Progress or ATV delivery, to tide them over until the Dragon capsule can be qualified as 'biscuit rated'.
@ Henry 4 - Thursday 21st July 2011 22:14 GMT:
The Brits were successfully invaded by the Dutch in 1688.
You may not have heard about this, as it is classified above TOP SECRET; in fact it is part of a large body of information so sensitive that HM Government has given it a TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS classification. TOP SECRET is only for those with a 'need to know', but with TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS material, most people don't even have a 'want to know'.
How dangerous is it?
If the very low levels of radiation exposure above background currently seen in Tokyo were as dangerous as some media outlets and pressure groups are suggesting, then Belarus, Ukraine, Finland, Sweden and the north and west of the British Isles would be a derelict wasteland piled with corpses. This is not the case (apart from Liverpool), so observational evidence in the 30 odd years since Chernobyl tells us that the effects of low level exposure to radio-caesium or radio-iodine are just not that big a deal.
Wow - They found Plutonium 238 in Japan!
This would be the stuff with the half-life of around 88 years, that is a by-product of Plutonium 239 production from Uranium 238, right? It must be coming from the leaking reactors, because no-one would have let a big lump of Plutonium, (presumably still mixed with fairly large quantities of various impurities) explode in an air-burst above a Japanese city at any time in the past 88 years, spreading bits of itself far and wide would they?
Oh, hang on, what is the name of that place that begins with a 'N'?
The following program is rated 'I', for an immature audience. It may contain celebrity chefs, apparently ordinary people placed in unusual situations, or C grade talent degrading themselves for your titillation. This content is not recommended for viewing by persons over the age of 15, unless accompanied by a child.
The following program is rated 'EA', for excessive advertising. It may contain long commercial breaks, short program segments, or mindless advertorials masquerading as real content. This program is not recommended for viewers who have retained the capacity for rational thought.
"...may I suggest that plants which are built near natural bodies of water have reactor cores and cooling ponds located below the water level so that in an emergency, water can be dumped in by gravity."
If these ponds were below sea level, the tsunami would have scattered their contents over a wide area, which would render subsequent re-filling of the pools with water irrelevant.
Putting the pools on top of the solidly built containment structure does at least protect them from tsunamis.
Sellafield, Windscale etc...
Please can we put an end to this pointless slur. Sellafield is the BNFL site housing the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant; the Calder Hall Magnox Power Plant, and the Windscale Plutonium Plant.
It was always called Sellafield; no one changed the name.
Windscale was (and still is) a part of the Sellafield site. It gets mentioned very little in the news these days, as it has not been operational since the fire. It was a reactor for making Plutonium for the UK Nuclear Weapons program, it has never been in any way related to nuclear power generation.
Next door to Windscale on the same site is the Calder Hall power station, which was the worlds first commercial nuclear power station. It ran for several decades with no newsworthy incidents, and is now being decommissioned as it has reached the end of its life.
Still on the same site is THORP, which is the currently active part of the Sellafield family. Here, spent fuel from around the world is cooled, stripped, and reprocessed into new fuel. Again, little attention has been paid to this site by the front pages, as rather tediously, they keep not having serious accidents.
Sellafield is the place, Calder Hall and Windscale are the names of two farms that were purchased by BNFL to build their facilities on.
Windscale is the bit of the facility that had a big accident, that has given the greenies something to frighten their kids with for over 50 years; it was a very early reactor with a number of design flaws, built to make atom bombs at the height of the cold war. But as it is no longer doing anything, no-one refers to it much. Sellafield however is still an active BNFL facility, and it is 100% wrong to call Sellafield 'Windscale', or to say that anyone changed the name.
@AC 16 March 2011 19:55 GMT
"Uranium ore has to be mined too, and that predominantly occurs in astoundingly corrupt dictatorships that don't give a flying fuck about the safety of their workforce."
Of course, coal is mostly mined in more enlightened places, like China.
I hear that Germany has responded to the situation in Japan by shutting down nuclear power plants pending 'safety inspections'. Given that the necessary increase in coal burning to make up the shortfall will lead to a net increase in the radiation exposure of German citizens, this seems like a remarkably stupid response.
Hopefully the safety review will go something like - "Are we near a subduction fault?" "No" "Check - Start her up again boys".
@ hugo tyson
"If there were no nuclear plant story the media would be very bored with the plain 'quake and tsunami cleanup efforts, don't you think?"
I presume the cleanup hasn't finished in Christchurch, but the news media here in Australia have apparently forgotten all about their earthquake. Perhaps NZ should have invested in a couple of nuclear power stations to keep the media spotlight on their recovery effort.
The plural of "Attorney General"
Is Attournies General. Note also that it contains the letter "U" in Australia, as we are still a British imperial possession, and not yet an official US territory.
В Правде нет известий, в Известиях нет правды
=> There is no information in Pravda, and no truth in Izvestia.
(Pravda and Izvestia are well known Russian newspapers; Pravda means 'Truth' and Izvestia means 'Information').
For those who don't read Russian.
@ AC: How is it that a nation founded by Felons is a bunch of wussies?
We aren't. This nation, founded as a prison, has rules for EVERYTHING. If it isn't mandatory, it is forbidden. That is because the entire Govt since the first fleet has been based on the idea that they are running a jail first, and a nation second.
Fortunately the nation founded by felons (a subset of the one founded as a prison) are NOT 'wussies', and we simply ignore and/or ridicule our Govt, and get on with surfing, BBQs and footy in the sunshine.
If you study Australian Federal and State Law, you will see that we have a totalitarian system. If, on the other hand, you get off your arse, and on a plane, and come and have a look, you will find that (unlike the Poms and the Seppos) we treat the law with the disdain it deserves, and have a bloody good time instead of worrying about the wowsers in Parliament and their crazy schemes to save us from ourselves.
Beer icon, 'cos XXXX does not indicate censorship...
Not such a strange anomaly...
From the Secret Scotland site... "one very strange anomaly; both the male and female toilets have a urinal."
Given the facility was built in the '50s, it seems likely that they didn't put in a female toilet at all. There would have been two toilets; one for the officers, the other for the lesser ranks.
It is plausible that, at a later date, the two facilities may have been re-badged as male and female, but no-one bothered re-plumbing.
Lots of military facilities have two or even three male toilets (officers, NCOs, other ranks), plus one, two or three female, depending on the space available and the number of each sex expected to be stationed at the place.
"The airplane will use 20 percent less fuel for comparable missions than today's similarly sized airplane."
Sounds to me like Boeing have been hanging around USAF and NASA for too long. Commercial aircraft are used for 'Flights' or 'Services', but surely not 'Missions'.
BTW, it is an aeroplane, not an airplane; and the comparison is with a range of other systems, so the last word in the sentence should be plural, not singular (I suggest the word 'aircraft' might be appropriate). Also, as the damn thing is meant to fly today, they should have referred to 'previous' rather than 'today's'. Also... Oh stuff it, trying to teach 'Merkins to speak English is just a waste of time and effort.
Non-EU Passport holder
I am an Australian citizen. On arrival in Dublin on a flight from Manchester, I found that of the five or six plane-loads of passengers waiting to go through customs, I was the ONLY person qualified to use the 'Non-EU Passport holders' lane in customs.
The very bored, but very friendly, Irish Customs official looked quite surprised to see me, and was expecting to have to turn me back, as he assumed I was an EU-Passport holding idiot who had gone to the wrong place; he was very happy to have something to do to relieve his boredom.
I have never passed through a busy airport at peak hour so fast; Judging by the length of the queues in the arrivals hall, my fellow passengers were still lining up to get into the country when I had driven into the city, checked in to my hotel, and was sitting in a pub drinking a pint Guinness.
From Alice Springs to...
...the middle of nowhere. Did he push the car the remaining 183 km to Coober Pedy? I reckon that would have been hard work.
Beer, 'cos you would seriously need one after that!
@ STurtle Posted Thursday 22nd October 2009 14:59 GMT
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
(attributed to Bertrand Russell)
Why didn't he add "I think..."?
@ Simon B Posted Thursday 17th September 2009 15:54 GMT
"How long before the enemy/criminals have the plans?"
If the plan is to use expendable pilotless drones to deliver this weapon, not long at all.
IIRC during WWII the use of microwave radar sets in aircraft that flew over enemy occupied territory was forbidden for a long, long time, as the magnetrons were virtually indestructible, and any aircraft that failed to make it home was likely to gift the technology to the Germans, even if not much else on the plane survived.
As the centimetric radar was being put to excellent effect in the battle against the U-boats in the North Atlantic, the Royal Navy (and RAF Costal Command) were dead set against letting Bomber Command fit them in their Lancasters, as the Germans would be able to work out why their subs were suddenly vulnerable to aircraft when charging their batteries by snorkel at night (the snorkel and periscope were far too small to be picked up by conventional RADAR, and were practically impossible to see by Mark I Eyeball even in good daylight conditions).
Once the bombers were given the sets, which proved an invaluable navigation and bomb-aiming aid, they were codenamed H2S, because "it stinks that we were not allowed them sooner".
I don't know if the design is much more 'fragile' when made from Mu-metal than it was with the old copper magnetrons, but if they are not, I doubt that they are going to be totally destroyed in a crash, even if a fairly large demolition charge is provided for the purpose.
There is no hope for humanity...
... when someone can seriously make a statement like this:
"Some of the Localsearch quality folks recently launched a shiny new algorithm for exactly this purpose. I was really psyched, because a bunch of duplicate businesses got consolidated properly after this change. However, I've been seeing some user feedback in the forum about businesses that are still being lumped together improperly, so it looks like the algorithm needs tinkering. The team is now working on a fix that aims to solve this problem for the users who are hurting, without taking a step backward in terms of our overall quality."
in a business context, without getting laughed out of town.
Is she addressing an audience of retarded three-to-five year olds?
This is the consequence of the collapse of the education system. It is too late to fix it; those kids who left school without a proper education are now the managers making the decisions.
I think she meant:
"We have fixed some flaws in the Localsearch algorithm, and it is now better, but still not perfect. We can see from the continuing complaints that several people are still unhappy, so we are trying to improve the algorithm further. However it is important that we avoid causing new problems while attempting to solve the existing ones"
This is how a grown-up would say the same thing. If I wanted to be talked to as if I was being patronized by a ditsy teenager, I would go and find one.
A little bird told me...
"One of the leaky Tweets came from the account of Patrick Rudolph, head of the CDU in the city of Radebeul in Saxony."
Radebeul gives you wiiings... not tweets.
Mine's the one with next year's election results in the pocket...
"If it's too expensive to send a fully manned mission to mars, perhaps they could compromise a bit and just send a few pieces, like an arm and a leg."
That is the projected cost, not the planned crew profile...
"Obviously the more time a talented worker spends working the greater the contributions they will make, hence higher rewards. I had hoped that would have been obvious, and I wouldn't have to spell it out. Apparently not."
This is, in fact, not only not obvious, but totally incorrect.
The best workers (Particularly on IT helpdesks) are the ones who quickly resolve a problem, and are free to move on to the next. The best people can be more effective in two hours than a typical worker is in eight, and than a poor worker is in twelve.
You correctly note that those who put in a twelve hour day are more likely to be promoted than those who put in four or five hours of actual work, spend three or four hours a day drinking coffee and surfing el Reg, and piss off home on time (or even early).
My team of five consists of four people who are good at their jobs, and who go home on time (except during genuine emergencies); plus one who, through their own incompetence, has to work back two or three hours every day, despite having less workload than the rest (because when we finish our work, we help with theirs).
Who will get the promotion? Who SHOULD get the promotion?
Your assessment of the way in which promotions are assigned is touchingly naive, and would no doubt be lovely in an ideal world. Unfortunately the world is much less than ideal, precisely because it is full of fools who actually believe this kind of bullshit - and even think that it is 'obvious'
Says it all really...
@Andrew 9 Feb 19:56 GMT
Any password that is difficult (much less impossible) to remember is NOT immensely strong, it is inherently immensely weak.
If users cannot remember their passwords, they will write them down, somewhere totally inappropriate and insecure. Attempting to prevent this behaviour by inducements, punishments, threats, explanations, entreaties, or even physical force are doomed to fail.
If you allow users to have a easily remembered password, this will ALWAYS be more secure than a password which they WILL write down. And then lose. Or keep on a post-it in the laptop bag. You cannot stop the tide from rising. You cannot stop users from behaving in this manner.
The solution is to require a long password (or better, passphrase, or passsentence), which will be easy to remember (no requirement for upper/lower case mixtures, special characters, or numbers); but due to its length, difficult for unauthorised persons to guess. This is not very secure, but it is more secure than ANY alternative.
Security solutions which do not take account of human nature are deeply flawed, and those who are 'shocked' when they fail (cf AC 15:22 GMT above) are guilty of looking at only a subset of the overall problem, and therefore doomed to fail.
Paris, 'cos I would like to know the sentence she requires before granting access...
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Microsoft: Don't listen to 4chan ... especially the bit about bricking Xbox Ones
- Exploits no more! Firefox 26 blocks all Java plugins by default
- Shivering boffins nail Earth's coldest spot