Sure, you can't remove all risk. But it's at least possible that the guy in this case did not have the kind of crazy required to be physically attacking people, or looking them in the eye while killing them. He did after all wait for the opportunity to make sure he had the cockpit to himself, and he didn't make threats, or indeed say anything to anyone during the incident, so it doesn't seem to me like he was up for any kind of face-to-face confrontation. Maybe just the fact of having someone else there would have been enough.

I always watch Top Gear, but to be honest, in its current form it's been getting old. Good opportunity to put it to bed for a little while, then re-incarnate it a couple of years down the line in a new form.

Must have been obvious, since I dealt with it in the first line of my reply. You seem to be resistant to the idea that piling way too much food on your plate is a good way to get fat; I'd suggest that's a problem right there. It's not necessary to know exactly the right amount you need. At home, I tend to take very conservative portions. After I've finished my portion, I can take a moment, see how I feel, whether I want to eat more, and what I want to eat more of. I'd suggest this is a better strategy than piling way too much food on your plate in the first place, and then trying to stop yourself from eating it all.

Unless you have more on your plate than you need (in which case there's a better obvious solution to the problem), I don't see where this gets you in terms of calorific intake; eating slowly doesn't change the number of calories on the plate. It might make a difference to the rate of increase of blood glucose, which has its own benefits, but I doubt it will make much difference to that, because its the rate of digestion that's going to determine blood glucose levels.

Plenty of people on this planet rarely if ever go outside; people live indoors, work indoors, shop indoors, and take much of their recreation indoors. So I don't really see the reasoning behind the assumption that we can't colonise another planet without terraforming it. Mars has no magnetic field to divert solar radiation, so even if you did terraform it pretty good, you'd still get fried; KSR solved that in his books by eventually genetically modifying the colonists to be able to self-repair the radiation damage, but who knows when such a solution will be feasible in reality. Build your colony underground as much as possible, and you gain protection from everything that is hostile about the Martian environment; the atmosphere, the temperature, the toxic stuff, and the radiation all become much more controllable. Sure, it's a bit harder building underground, but not nearly as hard as terraforming.

Okay, those numbers that you quoted are very arbitrary, I'd like to see anything to back that up. The near-instantaneous seek time of an SSD compared to a mechanical disk ought to be a major factor when it comes to swap performance, far more so than throughput. In any case, there are many SSD-only systems now, in which case the swap space is on the SDD whether you like it or not, so there's certainly not an unreasonable thing to try.

See this page, which has much more information, graphical breakdown of who gets what, etc.

Ok, now I've seen the link to the study, I take back what I said above. Sorry, I've been drinking.

Very misleading summary (yeah, duh). This is not a study, it is an editorial. Someone's opinion. It says so right at the top. Note at the bottom of the article; "Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed."

It's incredibly misleading to cite this article as a "study", all it is is an opinion piece article, nothing more.

I'd suggest it might be because of the support costs of all those people having trouble logging in, forgetting their passwords etc, or getting compromised because they wrote down their hard-to-remember password, if they went more secure. My bank allows a weak password (plus some nominated characters from a secondary "memorable phrase"), and no requirement to change it ever. TBH I'm pretty cool with that because I can remember both, so if I'm ever caught without access to my password manager, I won't be screwed. In order to add a new payment recipient, they do require a code sent to my registered phone to be entered. I feel it's a reasonable balance between security and convenience.

Good thing they're not just handing out hardware then.

FTA: "As with Sunward Park, the schools in this new pilot will be using a centralised portal developed by Bramley’s MIB Software for managing tablets and aggregating educational content into a single portal. MIB’s backend pulls in CAPS aligned digital textbooks from the likes of Via Afrika as well as extra resources from around the web."

Just because it's been done wrong in the past doesn't mean it can't be done right in the future, although it doesn't bode well that this particular project appears to have been rushed, and significant questions not answered in detail. However there's nothing wrong with the theory; access to textbooks, collaboration and communications tools, monitoring of students progress while they perform activities (and as the article mentions, monitoring of teachers as well), the list of potential benefits to using tablets or laptops as a central educational tool is long. At some point, someone is going to get it right and actually realize many of the potential advantages.

Of course such people exist. There is no science whatsoever that says that the earth is only 6000 years old, for example, so creationists who believe that are simply denying the science. They don't question the science, they reject it; there's a difference.

I use that as an example because it is more clear-cut than the climate issue, where there are a lot of people who hold a spectrum of views which are probably somewhere between being very skeptical and being outright deniers, but for sure there are those who pretty clearly aren't interested in any science that says man-made climate change might be real.

The whole point of emphasising the difference between an actual sceptic and a denier is that the sceptic questions the science, whereas the denier ignores it entirely. The scientists and others referred to in the article have no problem with the actual sceptics. Questioning the science is fine, disregarding it is not.

The Register is reporting that it's actually a power failure, apparently according to a Heathrow Airport spokesperson.

You'd think that such systems would have fully redundant power supply infrastructure though, so maybe that's misinformation.