IMO, the biggest problem with the current crop of mobile fingerprint sensors isn't the devices, sensors or software, it's the users' perception of them as very high security. They're not. They're relatively weak, but highly convenient security. As long as people don't expect too much from them, they're awesome.
Just a pity that many of the advocates of biometrics have convinced themselves (and hence aim to convince others) that they are high security, rather than convenient security.
that there is always a catch.
So, what's the catch?
At the moment - availability.
Not yet determined - cost
Parental neglect laws don't apply when you are the Prime Minister, though...
I mean, what kind of person leaves their 8-year old behind in the pub because they forgot about them?
Interesting to hear more about the different kinds of photodiodes - my knowledge was far more superficial (coming from hobbyist magazines, that tended not to go into the details)
I remember back in the 80s that light meters in cameras used to use Silicon (SPD - Silicon Photo Diode), but then they all started using Gallium Arsenide (GASP - Gallium Arsenide Photo Diode), as it reacted faster (presumably because of the lower resistance).
There was even talk back then about making Gallium based semi-conductors, for the same reason.
Good to see it coming to fruition
What's Gallium Nitrade?
It's like lemonade, only 100 times better...
The problem isn't around knowledge, but that it requires equipment not expected to be in a normal home. A house can have tools available to fix large mechanical objects, but not extremely delicate electronics that require an electron scanning microscope to properly fix.
Best thread summary of the year (OK, so the year is still young...)
Seriously though, most houses will have a toolbox with sufficient "stuff" to at least make a stab at fixing mechanical parts (Hammer, screwdriver, awl, pliers). For electrical items, a bit more "stuff" is needed (soldering iron, multimeter), but still there are enough people interested that it can in the house.
Electronics, now is basically "when it breaks, it's trash" (although there are groups of people who are dedicated to restoring 1990s vintage computers - probably the last generation where a steady hand with a soldering iron could still work, and the motherboards weren't multi-layer)
I know that defamation suits can be filed (and sometimes even won) even if the information being published is true... but it's my understanding that in the case where the published information is true, the onus is on the person who is suing to show that the *intent* of the publishers was to actually defame them... which of course is quite difficult to do in court. They would have to, using factual evidence, show how it was somehow considerably more probable that there was actually any malicious intent on the publisher's part than any claim the publisher the might make to contrary being true.
Or, in short, to prove defamation, 
Yup, naming ranges has dug me out of a (self-inflicted) debugging hole on more than one occasion.
I find that another good rule of thumb is "do stuff (functions, documentation, formulae) so you can understand it in 6 months' time"
It's when someone asks me "can you just add a few bits on to this one you created?" for something I did literally years ago. That's when a good structured basis saves so much time.
Of course, sometimes I wonder "What was I thinking, when I did that?"...
Spreadsheets are like a blank piece of paper with grid squares. Which means you can put anything down, tied together with some formulae, and it's brilliant.
Which is also why it's complete pants - the "anything goes" really does mean that.
(That, and it will tend to break when you most rely on it)
"I wonder how many CEOs actually believe in this drivel..."
Too many, because they themselves run on high-octane fuel all day
Except, of course, that they don't run high-octane, as they have delegated everything down to the workforce.
The best bosses are the ones who know that they have delegated stuff, and (even better) avoid the "presenteesim" culture by deliberately knocking off work at sensible times (meaning the workforce can do likewise).
The worst are the ones who really think that they doing all the work (like it was back when they were in charge of a tiny operation), rather than realising that they are now part of a large organisation and have grown the company in order to delegate the workload.
"off task probably half the day"
Which means that you are "on task" around half the day.
Wow! You rock!
Seriously, on a project management course some years ago, it was pointed out that the best individuals within an organisation can devote about 50% of their time to a task. The rest is taken up with (non-task) phone calls, meetings with others, summaries to your boss, and "personal needs breaks" (and lunch!), and so forth.
The "average" worker can be expected to devote 33% of their time to the task, as they also have to contend with IT issues, "other worker" issues and sheer "I need some downtime" type stuff.
So, if the article suggests "12 doing the work of 10" then that's an unrealistic 80% "on task".
Now, if it was "12 doing the work of 3", then there would be a case.
"Hey Ivan, check your six." -- Sidewinder missile jacket patch, showing a Sidewinder driving up the tail of a Russian Su-27