Frennk.

Even though the McLaren F1 turned 25 this year, it remains a landmark achievement, especially in a decade not particularly favorable to supercars. The 1980s produced plenty of idols for posters -- the Ferrari F40 and thePorsche 959 are a couple of the usual suspects, but the decade of the 1990s offered a number of duds that fell victim to a recession-hit economy, planned at a time of economic prosperity to be foiled by a sudden downturn. Of the handful of supercars that made it to market, we still have to take our hats off to the F1, which not only delivered all that it promised but did so without rehashing older technology or cutting corners to reach a wider audience. For the F1's 25th anniversary, Road & Track sat down with the people who made it happen and those who continue to drive it, from factory racing driver Bill Auberlen to traveling F1 technicians who service it, in addition to current owners like our own contributor Jay Leno. For us, the most illuminating segments of these wide-ranging interviews concern just how the F1's capabilities remain very much modern a quarter of a century later, and how most subsequent supercars, including McLaren's own, have either faced compromises in their design and engineering process or have not achieved the same level of ability and usability that the F1 still offers in 2017. For a car designed before the internet, the F1 still has not been truly surpassed in simplicity and elegance, with technological terrors like the Bugatti Veyron requiring everything and the kitchen sink in addition to a space shuttle's thirst for fuel to achieve faster speeds while being too heavy to be a true track car. It helps explain why even McLaren F1s that have been split in half in wrecks are impossible to write off -- and why automakers haven't been able to produce anything quite like it in subsequent decades.

The author of an influential guide to computer passwords says he now regrets several of the tips he gave. Bill Burr had advised users to change their password every 90 days and to muddle up words by adding capital letters, numbers and symbols - so, for example, "protected" might become "pr0t3cT3d4!". The problem, he believes, is that the theory came unstuck in practice. Mr Burr now acknowledges that his 2003 manual was "barking up the wrong tree". He disclosed his views in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. Current guidelines no longer suggest passwords should be frequently changed, because people tend to respond by making only small alterations to their existing passwords - for example, changing "monkey1" into "monkey2"- which are relatively easy to deduce. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that it takes longer for computers to crack a random mix of words - such as "pig coffee wandered black" - than it does for them to guess a word with easy-to-remember substitutions - such as "br0k3n!". Mr Burr's original advice was distributed by the US government's National Institute of Standards and Technology. It has since been amended several times, with the most recent edition being released in June. "Anything published under the Nist banner tends to be influential, so these guidelines have had a long lasting impact," said Prof Alan Woodward, from the University of Surrey. "But we've known for some considerable time that these guidelines actually had a rather unfortunate effect. "For example, the more often you ask someone to change their password, the weaker the passwords they typically choose. "And, as we have all now so many online accounts, the situation is compounded so it encourages behaviours such as password reuse across systems." Britain's National Cyber Security Centre issued its own guidance on the matter in 2015. It recommended that organisations abandoned a policy of pushing their users into regular password resets, and that they should support the use of password managers - programs that securely store hundreds of different logins, avoiding the need to memorise each one. "It's good that password advice is now being updated to be based on evidence," said Dr Steven Murdoch, from University College London. "But there is still traditional advice in other areas of computer security being perpetuated despite us knowing it won't work.

The male Google engineer fired for circulating a memo decrying the company's diversity hiring program became the center of a heated debate on sexism, drawing scorn, cheers and even a job offer on Tuesday from WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. James Damore confirmed his dismissal from Alphabet Inc's Google on Monday, after he wrote a 10-page memo that the company was hostile to conservative viewpoints shaped by a flawed left-wing ideology. The manifesto was quickly embraced by some, particularly on the political right, branding him a brave truth-teller. Others found his views, which argued that men in general may be biologically more suited to coding jobs than women, offensive. Assange, who is praised in some circles for exposing government secrets and castigated by others as an underminer of some nations' security, offered Damore a job. "Censorship is for losers," Assange wrote on Twitter. "Women & men deserve respect. That includes not firing them for politely expressing ideas but rather arguing back." Legal and employment experts noted, however, that companies have broad latitude to restrict the speech of employees. Some argued that Damore's views left Google little to no choice but to terminate his employment, since he had effectively created a hostile work environment for women. The world's tech capital, Silicon Valley has long been criticized for not doing enough to encourage gender equality. Most headlines have centered on powerful female executives hitting the glass ceiling or sexual harassment lawsuits. Many women in the industry say that less visible day-to-day bias often impedes their careers. Industry experts note that in the early days of tech it was mostly women who held the then-unglamorous jobs of coding. But as the value of top-notch programing became clear, it became a mostly male domain and the vast majority of programmers in the tech industry are now men. Some argued that although they may not agree with Damore, the company had gone too far in firing him. "The memo was pure drek but this isn't the proper response," Jeet Heer, an editor at the New Republic, wrote on Twitter. "Firing people for their ideas should be opposed." Elizabeth Spiers, a journalist, replied that it was about more than free speech. The problem, she wrote, was that "he'll discriminate against his female colleagues in peer review." Damore wrote in an email to Reuters he was fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes." His memo had said that he sought the opposite. "I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles," Damore wrote in his memo. "I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)." His arguments were praised by those who view so-called "political correctness" as a left-wing device to suppress conservative speech. John Hawkins, the owner of the Right Wing News website, summed up his take in a Twitter post: "James Damore: Writes memo respectfully saying Google suppresses conservative views. Google: You're fired for having conservative views." Damore said he would fight the dismissal, noting that he had filed a complaint with the U.S. National Labor Relations Board before the firing. Google is based in Mountain View, Calif. The company said it could not talk about individual employee cases.

welcome back enjoy have fun

V2 - Text

font pls ?