Re: Obvious solution to reduce 200 San Diego road deaths.
And from that report On average, three pedestrians are killed in collisions with cyclists in Britain each year and 10 per cent of collisions take place on pavements.
40413 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
I had a client who took security very seriously. At one stage they did use a business as described above to test staff although by means of phone calls. I fielded a few of those and replied pointing out that the first word of the company name was "Security" and that it meant what it said. AFAIK the staff came out of the test very well.
"You need to review these things regularly and do a sanity check on them."
It's my view that a policy should include the statement of its rationale. It has the advantages of leading to a better understanding of its significance by those who have to follow it (senior management, is that you?) and aids periodic review.
If any(!) money were recovered by the company it would go into the company's bank account (less whatever the lawyers get) and thus become shareholders' property. The shareholders, however, might reasonably (a) prefer to keep existing funds away from lawyers and (b) want to know more about what Tripp has to say about the way the business is managed. But that's what AGMs are for.
"The purpose of Brexit is to restore sovereignty to the UK."
Purpose and result are two different things. As an isolated nation the UK will have far less clout in the world than it did as part of a larger block. (Note that phrase "part of" because that's the situation, not "subject to" which seems to be the Leaver view.) I really can't see how having less clout equates to "restored sovereignty" but, hey, we'll have taken back control.
"Most of the world are not members of the EU."
Most of the world haven't been UK business's home market or a major part of UK industry's supply chain for four decades. They still won't be so there's no difference there.
The EU has been UK business's home market and a major part of UK industry's supply chain for four decades. Now it won't be. That's where the big difference lies and it's not a good difference.
"If it all goes pear shaped..."
If by that you mean that when it all goes pear-shaped we'll end up applying, from a diminished economic status, to rejoin an EU that has evolved without our having had a say in its evolution and on terms such as adopting the Euro then I'm afraid you're correct. If you mean that that's what we want then you are seriously incorrect; that's what we want to avoid.
"I agree with your whole argument and especially your assertion that MPs have failed."
Where is it that you think opportunities for success lie? AFAICS the whole idea of Brexit was a nonsense. Set aside the economic issues; the N Ireland border issue offers no solutions, only a choice of ways to fail. I can't see how MPs can have been accused of failing to solve it.
From time to time we have to look at the basis of govt. in the UK. The govt. gets its authority by being able to get Parliament to vote for its Bills. Govts don't like this but it's the truth. A govt. that seeks to bypass Parliament like this no longer has a basis on which to exist. It's an ex-government.
"Parliament has had 3 years to find a way through."
What sort of way? All the rhetoric and all the votes don't change reality.
One reality is that this country is one of the parties to an agreement about N Ireland that brought, as near as possible, an end to prolonged period of bloodshed. The agreement was reached in the circumstances of both the UK and the Irish Republic being members of the EU and although not explicitly stated the the soft border, part of that agreement depends on both countries being in the EU. Actually it could equally well work with both being out of the EU but that isn't an option. The only ways it could work with one being in and one being out are very few and those presented that don't rely on hand-waving are either a border in the Irish Sea - not going to happen as long as the govt. depends on DUP support - and the backstop which the Brexiteers themselves reject. The fact that Parliament hasn't found a way through that one might indicate idleness on their part. It might also indicate that there isn't a way through. It certainly indicates one thing: that Leave hadn't a solution when they asked for a referendum on the issue, otherwise it would have been there waiting for us the day the result was announced.
We could, however, jut unilaterally break that international agreement and get on with making all the new international trade agreements we'll need to make whilst wondering why nobody else trusts us.
"yet-to-be started trade negotiations."
Be fair. There was announcement just the other day about a completed agreement. And there was one some time ago as well so that's a couple of countries signed up, South Korea and the other one which was, let's see...oh, South Korea. They announced the same thing twice.
The only reason not to run the suspension until 1st November is so he can claim that "it was nothing to do with Brexit"
And he doesn't need to. That's assuming he lasts that long as PM. I'd guess that there'll be a pretty swift vote of no confidence as soon as Parliament reconvenes.
"Modern DR is based on replication/mirroring and built-in resilience."
Where are those replicates and mirrors? If they're all on the same site as the primary system then consider that they don't exist. The fire that takes the primary will take them as well. You've not had a fire yet? Note that word "yet".
"the city's insurer, who pointed out that paying the demand would be cheaper than a data recovery effort "
Long or short term thinking by the insurers?
They can save money by paying the ransom. That encourages more ransomware attacks but paying more for recovery would make ransomattacks less profitable and would save insurers money in the longer term. However, in the longer term the insurers can just raise premiums to cover it.
Yes, even in the long term insurers make more money by paying ransoms instead of recovery costs.
The root problem there seems to have been with the surnames. The parents would have been well aware of that having plenty of experience themselves. The only option would have been to change their own name first. The fact they haven't suggests that generations of them have each learned to live with the consequences and maintained solidarity to their own parents.
The initials thing... Yes, we carefully avoided any pronounceable set of initials for our own children although it's only just occurred to me that if our daughter had married someone whose surname began with a Y she'd have become DRY. What we hadn't spotted was the potential confusion when, as happened, she started post-grad research.
"It's that schoolyard bully that tries to yell at everyone and talks utter bull$hit until people just walk off. Then they claim victory because no one can be arsed to talk to them anymore."
There's a Dilbert for that: https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-08-04