Just realized that one or more of you might know where
Stafford's student Jo(sephine) Hancock might be
reached. She might be on an allumni list for the
University of Wales/Swansea (graduating 90's) and
might have a married name of Locke now.
I'm trying to contact her about exchanging her TSI
share for one in the new company.
All the best,
--- allenna leonard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear All,
> I've been away and am trying to pick up on some of
> different threads.
> Here are two prosaic observations.
> First, safety system address everything from
> deterministic (including but not limited to
> mechanical) through probabalistic to complex or
> At the complexity end, redundancy helps but isn't
> enough. I want to mention the seven models of risk
> from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
> publication "Learning about RIsk: choices,
> and competencies" by William Bradshaw and Alan
> They are framed as choices:
> Leadership choices,
> Operational and control choices
> Strategic choices
> Crisis choices
> Resilince and survival choices
> Decision to be aware.
> Most of these are in the area of soft power (as is
> Gavin de Becker's "THe GIft of Fear"). They have to
> endorsed at the very top of the organization and
> spread throughout, and the reward system in place
> to support them.
> I'd echo what Javier said about asking everyone to
> ascertain not just the facts, but the assumptions
> attitudes around them. Some in the audit field
> to this as 'self-assessment', and include from 50%
> 100% of the employees. Syntegration and other group
> processes help here too.
> A final plug for the whistleblower, the messenger
> bad news and the investigator with the 'auditor's
> nose'. Until these people are valued, a greater
> element of risk will exist than would otherwise be
> THinking about the financial sector, you don't
> need a background in finance to know that a big load
> of subprime mortgages is inherently unstable or that
> if the results are 'too good to be true', they
> probably aren't.
> --- Nick Green <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > New Scientist this week (9/2/2008) reviews.
> > Academy of Science did a report last year on
> > bugs. The Radio Technical Commission for
> > Aeronautics sets DO-178B standards for discovering
> > "modified condition/decision coverage" (MCDC) but
> > "MCDC testing is not removing any significant
> > of bugs" says Martin Thomas. C, C++, assembler,
> > Ada are the languages involved and they can
> > ambiguity. Better languages seems the way forward.
> > Best
> > N.
> > For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org
> > For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working
> > (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org
> For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment
> (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org
For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org