Science clearly defines the difference for sperm, egg, zygote, embryo etc and The law recognises these definitions. The only side I see clouding things up is the anti abortionists who can only make the logical argument of murder if you blatantly confuse an embryo as a human.

No debate, it's not a person until the latter trimesters when it could theoretically survive on it's own, and actually exist outside the womb.

Yes you certainly got me there. You must be fun at parties...

The clueless executive in your example is usually the CIO. I've worked for both types, and a good one will ensure the CEO commits and signs off on the CIO strategy for the course of the next x years. Server/Desktop refreshes committed, Application projects committed. A budget for new & unknown upcoming tech committed. A good CIO should know what is required to run an IT dept, and should be able to sell this up the chain. This is what allows the IT Dept to do its job.

How do you trust your employees who have access to the same privileged information? Employees are bound by contracts and relevant laws, so are service providers. None of this is rocket science. Security is merely managing risk, both options (on-premise vs cloud) have risk, but generally one option costs a whole lot more than the other.

Your story seems to miss a few key elements. How exactly did "propagation delay" cause a disaster?(no need to dumb it down - this is a site for nerds remember) Are you saying the cloud provider went offline along with your second site? With the limited information provided, I see no problem with the cloud as a concept merely your implementation of it which seems to lack even the fundamentals of a cloud migration, ie proof-of-concept and DR testing. Having done many successful cloud migrations myself, I still struggle to justify why you would waste time and effort with On-premise other than job security.

Unlikely. Plenty of big companies have had data breaches are are still operating. Part of the risk management is having a good PR ready to go so that when the inevitable happens you can smooth it over with excuses and carry on. The fact is that Cloud plus PR plus anticipated losses plus additional insurances are still cheaper than on-premise. From a business point of view it's a no-brainer.

But the police don't win. The police tell you they win, and they parade a bunch of the dumbest people on the planet to demonstrate the point, but all the super yachts in the world tell me the police aren't winning, merely creating a situation that is palatable to the masses.

I've been in this game for 20 years and have always been a janitor. Janitors are still needed, so as long as you learn to be good at it, you'll always have a job.

The techs don't even need to get together. Any one of the top ten tech firms could buy all of Hollywood on their own. I'm not sure why this hasn't happened already, buy all (or most) the studios, then introduce a 21st century business model and monopolise on the content. We all know people are willing to pay for content if it could be distributed effectively, it just needs someone born after to 1937 to make it happen.

You mean embryo right? Because a daughter (or son) is a human, whereas most abortions are performed on embryos. True, most pro-lifers deliberately confuse these terms to try and make a political case. But unfortunately for them Science isn't as easily confused.

I was thinking the same thing. Is this actually a problem anywhere other than at teenager parties?

Yeah quite obviously IBM use Lotus Notes and Google use Gmail, I was making a point that Exchange/Outlook still takes the lion's share of the market, and there is a reason for that.

I don't mind "fizzy piss", but if I visit any of the newer Pubs that specialise in craft beer then going from a real beer to the fizzy piss makes it undrinkable. Same goes for meat, cheese, or any food in general. The real stuff is worlds better than the manufactured stuff, it's just the real stuff is not easy/affordable to consume on a daily basis.

This is the problem with the Sci-Fi genre in general. The 70's/early 80's were golden years because the audience was discovering technology for the first time, and movies simply explored those concepts and presented them to a passionate audience.
It can never work the same because large numbers of the audience now understand very complex technical subjects. To make an equivalent SF film today that gives a technical audience the same sense of wonder would require extreme complexity that simply wouldn't sell outside the niche Slashdot-type crowd. So we're stuck with Jar Jar Binks for the foreseeable future. Get used to disappointment.

You new to this sequel game aren't you? Google "Plot Device". The writers will insert any stupid mechanism that they feel like to keep the story going, regardless if it makes any sense or not. Yes you will hate it, but as long as the trailer has the words "Runner", "Ford", "Blade", and "Harrison" in it, the rest is unimportant in the making of a sequel.