Four Threats For '09 You Haven't Heard of
ancientribe writes "Security experts are cautiously on the lookout for some lesser-known but potentially lethal threats that could be more difficult to prepare for and defend against in 2009. These aren't your typical enterprise hack attacks. They're mainly large-scale Internet threats — attacks that knock out sections of the Internet infrastructure, radical extremist hackers, Web attacks that adversely affect online ad revenue, and even the unthinkable: human casualties as a result of a cyberattack." Also known as the new group of things the fear mongers will use to make you do their bidding.
But we've heard of them all. What about that super volcano in Yellowstone? Now that is something that no one has heard of and it would be cool if Slashdot posted an article about that.
Why is "human causalities as the result of cyberattack" supposedly unthinkable?
The new self-parking Ford to be powered by Microsoft Sync!
the unthinkable: human casualties as a result of a cyberattack.
My daughter tries to play this card. She says "If I can't get on myspace and talk to my friends, I'll just die." (She never dies)
"Lame" - Galaxar
Stop talking. Please. You're going to kill us all.
From TFA:
e-bomb
Middle Eastern cybercartels
And so forth. Lots of technobabble, not much factual information.
The biggest threat facing the internet in 2009 is pointless scaremongering laid out on more pages than it should be to get more ad revenue.
Because of your post, I think we need a "Billy Madison" moderation.
What you wrote wasn't flamebait or over rated, it was stupid.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.
In real science we state claims and provide proof and theory as to why we accept them as true. Furthermore, we make predictions that can be tested. In science, nothing is "disproved," all things are assumed false until proved. Its make more sense that way as I can not disprove your watermellon claim, but you have offered no theory or proof as to why your claims should be believed in the first place.
I could claim anything and you would be foolish to believe. If I make a claim and provide proof and a theory to explain why it is so, and you check out the proof, you have the ability to prove or disprove it on your own.