Actually, the data I have says Europa is tidally locked to Jupiter. Much like our own moon is to us. So there is no longer any tidal "kneeding" to provide heat on Europa. Of course, there still could be radioactive decay.
I'm well aware of the geothermal vents, and the odd life forms there. But I haven't seen any DNA or other chemical analyses that says these are of independant origin from the rest of terrestrial life.
If so, then that's very interesting. If not [probable], it merely states that life can evolve to meet changing environments. 200'C sounds severe, but so long as it isn't boiling (cell walls stay intact) and the proteins don't get denatured, life goes on.
I'm not impressed. Every spot on this globe has been through dramatic climactic changes over geological time. At more than one point, Lake Vostok was swamplike, teeming with life.
But life surviving inhospitable environments is very different from life evolving in such places. Has anyone a theory that Europa was once warmer, with sufficient sunlight? Or maybe ejecta from Earth impactors has transported life elsewhere?
Anonymity currently exists on the Internet largely due to dynamic IP addressing by dial-up ISPs. The more rigorous alternatives (www.anonymizer.com) are problematic and troublesome for casual use. The anonymity comes from the difficulty of dredging through ISP logs to link an IP with a userid, and the limited number of requests ISPs will fulfill, mostly from law enforcement. Often, the logs will have expired [been deleted by rotation].
However, all this will vanish with 128-bit [sic] addressing in IPv6. Many bits will be used for routing, but you can bet some bits will be dedicated to identifying _you_, even if you did dialup. Essentially, you will have a static dial-up IP address. Since any site you commpunicate with has to be able to return packets to you, they will have to know your IP.
-- Robert
Turn the Injunction into a Two Edged Sword ???
on
No EToy for Christmas
·
· Score: 3
Clearly Etoys has bamboozled the judge. They have deliberately misinformed him over the rules governing Domain Names while scaring him with porno. Judges do not like to be lied to! They can and will charge liars with contempt of court including fines and jailtime.
The judge issued a preliminary injection in good faith to prevent harm. When it is explained that he was deceived and caused harm instead, some judicial outrage/coverup will occur. IMHO, it is important the the etoy defense team take a friendly stance toward the judge, explain how he was deceived in this admittedly arcane issue, and suggest contempt punishment. They could also countersue. If they don't approach this correctly, the judge will stonewall behind "porno".
Clearly etoys benefits immeasurably from this unjust preliminary injunction, and ought not be walk away with the loot.
But I have a few DEC Multia's with the Alpha 21066 chip. Not fast. But even they do run Linux, OpenBSD and Compq Tru64 Unix. So you can always point to Tru64 when The Suits get nervous about Free Software.
My problem with Alphas is their power consumption. No, not just `cuz the 21066 draws 17W and has no powersavings. That's OK. I mean the 700 MHz 21264's draw 109W (yes, thats 47 Amps at 2.35V). Alphas need a shrink in the worst way.
Now 218W really isn't unmanageable. You need a big powersupply because they're at best 70% efficient. But I have reliability worries: what happens if you lose a CPU fan or one of those heatsink nuts get a little loose? Do you unsolder the CPU? What happens when the AC goes down?
Yes. The F0 0F bug affects the Intel Pentium (mmx?) processors. It is very severe, in that a user process can execute these nominally invalid instructions, and lockup the processor.
This wouldn't be noticed on a MS-Win9* box, because lockups happen all the time. But on a multitasking server/firewall, it's disaster.
But how do you stop a CPU from running instructions? Well, first the FreeBSD folks then the Linux crew found ways via pagefaults etc. And the F0 0F bug has safe workarounds. It took a few days, tribute to those who hacked it out.
So now everybody can use cheap cast-off low end Pentia for all sorts of good servers without worry. AFAIK, Microsoft has yet to fix NT. I guess they expt everyone running NT to have a P6.
Oh, I flunk this test! Forget the controversial Q11, I flunk the rest. From what I know of the listed technologies, they are at best a partial solution to the listed problems.
It's naive beyond words to believe that technology, particularly information/communications, will stop human avarice, disagreement, meddlesomeness and other unpleasantries. More likely the technology will be used to further unpleasantness, witness the flamewars, trolls and flamebaiting that hardly existed on paper correspondance.
Sure, some of the listed measures are partial remedies. Some ("pseudonymous") are aggravators when the opposite would work better for some listed problems.
Fully agreed. I can relate that alot of desktops where I work would be still running OS/2 or migrating to Linux/FreeBSD if there were only an Exchange client available.
Yes, yes, MS-Exchanger server can be configured to use POP3. Our isn't, and that option won't last.
But as for missing functionality, I rather do without. Let'em see the customers they're missing. I normally browse with images off, and things have gotten alot better these days. Most images have tags, which wasn't so 2 years ago.
Well, I've installed and run RH5.2 and NetBSD on my Multias without excessive trouble. RH6 is 'way too bleeding edge for me. Haven't done really heavy compiling, but kernels compile OK in 32 MB DRAM.
All censorship is "justified" on the basis that the censored information is harmful to some people. Even adults cannot view what they want. Recently, censorship has retreated to "protecting the kids" in most places.
But has the case been proven that the kids need protection? Sure, some parents might like to control what their kids see. But has actual harm been shown? It would have to be clear and convincing to justify the loss of privacy and potential misuse of censorship.
I am a parent, and I know kids can be frightened. So can adults for that matter--there's a whole movie industry profitably exploiting this. Very young kids ( 8 ) could get some phobias, but they are unlikely to come in contact with any information other that provided by the parent. Just how many 6 year olds are out on the `net?
As for older kids (10 +), I really doubt the potential for information to cause lasting harm. By this point, parental influence is rapidly diminished, and it is best to accept this with good grace rather than becoming a control freak.
*.au seems to be in the hands of the control freaks. Sad but predicatable.
Well put. I didn't mean to imply graft should be accepted. But it must be recognized, and out in the open before it can be cured.
I'm not sure I follow your "graft is unscalable therfore inefficient" argument. But I will certainly agree it is inefficient. However, I am far from certain how it could be stopped without incurring unintended consequences.
If you ban political contributions to candidates or other campaign finance reform, the parties become stronger, and the individual representatives weaker. You get party-line voting like is seen in the British Commonwealth, or in Europe. And since money dones't talk, the parties all pander to the lowest common denominator in search of votes. Business gets the short shrift. It takes a powerful recession (like NZ) to wake people up, but not for long.
Ultimately, the public purse is a powerful magnet. The best way to control it is to limit it's size. -- Robert
I've read The Economist for 25 years, and recently the cluelessness of the editorial writers has been striking. In English, "they're having us on", or what we would call flamebait.
How could they miss Bill Gates/MS big ($25M?) contribution to Clinton's '92 campaign? It was even more remarkable because it wasn't balanced by a comparable contrib to the GOP [as most corps do].
Now perhaps The Economist doesn't consider Mr Gates a geek. The subject is indeed debatable, but I doubt they know that.
But please... buying govt handouts with campaign contributions has been going on since before the transistor. The technology changes, the players change, but the game remains the same: buying taxdollars or other regulations cheaply.
I fully believe that many high school administrators try to intimidate their pupils. They are deathly afraid. So they try anything. Very sad--two wrongs don't make a right. And a bad example, to boot, from those who are paid to be good examples.
IANAL, but a lawyer could demolish these signed Handbooks in a few seconds:
1) A minor lacks the capacity to sign an enforcable contract. So the signature is unenforcable. Maybe if the parent signs... 2) Suspension is a dubious punishment--how can you be suspended since you will then violate truancy laws? 3) Any contract signed under duress is unenforceable. The suspension-vs-truancy could be viewed as duress. 4) Some rights are inalienable. You can't sign them away. Free speech may not be, but equal protection probably is.
Unfortunately, our society has become excessively adversarial. Everyone pushes for more than they know they deserve. In the end, no-one will have anything.
If Mosaic2000 is used as described in the NYTimes article, to separate the potentially dangerous threatmakers from the posers, I have no problem with it. It is rational police triage, or would you rather they use their "discretion"?
IANAL, but assault is the crime of threatening violence. Battery is doing it.
Now if Mosaic2000 is used otherwise, attempting to correlate non-criminal behaviour (wearing trenchcoats) with future criminal activity, it is almost certainly unconstitutional (1st and equal protection ammendments). All public schools are government bodies to which at least the state constitutions apply, if not the Federal.
So what's the big deal about Mosaic2000? Has everyone jumped to the conclusion that it will be used to correlate non-illegal activity? Maybe so, but please state this assumption.
As stated, it's a tool for [police] triage, sorting the dangerous criminals from the posturing criminals. I have no problem with that. It's certainly better than the usual "police discretion". Unless you prefer an inefficient police, and that case can be made.
As for Columbine, it doesn't surprise me. In a nation of 300 million people, everything imaginable (and unimaginable) _MUST_ happen. It's a statistical certainty. It would worry me if it didn't. Furthermore, the conventional broadcast media is facing heavy competition from user-pull media (internet). So they increase their coverage and alas, their hysteria.
People put alot of faith in their OS & apps, and alot of work needs to be redone when they go wrong like Word 5.
BG may be richer than Croessus, but it doesn't seem that money suffices. With MS so dominant, why should we believe BG has his customer's interest at heart? Don't his shareholders come first?
Fully agreed. The OPEC cartel suffered more from alternative crude oil sources (North Sea and AK North Slope) than reduced consumption. Furthermore, the fuel consumption of today's SUV's puts a 1970 Buick Electra to shame.
But guess what? Crude oil is over $20, although it has broken in the few weeks. Surprisingly strong to many.
As for the [non]hibernation of OPEC, I have a very different explanation: Power politics. OPEC was able to deliver two crude price shocks because they were fairly sure the US would not invade after the Vietnam debacle. Furthermore, they had their ace-in-the-hole: torch the wells! No-one thought they could be put out.
The Gulf War, and especially it's aftermath, showed both of these to be false. So I very much doubt that OPEC can administer any more shocks. But crude oil price can still rise, painfully even. It probably will, but when is the question.
IMHO, MS has always been marketing first and foremost. Granted at the time of the IBM deal AFAIK, MS was just Gates & Paul Allen. But still Gates sold IBM. It wasn't even his own code, he'd bought QDOS just to sell to IBM.
DOS was an adjunct to selling the code he thought was his, GWBASIC. I don't think he retained DOS separate marketing rights out of cleverness, just that he surely would for GWBASIC and DOS went along for the ride.
Since then, MS has grown in numbers. But I don't think the emphasis on sales has diminished one bit.
I see your point. You would like corporations to contribute more/differently.
Sorry, they won't. Open source is a volunteer effort in every respect. Don't try to ruin it by making people or corps feel guilty they aren't doing more. Guilt is not a good motivator, especially not of corporations.
FWIW, Macmillian _is_ doing what they do well. And distributing/marketing especially valuable since few others around here can do it at all.
> Using CT, how easy or otherwise is it to bring down or attack vital systems? It depends entirely on the system under attack. If it is not connected, it's fairly safe. If i'net connected, then it depends on how hard the system is to crack.
> What sort of skills would be needed to do so, and are they common/teachable? Basic computer skills are common and teachable. More advanced cracking skills are dependant on analytical ability, and may not be teachable. But the threat from 1000 script kiddies is very different from the threat from one/few skilled crackers.
> Commercial-off-the-shelf software: can it really do CT? AFAIK, there is no commercial off-the-shelf CT software. But there are lots of ready-made free kiddie scripts that would do much the same thing.
> Which systems are actually attackable? Anything programmable. Anything with connectivity is easier to attack because physical presence is not required. Anything with inet connectivity is still easier because it's easier for the attacker to establish a connection, and that connection is more predictable.
> Can a recovery be made from such attacks? Depends on the system. Depends on the skill of the sysadmin. Backup tapes are usually advised. For real-time systems, fallback to simple control is essential.
> Is it likely to improve/get worse? A judgement call. More systems are being made vulnerable as users want the advantages of inet connectivity. Security awareness is also increasing. IMHO, no net change.
> What sort of preventitive work would you recommend them to carry out? Good sysadmin work customizing installations, not accepting anything out of the box. Risk analysis (probability & consequence).
This article is extremely poor. It reads as if the author had done a global search-and-replace of CBNR to CBNR/Cyber, plus added a very few It paragraphs. The tone is unreasonably alarmist.
It make no distinction between cyberterrorism, which is an attack upon C3I (command, control, communications & intelligence) systems, both military and civil, and terrorists using their own cyber C3I.
Worse, it confuses C3I (infosystems) with CBNR (weapons systems).
Jane's editor asks some good questions, but this article cannot even be rewritten to answer them.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the data I have says Europa is tidally locked to Jupiter. Much like our own moon is to us. So there is no longer any tidal "kneeding" to provide heat on Europa. Of course, there still could be radioactive decay.
-- Robert
I'm well aware of the geothermal vents, and the odd life forms there. But I haven't seen any DNA or other chemical analyses that says these are of independant origin from the rest of terrestrial life.
If so, then that's very interesting. If not [probable], it merely states that life can evolve to meet changing environments. 200'C sounds severe, but so long as it isn't boiling (cell walls stay intact) and the proteins don't get denatured, life goes on.
-- Robert
I'm not impressed. Every spot on this globe has been through dramatic climactic changes over geological time. At more than one point, Lake Vostok was swamplike, teeming with life.
But life surviving inhospitable environments is very different from life evolving in such places. Has anyone a theory that Europa was once warmer, with sufficient sunlight? Or maybe ejecta from Earth impactors has transported life elsewhere?
-- Robert
Anonymity currently exists on the Internet largely due to dynamic IP addressing by dial-up ISPs. The more rigorous alternatives (www.anonymizer.com) are problematic and troublesome for casual use. The anonymity comes from the difficulty of dredging through ISP logs to link an IP with a userid, and the limited number of requests ISPs will fulfill, mostly from law enforcement. Often, the logs will have expired [been deleted by rotation].
However, all this will vanish with 128-bit [sic] addressing in IPv6. Many bits will be used for routing, but you can bet some bits will be dedicated to identifying _you_, even if you did dialup. Essentially, you will have a static dial-up IP address. Since any site you commpunicate with has to be able to return packets to you, they will have to know your IP.
-- Robert
Clearly Etoys has bamboozled the judge. They have deliberately misinformed him over the rules governing Domain Names while scaring him with porno. Judges do not like to be lied to! They can and will charge liars with contempt of court including fines and jailtime.
The judge issued a preliminary injection in good faith to prevent harm. When it is explained that he was deceived and caused harm instead, some judicial outrage/coverup will occur. IMHO, it is important the the etoy defense team take a friendly stance toward the judge, explain how he was deceived in this admittedly arcane issue, and suggest contempt punishment. They could also countersue. If they don't approach this correctly, the judge will stonewall behind "porno".
Clearly etoys benefits immeasurably from this unjust preliminary injunction, and ought not be walk away with the loot.
-- Robert
But I have a few DEC Multia's with the Alpha 21066 chip. Not fast. But even they do run Linux, OpenBSD and Compq Tru64 Unix. So you can always point to Tru64 when The Suits get nervous about Free Software.
My problem with Alphas is their power consumption. No, not just `cuz the 21066 draws 17W and has no powersavings. That's OK. I mean the 700 MHz 21264's draw 109W (yes, thats 47 Amps at 2.35V). Alphas need a shrink in the worst way.
Now 218W really isn't unmanageable. You need a big powersupply because they're at best 70% efficient. But I have reliability worries: what happens if you lose a CPU fan or one of those heatsink nuts get a little loose? Do you unsolder the CPU? What happens when the AC goes down?
-- Robert
Yes. The F0 0F bug affects the Intel Pentium (mmx?) processors. It is very severe, in that a user process can execute these nominally invalid instructions, and lockup the processor.
This wouldn't be noticed on a MS-Win9* box, because lockups happen all the time. But on a multitasking server/firewall, it's disaster.
But how do you stop a CPU from running instructions? Well, first the FreeBSD folks then the Linux crew found ways via pagefaults etc. And the F0 0F bug has safe workarounds. It took a few days, tribute to those who hacked it out.
So now everybody can use cheap cast-off low end Pentia for all sorts of good servers without worry. AFAIK, Microsoft has yet to fix NT. I guess they expt everyone running NT to have a P6.
-- Robert
Yes, it's from Microsoft. No, this isn't flamebait. Paul Allen's DEBUG.COM remains to this day IMHO the best software MS has ever produced.
Runner up: the F0 0F bugfix.
-- Robert
Oh, I flunk this test! Forget the controversial Q11, I flunk the rest. From what I know of the listed technologies, they are at best a partial solution to the listed problems.
It's naive beyond words to believe that technology, particularly information/communications, will stop human avarice, disagreement, meddlesomeness and other unpleasantries. More likely the technology will be used to further unpleasantness, witness the flamewars, trolls and flamebaiting that hardly existed on paper correspondance.
Sure, some of the listed measures are partial remedies. Some ("pseudonymous") are aggravators when the opposite would work better for some listed problems.
-- Robert
Fully agreed. I can relate that alot of desktops where I work would be still running OS/2 or migrating to Linux/FreeBSD if there were only an Exchange client available.
Yes, yes, MS-Exchanger server can be configured to use POP3. Our isn't, and that option won't last.
But as for missing functionality, I rather do without. Let'em see the customers they're missing. I normally browse with images off, and things have gotten alot better these days. Most images have tags, which wasn't so 2 years ago.
-- Robert
Well, I've installed and run RH5.2 and NetBSD on my Multias without excessive trouble. RH6 is 'way too bleeding edge for me. Haven't done really heavy compiling, but kernels compile OK in 32 MB DRAM.
-- Robert
And how much DRAM/disk does it take?
-- Robert
All censorship is "justified" on the basis that the censored information is harmful to some people. Even adults cannot view what they want. Recently, censorship has retreated to "protecting the kids" in most places.
But has the case been proven that the kids need protection? Sure, some parents might like to control what their kids see. But has actual harm been shown? It would have to be clear and convincing to justify the loss of privacy and potential misuse of censorship.
I am a parent, and I know kids can be frightened. So can adults for that matter--there's a whole movie industry profitably exploiting this. Very young kids ( 8 ) could get some phobias, but they are unlikely to come in contact with any information other that provided by the parent. Just how many 6 year olds are out on the `net?
As for older kids (10 +), I really doubt the potential for information to cause lasting harm. By this point, parental influence is rapidly diminished, and it is best to accept this with good grace rather than becoming a control freak.
*.au seems to be in the hands of the control freaks. Sad but predicatable.
-- Robert
Well put. I didn't mean to imply graft should be accepted. But it must be recognized, and out in the open before it can be cured.
I'm not sure I follow your "graft is unscalable therfore inefficient" argument. But I will certainly agree it is inefficient. However, I am far from certain how it could be stopped without incurring unintended consequences.
If you ban political contributions to candidates or other campaign finance reform, the parties become stronger, and the individual representatives weaker. You get party-line voting like is seen in the British Commonwealth, or in Europe. And since money dones't talk, the parties all pander to the lowest common denominator in search of votes. Business gets the short shrift. It takes a powerful recession (like NZ) to wake people up, but not for long.
Ultimately, the public purse is a powerful magnet. The best way to control it is to limit it's size.
-- Robert
I've read The Economist for 25 years, and recently the cluelessness of the editorial writers has been striking. In English, "they're having us on", or what we would call flamebait.
How could they miss Bill Gates/MS big ($25M?) contribution to Clinton's '92 campaign? It was even more remarkable because it wasn't balanced by a comparable contrib to the GOP [as most corps do].
Now perhaps The Economist doesn't consider Mr Gates a geek. The subject is indeed debatable, but I doubt they know that.
But please
-- Robert
I fully believe that many high school administrators try to intimidate their pupils. They are deathly afraid. So they try anything. Very sad--two wrongs don't make a right. And a bad example, to boot, from those who are paid to be good examples.
IANAL, but a lawyer could demolish these signed Handbooks in a few seconds:
1) A minor lacks the capacity to sign an enforcable contract. So the signature is unenforcable. Maybe if the parent signs
2) Suspension is a dubious punishment--how can you be suspended since you will then violate truancy laws?
3) Any contract signed under duress is unenforceable. The suspension-vs-truancy could be viewed as duress.
4) Some rights are inalienable. You can't sign them away. Free speech may not be, but equal protection probably is.
Unfortunately, our society has become excessively adversarial. Everyone pushes for more than they know they deserve. In the end, no-one will have anything.
-- Robert
If Mosaic2000 is used as described in the NYTimes article, to separate the potentially dangerous threatmakers from the posers, I have no problem with it. It is rational police triage, or would you rather they use their "discretion"?
IANAL, but assault is the crime of threatening violence. Battery is doing it.
Now if Mosaic2000 is used otherwise, attempting to correlate non-criminal behaviour (wearing trenchcoats) with future criminal activity, it is almost certainly unconstitutional (1st and equal protection ammendments). All public schools are government bodies to which at least the state constitutions apply, if not the Federal.
-- Robert
So what's the big deal about Mosaic2000? Has everyone jumped to the conclusion that it will be used to correlate non-illegal activity? Maybe so, but please state this assumption.
As stated, it's a tool for [police] triage, sorting the dangerous criminals from the posturing criminals. I have no problem with that. It's certainly better than the usual "police discretion". Unless you prefer an inefficient police, and that case can be made.
As for Columbine, it doesn't surprise me. In a nation of 300 million people, everything imaginable (and unimaginable) _MUST_ happen. It's a statistical certainty. It would worry me if it didn't. Furthermore, the conventional broadcast media is facing heavy competition from user-pull media (internet). So they increase their coverage and alas, their hysteria.
-- Robert
People put alot of faith in their OS & apps, and alot of work needs to be redone when they go wrong like Word 5.
BG may be richer than Croessus, but it doesn't seem that money suffices. With MS so dominant, why should we believe BG has his customer's interest at heart? Don't his shareholders come first?
-- Robert
Fully agreed. The OPEC cartel suffered more from alternative crude oil sources (North Sea and AK North Slope) than reduced consumption. Furthermore, the fuel consumption of today's SUV's puts a 1970 Buick Electra to shame.
But guess what? Crude oil is over $20, although it has broken in the few weeks. Surprisingly strong to many.
As for the [non]hibernation of OPEC, I have a very different explanation: Power politics. OPEC was able to deliver two crude price shocks because they were fairly sure the US would not invade after the Vietnam debacle. Furthermore, they had their ace-in-the-hole: torch the wells! No-one thought they could be put out.
The Gulf War, and especially it's aftermath, showed both of these to be false. So I very much doubt that OPEC can administer any more shocks. But crude oil price can still rise, painfully even. It probably will, but when is the question.
-- Robert
IMHO, MS has always been marketing first and foremost. Granted at the time of the IBM deal AFAIK, MS was just Gates & Paul Allen. But still Gates sold IBM. It wasn't even his own code, he'd bought QDOS just to sell to IBM.
DOS was an adjunct to selling the code he thought was his, GWBASIC. I don't think he retained DOS separate marketing rights out of cleverness, just that he surely would for GWBASIC and DOS went along for the ride.
Since then, MS has grown in numbers. But I don't think the emphasis on sales has diminished one bit.
-- Robert
I see your point. You would like corporations to contribute more/differently.
Sorry, they won't. Open source is a volunteer effort in every respect. Don't try to ruin it by making people or corps feel guilty they aren't doing more. Guilt is not a good motivator, especially not of corporations.
FWIW, Macmillian _is_ doing what they do well. And distributing/marketing especially valuable since few others around here can do it at all.
-- Robert
If Macmillian can move software, let them. Help them, even. It's good for Linux.
But please do not whine [UK: whinge] they get no technical kudos. They have done nothing worthy of technical notice, nor do they aim do.
They just do a marketing job, as important as it is. Let them get marketing kudos.
-- Robert
> Using CT, how easy or otherwise is it to bring down or attack vital systems?
It depends entirely on the system under attack. If it is not connected, it's fairly safe. If i'net connected, then it depends on how hard the system is to crack.
> What sort of skills would be needed to do so, and are they common/teachable?
Basic computer skills are common and teachable. More advanced cracking skills are dependant on analytical ability, and may not be teachable. But the threat from 1000 script kiddies is very different from the threat from one/few skilled crackers.
> Commercial-off-the-shelf software: can it really do CT?
AFAIK, there is no commercial off-the-shelf CT software. But there are lots of ready-made free kiddie scripts that would do much the same thing.
> Which systems are actually attackable?
Anything programmable. Anything with connectivity is easier to attack because physical presence is not required. Anything with inet connectivity is still easier because it's easier for the attacker to establish a connection, and that connection is more predictable.
> Can a recovery be made from such attacks?
Depends on the system. Depends on the skill of the sysadmin. Backup tapes are usually advised. For real-time systems, fallback to simple control is essential.
> Is it likely to improve/get worse?
A judgement call. More systems are being made vulnerable as users want the advantages of inet connectivity. Security awareness is also increasing. IMHO, no net change.
> What sort of preventitive work would you recommend them to carry out?
Good sysadmin work customizing installations, not accepting anything out of the box. Risk analysis (probability & consequence).
-- Robert redelm@ev1.net
This article is extremely poor. It reads as if the author had done a global search-and-replace of CBNR to CBNR/Cyber, plus added a very few It paragraphs. The tone is unreasonably alarmist.
It make no distinction between cyberterrorism, which is an attack upon C3I (command, control, communications & intelligence) systems, both military and civil, and terrorists using their own cyber C3I.
Worse, it confuses C3I (infosystems) with CBNR (weapons systems).
Jane's editor asks some good questions, but this article cannot even be rewritten to answer them.
-- Robert