So, you'd take Mother Theresa (if she were still alive), and try her along side of rapists, child molesters, and torturers. And potentially sentence her to prison or worse?
I just want to get this straight. After all, she supported this "system of evil", as priests do.
Oh, and here are some links so you can familiarize yourself with the difference between a democracy and a republic. As you can see from the articles, the difference is far greater than just a different pronunciation of the same word.
Actually, no, this is a Republic, not a democracy (assuming "this" refers to the United States).
And no, this is not "majority rule". The US Constitution is specifically designed to protect the interest and rights of the minority, OVER majority rule.
Once again, point-by-point failure on your part, while not one of my points has been successfully refuted.
If you think its irrelevant why did you challenge me to providing supporting evidence?
It only takes high school level reading comprehension to see that I challenged the relevance of BUSINESSES using government services, while I asked for proof that the rich use more government resources than the poor.
You fail.
Yes paraphrasing that make the point clear is total failure.
Paraphrasing and quoting are two different things. Once again, a high school education would help you understand that. Please spend some time over at dictionary.com to understand this, before even trying to justify your mis-quote.
You fail again.
You mean like "pathetic?"
Calling a person a name, vs. calling an argument pathetic (and showing why it is pathetic, point by point), are two entirely different things. One would hold up in court, while the other would get thrown out, and possibly cause sanctions against an attorney.
Once again you fail.
Get outta the kitchen
I am not in the kitchen.
Once again, you fail.
ya coward.
More name calling.
One again you fail.
At least you are consistent. Failure up and down. Good job.
Care to demonstrate your ignorance further? Go ahead! This is quite entertaining.
Well, since I don't make a habit of pirating things, I was (perhaps incorrectly) assuming that many of these installations were done by others.
I'm imagining computer consultants, white-box computer companies, and "my cousin who knows about computers" being the pirates, and the machine owner "inadvertently" pirating the software.
You can't have it both ways dude, either you agree with me or you claim I'm wrong but refuse to back it up with evidence.
No, I don't have to agree with you or claim that you are wrong. I claimed that you are citing a point that is irrelevant. Whether businesses make a zillion dollars on trade delegations or make no money on it, that has absolutely no bearing on the original discussion of whether a small businessman in mid America should be taxed more for that service he never uses. But I said that already.
You can argue that the moon isn't made of green cheese if you want, and then say "You can't have it both ways dude, either you agree with me or you claim I'm wrong but refuse to back it up with evidence." And I can sit here and laugh at you for that as well.
That's a coward move. A loud, self-righteous, but ultimately empty coward move.
Ah, so we're back to name calling. Just admit defeat, rather than reverting to habits of a third-grader. It's not very becoming, but quite entertaining. I am enjoying laughing at your every attempt to back-pedal, use irrelevant talking points, and call names.
saying "I disagree therefore you are wrong"
Oh, add in some mis-quoting when logic fails. That's always a good move too.
You lost the debate. Thanks for continuing to dig your hole though.
I just wish Diaspora was finished so I could send an invitation to the few FB friends who matter to join me there and then delete my FB page.
Good luck with that last part! I hear it's a royal pain.
Hey entrepreneurs... Go invent this:
When you leave FaceBook and register for an alternate site such as Diaspora, simply register with IveMoved.com [or whatever].
Our automated scripts perform the following:
1. Help you move: We move your content, notify your friends, and remove as much public data as we can from FaceBook 2. Mark your page as "I've Moved", directing users to your new location. 3. Sign in to your FaceBook periodically and pull over some FaceBook data for your old friends, bridging the gap between your new service and FaceBook. As an IveMoved.com user, you'll have access to your friend's FaceBook data, but your friends will be encouraged to move with you, to maintain contact with you.
Congratulations on your upgrade away from FaceBook!
(Apologies to the current owner of ivemoved.com (if any).. it was just a name I made up while typing.)
....I just walked away from a client who spent a lot of time blowing smoke up my "dress"....
Pleasant dreams
dave mundt
That was a lot to read, between the words "dress" and "dave".
Unfortunately, some people aren't open minded about who they partner with. Even the most talented cross-dressing programmers are going to run into people who will discriminate based on the clothes you wear.
Starting a business and making it successful is fairly easy - just boring and hard work. It's more a matter of not doing anything stupid. Find something that is well understood, copy everything others do right, and correct the things they suck at. Keep doing it without screwing up. Decent marketing, decent prices, decent customer service, and decent treatment of your employees, contractors, and suppliers.
The geek need for a business buddy is just so you can work on the interesting hard parts while somebody else bothers with the boring stuff.
Ideas are rarely that important to success. Noticing when things suck and being willing to admit they suck and fix them even if it makes you look like a complete jerk is the vital part.
You get my virtual +1 for this comment. I agree wholeheartedly.
I spent many years trying to come up with "The Next Great Idea". And, as my idea list gets longer, I see many of those ideas get implemented by others, and making other people rich (and also proving that some of my ideas suck). My wife reminds me all the time about ideas that I had that I wasn't able to get to market.
On the other hand, once I "went for it" and created my own business, and had to pay the bills, I stuck close to proven ideas (Provide value to people with common technologies. Do it at least as well as the competition.)
I find it helpful to think of creating a company as an engineering problem. Assemble the components (people, processes, equipment, marketing materials, etc) to perform some function, much like an electrical engineer would assemble components to build a piece of hardware. And that process is full of trade-offs, including not chasing unproven ideas. Stick with "off the shelf components" (like proven ideas, performing common tasks that your employees are good at, using technologies that are widely understood so that you can find good people), and you can put together a pretty decent business.
Put words in my mouth if you want. Even by putting words in my mouth, you've failed to sufficiently address my original point:
I can't understand why you would think that generating the 250,000th dollar or the millionth dollar would take a higher percentage of those "vast array of government resources" than the first dollar or the 20,000th dollar.
If anything, it's likely to take less.
Thanks for trying, but I think your futility over a dozen or so messages demonstrates quite well that you have no good answer.
Yes corporate tax law is precisely that simple and straightforward. That's why GE paid negative $1.1B in taxes on $10.3B in income in 2009, and Ford paid $69M on $3B in income
Once again, an illogical point. Here's what this paragraph essentially says: "Since GE and Ford were able to show negative taxable income, we should tax someone else a disproportionate amount." If you disagree with corporate tax law, and the totally legal process of running a separate set of "tax" books which allows for classifying income in a tax-favorable lihgt, and deferring tax, try fixing that issue, not penalizing someone who has nothing to do with that.
On the other hand, if you looked at TAXABLE income, you can easily see that those two companies did not make any. But I know that's too much for your feeble brain to comprehend.
I'm arguing that the poor don't generate an income from those services. We are talking about income tax aren't we?
No, your argument said
the poor have practically no usage for corporate law or international trade delegations or even interstate highways.
Perhaps you forgot that this was YOUR argument, not mine. And I shot that down with the argument that the poor indeed DOES have usage for international trade and interstate highways. They absolutely have use for both. OK, so instead of trying to concede that you were wrong on that point, you try to change it. You made a point, I showed you how you were wrong. Next!
Learn something about corporate structure and tax law and go get some stats. Otherwise you are just spewing venomous nonsense.
That's a coward's argument. How about you pull up the numbers to prove your claims.
It's your argument that tax be disproportionate, so the burden of proof is on you.. Trying to say that "it's a coward's argument" to demand facts and that you have some knowledge about the topic is hilarious. Yeah, I'm a coward for wanting to debate someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Furthermore you will have to explain how all of those services to the poor don't provide a profit to the businesses they source from - like medicare's drug purchases or the dept of corrections' privatization of prisons, the welfare department's reimbursement of food stamps, etc.
No, I don't have the burden of proof there. I never claimed that businesses don't make a profit from those services. Businesses don't have anything to do with the argument of taxing the rich vs. taxing the poor. Once again, you are confusing taxable entities.
Your logic is so poor that it's a waste of time trying to educate you. It's like you are saying "I think we should penalize the Cleveland Browns because the Chicago soccer team had too many players on the field. And no, I don't need to have any facts to show you why, or even have any logic that supports my evidence - you need facts and proof to prove me wrong." You are spouting off nonsense without facts, and then asking me to defend an argument against your nonsense.
Because most of those resources aren't even used by the poor. For example, the poor have practically no usage for corporate law or international trade delegations or even interstate highways.
There are so many holes in this argument it's pathetic.
First, it seems to be based on the assumption that "the rich" are using corporate law and international trade delegations and interstate highways more than the poor. But is it the rich that are using those services? Or is it corporations?
You see, most large corporations are taxable entities. If you had made the case that corporations should fund these services, you'd be a little closer to having a valid point. But you want to tax someone else - the rich - for some perceived inequity. You are arguing taxing the wrong entity!
And if "the rich" owns a share in a corporation, and the corporation receives some benefit for these services - guess what? The corporation is taxed. And then IF there is any money left over, and IF it's passed to the owners in the form of dividends, then it is taxed AGAIN. Only in the case of S Corporations and LLC's is the income only taxed once, and I doubt that very many LLC's are disproportionately using government resources for corporate law, international trade delegations, and interstate highways. I don't. My accountant doesn't. My dentist doesn't.
Second, you have a huge assumption that the rich's use of these services outweigh somehow the poor's use of other government-provided services. Unless you can direct me to some stats showing where "the rich's use of GOVERNMENT SUPPLIED corporate law, international trade delegations or interstate highways" is higher per dollar than the poor's use of police protection, the department of health and human services, the department of job and family services, the department of corrections, the department of welfare, court-appointed attorneys, and numerous other government agencies that - without a doubt - provide a disproportionate amount of service to the poor, then you fail.
Finally, to argue that the poor has no use for international trade agreements and interstate highways is on it's face ridiculous. Are you arguing that poor people do not purchase anything that comes from out of state or out of the country? I'd like to see some evidence of that.
Your argument is a joke, as others have pointed out. Without some sort of references, you are merely pulling arguments out of the air without any basis in fact.
Learn something about corporate structure and tax law and go get some stats. Otherwise you are just spewing venomous nonsense.
I'm not Bruce Schneier, so I can't explain what procedure he'd have in mind, but I can explain what I was thinking.
If a threat is coming from a particular node, set of nodes, or portion of the network that can be characterized (as DDOS are), the leaders can agree to drop those nodes off the network.
Example: If a particular DDOS was a problem, a hotline call might be placed by one country's leader to another (potentially separate from the network, since the DDOS might actually knock out network calls), and the leaders may decide to drop all Windows machines off the network, or give them a limited access only to a "patch site", until the threat is removed.
Sort of like running the Internet under "marshal law", until order can be restored.
Unless they are an idiot, being "rich" doesn't mean simply sitting on a pile of depreciating money. It means generating an income - after all this is about income tax isn't it? And the income streams of the rich are essentially all dependent on a vast array of government services.
I can't understand why you would think that generating the 250,000th dollar or the millionth dollar would take a higher percentage of those "vast array of government resources" than the first dollar or the 20,000th dollar.
The fact that this guy discovered 1x1 pixels in email and mis-attributes them to "bugs", is so technically incompetent I would think I am reading the technology section of AOL.
No it's not. it used to be that nuclear weapons were out of reach for a private entity. It is not the case with cyberweapons. How do you regulate the action of the mafia or the triads ? How do you apply a treaty onto an individual ? Treaty and regulation works for limited availability weapon but for something as easy to produce, I dont see how it could work.
If the world powers join to "pinch off" the threat, and the treaties and hotlines are in place to address that, then it has a chance of working.
So what if the Chinese DDoS the internet for a while? OMG, twitter might go down!!~!eleventy!
Since most bank-to-fed and fed-to-bank transactions are via electronic networks, and much of the telephone communications go over electronic networks, and a huge segment of our economy is conducted via the internet, and email between customers and vendors is very common, I think the impact would be bigger than just twitter going down.
But Schneier (as much as anyone) should recognize that politicians are reactionary. This will get attention after the first cyber-attack.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that at first, but if you review some of his other posts, clearly he puts ALL priests on par with rapists and child molesters.
See this post.
So, you'd take Mother Theresa (if she were still alive), and try her along side of rapists, child molesters, and torturers. And potentially sentence her to prison or worse?
I just want to get this straight. After all, she supported this "system of evil", as priests do.
Oh, and here are some links so you can familiarize yourself with the difference between a democracy and a republic. As you can see from the articles, the difference is far greater than just a different pronunciation of the same word.
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy.
What distinguishes a republic is that it has an elected government.
Google is your friend, my friend.
There's a huge difference between a democracy and a republic!
One is representative, the other is not. No troll there, just a correction of the misinformation in the original post.
And yes, the US Constitution protects against the tyranny of the majority, as I said. Here are some links so that you can familiarize yourself:
Where is majority rule and minority rights incorporated into the US constitution?
Minority Rights
How does the US constitution protect minority from majority?
Actually, no, this is a Republic, not a democracy (assuming "this" refers to the United States).
And no, this is not "majority rule". The US Constitution is specifically designed to protect the interest and rights of the minority, OVER majority rule.
Sorry, were you trolling with intentional errors?
rapists are right up there with child molesters, torturers and priests in my personal list of highly despicable people.
Some priests are actually good people. I'm not sure I would lump them in with rapists, child molesters and torturers.
Once again, point-by-point failure on your part, while not one of my points has been successfully refuted.
If you think its irrelevant why did you challenge me to providing supporting evidence?
It only takes high school level reading comprehension to see that I challenged the relevance of BUSINESSES using government services, while I asked for proof that the rich use more government resources than the poor.
You fail.
Yes paraphrasing that make the point clear is total failure.
Paraphrasing and quoting are two different things. Once again, a high school education would help you understand that. Please spend some time over at dictionary.com to understand this, before even trying to justify your mis-quote.
You fail again.
You mean like "pathetic?"
Calling a person a name, vs. calling an argument pathetic (and showing why it is pathetic, point by point), are two entirely different things. One would hold up in court, while the other would get thrown out, and possibly cause sanctions against an attorney.
Once again you fail.
Get outta the kitchen
I am not in the kitchen.
Once again, you fail.
ya coward.
More name calling.
One again you fail.
At least you are consistent. Failure up and down. Good job.
Care to demonstrate your ignorance further? Go ahead! This is quite entertaining.
Well, since I don't make a habit of pirating things, I was (perhaps incorrectly) assuming that many of these installations were done by others.
I'm imagining computer consultants, white-box computer companies, and "my cousin who knows about computers" being the pirates, and the machine owner "inadvertently" pirating the software.
Woosh :-)
You can't have it both ways dude, either you agree with me or you claim I'm wrong but refuse to back it up with evidence.
No, I don't have to agree with you or claim that you are wrong. I claimed that you are citing a point that is irrelevant. Whether businesses make a zillion dollars on trade delegations or make no money on it, that has absolutely no bearing on the original discussion of whether a small businessman in mid America should be taxed more for that service he never uses. But I said that already.
You can argue that the moon isn't made of green cheese if you want, and then say "You can't have it both ways dude, either you agree with me or you claim I'm wrong but refuse to back it up with evidence." And I can sit here and laugh at you for that as well.
That's a coward move. A loud, self-righteous, but ultimately empty coward move.
Ah, so we're back to name calling. Just admit defeat, rather than reverting to habits of a third-grader. It's not very becoming, but quite entertaining. I am enjoying laughing at your every attempt to back-pedal, use irrelevant talking points, and call names.
saying "I disagree therefore you are wrong"
Oh, add in some mis-quoting when logic fails. That's always a good move too.
You lost the debate.
Thanks for continuing to dig your hole though.
I would love to see how they worded their pop-up so as not to offend people or scare them away.
ATTENTION! The Virus Software you are using has been pirated.
Please put in your name and credit card number, and you will be legally licensed.
The last thing I want to do, if caught pirating something inadvertently is to provide my identification.
Route 53 - sort of a combination of the famous Route 66 and a 'leet version of S3. ...in case you didn't get it.
I just wish Diaspora was finished so I could send an invitation to the few FB friends who matter to join me there and then delete my FB page.
Good luck with that last part! I hear it's a royal pain.
Hey entrepreneurs... Go invent this:
When you leave FaceBook and register for an alternate site such as Diaspora, simply register with IveMoved.com [or whatever].
Our automated scripts perform the following:
1. Help you move: We move your content, notify your friends, and remove as much public data as we can from FaceBook
2. Mark your page as "I've Moved", directing users to your new location.
3. Sign in to your FaceBook periodically and pull over some FaceBook data for your old friends, bridging the gap between your new service and FaceBook. As an IveMoved.com user, you'll have access to your friend's FaceBook data, but your friends will be encouraged to move with you, to maintain contact with you.
Congratulations on your upgrade away from FaceBook!
(Apologies to the current owner of ivemoved.com (if any).. it was just a name I made up while typing.)
....I just walked away from a client who spent a lot of time blowing smoke up my "dress"....
Pleasant dreams
dave mundt
That was a lot to read, between the words "dress" and "dave".
Unfortunately, some people aren't open minded about who they partner with. Even the most talented cross-dressing programmers are going to run into people who will discriminate based on the clothes you wear.
Starting a business and making it successful is fairly easy - just boring and hard work. It's more a matter of not doing anything stupid. Find something that is well understood, copy everything others do right, and correct the things they suck at. Keep doing it without screwing up. Decent marketing, decent prices, decent customer service, and decent treatment of your employees, contractors, and suppliers.
The geek need for a business buddy is just so you can work on the interesting hard parts while somebody else bothers with the boring stuff.
Ideas are rarely that important to success. Noticing when things suck and being willing to admit they suck and fix them even if it makes you look like a complete jerk is the vital part.
You get my virtual +1 for this comment. I agree wholeheartedly.
I spent many years trying to come up with "The Next Great Idea". And, as my idea list gets longer, I see many of those ideas get implemented by others, and making other people rich (and also proving that some of my ideas suck). My wife reminds me all the time about ideas that I had that I wasn't able to get to market.
On the other hand, once I "went for it" and created my own business, and had to pay the bills, I stuck close to proven ideas (Provide value to people with common technologies. Do it at least as well as the competition.)
I find it helpful to think of creating a company as an engineering problem. Assemble the components (people, processes, equipment, marketing materials, etc) to perform some function, much like an electrical engineer would assemble components to build a piece of hardware. And that process is full of trade-offs, including not chasing unproven ideas. Stick with "off the shelf components" (like proven ideas, performing common tasks that your employees are good at, using technologies that are widely understood so that you can find good people), and you can put together a pretty decent business.
Put words in my mouth if you want. Even by putting words in my mouth, you've failed to sufficiently address my original point:
I can't understand why you would think that generating the 250,000th dollar or the millionth dollar would take a higher percentage of those "vast array of government resources" than the first dollar or the 20,000th dollar.
If anything, it's likely to take less.
Thanks for trying, but I think your futility over a dozen or so messages demonstrates quite well that you have no good answer.
Q.E.D.
You clearly do not understand the difference between business and people, or you cannot read.
Show me where I claimed that businesses aren't the primary benefactor (or even any benefactor) of government services. Quote me. Find it.
You can't.
You are such a pathetic debater. But hey, when you have no logic, and no facts on your side, you can always try the name calling. Good work.
Yes corporate tax law is precisely that simple and straightforward. That's why GE paid negative $1.1B in taxes on $10.3B in income in 2009, and Ford paid $69M on $3B in income
Once again, an illogical point. Here's what this paragraph essentially says: "Since GE and Ford were able to show negative taxable income, we should tax someone else a disproportionate amount." If you disagree with corporate tax law, and the totally legal process of running a separate set of "tax" books which allows for classifying income in a tax-favorable lihgt, and deferring tax, try fixing that issue, not penalizing someone who has nothing to do with that.
On the other hand, if you looked at TAXABLE income, you can easily see that those two companies did not make any. But I know that's too much for your feeble brain to comprehend.
I'm arguing that the poor don't generate an income from those services. We are talking about income tax aren't we?
No, your argument said
the poor have practically no usage for corporate law or international trade delegations or even interstate highways.
Perhaps you forgot that this was YOUR argument, not mine. And I shot that down with the argument that the poor indeed DOES have usage for international trade and interstate highways. They absolutely have use for both. OK, so instead of trying to concede that you were wrong on that point, you try to change it. You made a point, I showed you how you were wrong. Next!
Learn something about corporate structure and tax law and go get some stats. Otherwise you are just spewing venomous nonsense.
That's a coward's argument. How about you pull up the numbers to prove your claims.
It's your argument that tax be disproportionate, so the burden of proof is on you.. Trying to say that "it's a coward's argument" to demand facts and that you have some knowledge about the topic is hilarious. Yeah, I'm a coward for wanting to debate someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Furthermore you will have to explain how all of those services to the poor don't provide a profit to the businesses they source from - like medicare's drug purchases or the dept of corrections' privatization of prisons, the welfare department's reimbursement of food stamps, etc.
No, I don't have the burden of proof there. I never claimed that businesses don't make a profit from those services. Businesses don't have anything to do with the argument of taxing the rich vs. taxing the poor. Once again, you are confusing taxable entities.
Your logic is so poor that it's a waste of time trying to educate you. It's like you are saying "I think we should penalize the Cleveland Browns because the Chicago soccer team had too many players on the field. And no, I don't need to have any facts to show you why, or even have any logic that supports my evidence - you need facts and proof to prove me wrong." You are spouting off nonsense without facts, and then asking me to defend an argument against your nonsense.
Because most of those resources aren't even used by the poor.
For example, the poor have practically no usage for corporate law or international trade delegations or even interstate highways.
There are so many holes in this argument it's pathetic.
First, it seems to be based on the assumption that "the rich" are using corporate law and international trade delegations and interstate highways more than the poor. But is it the rich that are using those services? Or is it corporations?
You see, most large corporations are taxable entities. If you had made the case that corporations should fund these services, you'd be a little closer to having a valid point. But you want to tax someone else - the rich - for some perceived inequity. You are arguing taxing the wrong entity!
And if "the rich" owns a share in a corporation, and the corporation receives some benefit for these services - guess what? The corporation is taxed. And then IF there is any money left over, and IF it's passed to the owners in the form of dividends, then it is taxed AGAIN. Only in the case of S Corporations and LLC's is the income only taxed once, and I doubt that very many LLC's are disproportionately using government resources for corporate law, international trade delegations, and interstate highways. I don't. My accountant doesn't. My dentist doesn't.
Second, you have a huge assumption that the rich's use of these services outweigh somehow the poor's use of other government-provided services. Unless you can direct me to some stats showing where "the rich's use of GOVERNMENT SUPPLIED corporate law, international trade delegations or interstate highways" is higher per dollar than the poor's use of police protection, the department of health and human services, the department of job and family services, the department of corrections, the department of welfare, court-appointed attorneys, and numerous other government agencies that - without a doubt - provide a disproportionate amount of service to the poor, then you fail.
Finally, to argue that the poor has no use for international trade agreements and interstate highways is on it's face ridiculous. Are you arguing that poor people do not purchase anything that comes from out of state or out of the country? I'd like to see some evidence of that.
Your argument is a joke, as others have pointed out. Without some sort of references, you are merely pulling arguments out of the air without any basis in fact.
Learn something about corporate structure and tax law and go get some stats. Otherwise you are just spewing venomous nonsense.
What does "pinching off" the threat even mean?
I'm not Bruce Schneier, so I can't explain what procedure he'd have in mind, but I can explain what I was thinking.
If a threat is coming from a particular node, set of nodes, or portion of the network that can be characterized (as DDOS are), the leaders can agree to drop those nodes off the network.
Example: If a particular DDOS was a problem, a hotline call might be placed by one country's leader to another (potentially separate from the network, since the DDOS might actually knock out network calls), and the leaders may decide to drop all Windows machines off the network, or give them a limited access only to a "patch site", until the threat is removed.
Sort of like running the Internet under "marshal law", until order can be restored.
I dunno, just a thought.
Unless they are an idiot, being "rich" doesn't mean simply sitting on a pile of depreciating money.
It means generating an income - after all this is about income tax isn't it?
And the income streams of the rich are essentially all dependent on a vast array of government services.
I can't understand why you would think that generating the 250,000th dollar or the millionth dollar would take a higher percentage of those "vast array of government resources" than the first dollar or the 20,000th dollar.
If anything, it's likely to take less.
Ummm... "web bug" is the actual term for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_bug
I would've thought someone ranting about technical incompetence would've known that.
shoot, you beat me to it!
I was thinking the same thing! It's always humorous to read someone rant like that, and demonstrate their own ignorance!
Then again, maybe we fell for a troll!
Cyberwar is the new nuclear war.
No it's not. it used to be that nuclear weapons were out of reach for a private entity. It is not the case with cyberweapons. How do you regulate the action of the mafia or the triads ? How do you apply a treaty onto an individual ? Treaty and regulation works for limited availability weapon but for something as easy to produce, I dont see how it could work.
If the world powers join to "pinch off" the threat, and the treaties and hotlines are in place to address that, then it has a chance of working.
So what if the Chinese DDoS the internet for a while? OMG, twitter might go down!!~!eleventy!
Since most bank-to-fed and fed-to-bank transactions are via electronic networks, and much of the telephone communications go over electronic networks, and a huge segment of our economy is conducted via the internet, and email between customers and vendors is very common, I think the impact would be bigger than just twitter going down.
But Schneier (as much as anyone) should recognize that politicians are reactionary. This will get attention after the first cyber-attack.
hmm we really really need sarcasm tags.
I see what you did there.
Sarcasm tags! Hilarious!