Please, do point out to me where I said that it was analogous. What I did say is that

which is very different from your Neo-Nazi analogy. By the way, how is that different from when the police or news outlets divulge photos and information on wanted criminals? someone might decide to hunt them down and do justice with their own hands as well. Or is the fact that the known criminals happen to be missing somehow a merit of the people who are setting the hounds on them?

Your example is extreme, and it is not even close to the point. A government cannot be blamed for the isolated actions of a minority group of citizens, so it is very relevant whether they authorities sponsored the attacks or not. And as long as Russian property or the rights of Russian citizens are not being harmed, the Russian government has no civic obligation to stop these attacks, unless it is a part of an international treaty that says otherwise.

And is there evidence for the general tone that these governments are all planning to sabotage the USA?

But perhaps that's just me being picky. What really worries me about all this is the combination of this "ciberwar/cyberterrorism" concept with the general mentality of the USA government that "all of our citizens are domestic terrorists until proven otherwise". That just spells out "invasion of privacy" in big bold red letters.

I'm as anti-Microsoft as you can get without stepping into fanboy territory, but any system that had such a wide deployment would be more sought after by malicious programmers, and would thus have more actively exploited security flaws. Blame MS for default settings being too loose on security, but don't blame them for being under heavy fire all the time.

About as much as me, I'd assume.

The obvious staring-you-in-the-face difference between this and 9/11 is that this book is flinging accusations at specific parties - all of them major world governments - without any evidence. It's very different from saying "a group of cyberterrorists is in principle capable of hijacking our servers and messing with our communications", and more like saying "Iraq has WMD, let's fuck their shit up" - also without evidence.

...to back any of this up.

Even the market? Wow. I never knew that.

It's the sound of the FCC never having anything to do with regulating the Internet to begin with. If someone says that the FDA doesn't have the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks, will that also be a major setback for Net Neutrality?

And Freud not only did cocaine, but prescribed it to his patients. What's your point?

Sorry, it' my own fault for not being clear. I don't feel that "continued use" is a very good definition because the frequency and amount of use that might be enough to cause physical addiction varies wildly from person to person and from substance to substance. I used to smoke pot and cigarettes, and I smoked much more pot than cigarettes, but I was only ever addicted to the latter. When I decided to quit, I quit both at once and even though I both enjoyed and used pot more, quitting the cigarettes was harder.

That's why I said "use" and not "continued use". Of course using any substance a single time isn't enough to get anyone addicted, but it's hard to define when it is enough. Still, I don't think only "everyday usage", as you put it, qualifies - for a heavy addiction, yes, but you can drink every other day and be addicted, enough that if you go two straight days without a drink you get moody etc.

You didn't. The causal relations are between use and addiction and between enjoyment and continued use.

You would think that this particular causal relationship would be common sense... and of course you'd be wrong.

By the way, congratulations on becoming and staying clean.

"Hmm, I think I'll set fire to this paper tube full of tar and inhale the smoke, even though countless studies have shown it will give me bad breath, impotence and cancer!" Sounds like a real genius, doesn't it?

The bartender says "We don't serve superconductors in this bar." The world's smallest superconductor leaves without putting up any resistance.

A tingle? Steve Jobs just had to go get a change of pants.

You disregard your privacy precisely to the extent of the information you share on Facebook. I also have a minimum-disclosure FB account. Pardon me if I wasn't clear. :)

Still, many people share much more with strangers online than they'd share with strangers offline, and among these, several do so because they don't fully understand/care about the risks of what they're doing. So they obviously won't buy this thing, even if they're told exactly what it does.