> How will we know the difference between an attack and normal operations?
We would know because each accident on the railroads is meticiously investigated.
See e.g. the web page of the Accident Investigation Office of the German Federal Railroad Agency [German knowledge required]:
http://www.eisenbahn-unfalluntersuchung.de/cln_031/nn_316888/EUB/DE/Publikationen/Untersuchungsberichte/__Function/untersuchungsberichte__tabelle.html

Includes a report on an air condition failure (admittedly that specific failure lead to 9 people having to be brought to a hospital).
At least in Germany we _would_ most probably know if a train had derailed due to a cyber attack.

Unless Zothecula=Ben Coxworth (which one never knows nowadays) this looks very much like a copyright violation. It is a 1:1 copy of the first paragraph of the referenced article from Ben. And Ben at least took some effort to reformulate when he took it from http://www.ohgizmo.com/2011/11/08/this-clipboard-could-save-your-life/.

But then, does crowdvertisement care about copyright?

Sorry but this cannot work. What you are saying is that banks can only lend out their net equity but not any money from liabilities they have (e.g. from savings accounts or bonds they issued). Where will the money for interest on savings accounts come from in that case? Or is the idea that there will be no savings accounts anymore and everyone who wants interest has to buy bank stocks. Not the best for people who want a risk diversification.

In addition

• * Prohibit risk-sharing between the then investment banks (lest one failing may pull down all).
• * Make it clear to everyone that investment banks can and will go bankrupt from time to time and there will be no replacement of losses.
• * Set maximum credit rating investment banks can have against the 'real' banks (lest all the money ends up at the investment banks again and they need bail outs to save grandma's savings
• * Have a whitelist of dealings the 'real' banks are allowed to do.
• * Make creative interpretations of regulation by 'real' banks punishable as defraud (claimant: the government due to increased risk of bail-out)
• * Demand risk sharing (e.g. insurance) between the 'real' banks so less government bail-outs are necessary should an individual bank fail despite the low risk dealings they are only allowed to do.

Result: The investment banks can do whatever pleases them but will have massive problems of getting capital. Especially after the first goes bankrupt due to some 'rogue trade' (of course completely against company policy)

Which is why IMHO the next big wave of innovation will start when technology is developed to improve human collaboration by orders of magnitude. No, I do not mean the internet, groupware, .... . They all help but are lacking the "order of magnitude". Something cyberwarish would be more like it.

You should maybe start to wonder, where those 7% are payed from. Due to TANSTAAFL your local credit union must be in some high risk operation for earning that interest.

Yet it shows nicely how markets and some financial institutions are willing to bend the rules for their mutual gain to the detriement of a third party: the common public.

This is the general problem with short-term speculation. It is a (near) zero-sum game (the near due to possible arbitrage gains from providing liquidity for long-term trades). Yet for years banks have posted record gains out of it. That money had to come from somewhere. It came out of the coffers of the financial institutes which had to be saved by governments in the last financial crisis.

And had UBS lost not only 2 but say 20 billions, it would too have to be saved (again) by the Swiss government. Yet the 20 billions would have turned up on several people's bonus/dividend slip.

Not unless the papers are really short. Otherwise even the only finite number of variations will be large enough to spread random matches with other papers to individual sentences. But that is not a problem. I doubt an instructor would believe a student read 60 papers on the same topic just to swipe one or two random sentences from each.
But if central ideas including supportive reasoning seem to match not only from the idea but also the sentence perspective, the probability for random occurrence is quite low.

1) Get some SSL keys

2) Redirect the DNS Servers

3) Profit!