[127514] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Economist, cyber war issue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (andrew.wallace)
Thu Jul 1 17:52:21 2010
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: "andrew.wallace" <andrew.wallace@rocketmail.com>
To: Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net>
In-Reply-To: <4C2CE504.8070505@mompl.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
There is a part 2 as well http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=
=3D16478792=0A=0AAndrew=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Jero=
en van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net>=0ATo: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>=0ASent: T=
hu, 1 July, 2010 19:57:08=0ASubject: Re: The Economist, cyber war issue=0A=
=0Aandrew.wallace wrote:=0A> Article: http://www.economist.com/node/1648150=
4?story_id=3D16481504=0A=0AI know it's shortsighted, but any article with t=
he word cyber in it, used in such a way as being about "cyber this-or-that"=
, already lost its credibility by virtue of using the word. It must be a of=
rather high quality to win back its credibility. This economist article sa=
dly does the opposite.=0A=0ARegards,=0AJeroen=0A=0A-- http://goldmark.org/j=
eff/stupid-disclaimers/=0A=0A=0A
