You know what, my buddy was driving last night and I had the luxury of having a couple more than usual. I was being an … well the rules of this forum don’t allow for the description, but you seem smart enough to fill in the gray area here. For that I apologize.

That being said, it seems to me that if someone hacked into the grid of a European country and shut it down, there would be more coverage from more news outlets (Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBC, TASS, Saturday Night Live), and that the coverage would be more complete. It would at least cite a country. The article referenced stated that Estonia’s “Russian Hackers had been blamed” but it failed to mention who was doing the blaming, and made mo mention of an attack on their power grid. The article on California stated that the attack did not affect power distribution.

Of course none of this really matters. When I lived in Boise, all of the power downtown was shut down by a squirrel that found its way into a substation.

Is a malicious attack on the power grid possible? I’m sure it is. But If I lived in a community that was fifty or so miles north of the Gulf, twenty or so miles south of the San Jacinto river, a hundred feet or so above sea level, on three highway arteries that are notoriously clogged with traffic, and I felt that the hacking was a risk, logic would dictate that I be worried about infectious diseases (bird flu is but one) because of the constant presence of stagnant water and global climate change (because I would be potentially hemmed in between the gulf and a river near the gulf with no reliable way north) because they to would be a risk as well.

I’m not trying to argue here, I’m honesty interested in how one (not just you, but anyone) calculates threat, and then decides how to insulate one’s self from it. What information does one retain, what information does one discard? How does one attach a value to the risk (perceived or actual)? I look forward to a discussion on the subject if you are interested.

Respectfully,
Biscuits