Nato warns of strike against cyber attackers

>> I'm all for that, but, point is that people who fail to meet that standard are
>> currently getting a free ride. IMHO, they should pay and they should have
>> the recourse of being (at least partially) reimbursed by their at-fault software
>> vendors for contributory negligence.
> Great idea. You know, I've got a great solution for global warming.
> Let's hold all the car owners accountable for all the greenhouse gases
> their cars belch out, and let them have the recourse of being (at least
> partially) reimbursed by their at-fault car manufacturers and gasoline
> distributors for contributory negligence.
1. My car emits very little greenhouse gas, so, I'm cool with that. Sounds
  great to me. (I drive a Prius).

Your car emits lots of greenhouse gases. Just because it's /less/ doesn't
change the fact that the Prius has an ICE. We have a Prius and a HiHy too.

2. Manufacturers are held liable for contributory negligence when the
  design of their vehicle is unsafe and causes an accident.

That isn't relevant to what I suggested.

3. We're not talking about greenhouse gasses here... We're talking
  about car-wrecks on the information superhighway caused by
  a combination of irresponsible operators and poor vehicle design.

That wasn't the analogy I was making. I was stabbing at the whole idea
behind your suggestion, by directly translating it to a real-world example.

Did Godwin say anything about rand discussions degenerating to
mythologies like "gorebull warming"?

This would appear to be political in nature and therefore not operational, right?