Modern Society

Without a doubt, one of the most intellectually bereft concerns of modern society has been the question of whether or not women can have it all. Posed repetitively and endlessly, in mawkish op eds and hand wringing television segments, it involves middle-class and mostly white women (a demographic in which I sit firmly) attempting to tease out the threads of an entirely useless concept with the regularity of a studiously high fibre diet.

As a query, having it all – can even we? is perpetuated as the most pressing and centralconcern of feminists today.

Drew Barrymore, a woman of strength and vitality who overcame childhood trauma to succeed in a culture with far fewer happy endings for girls with tales similar to hers, weighed in on the topic earlier this month inan interviewforPeople.

It sucks when youve worked really hard for certain things and you have to give them up because you know that youre going to miss out on your childs upbringing, or you realise that your relationship has suffered, she told People magazine at a conference on Thursday. For her, that has meant giving up directing projects in favour of spending more time with her baby.

Barrymore gave birth to her first child six months ago, which in tabloid terms means shes officially made it. Never mind the fact that she crawled her way out of drug addiction to become a respected actor, producer and director. Never mind that shes parlayed her considerable clout into other business pursuits, or that she has a vested interest in combating thedevastating effects of poverty.

Its abundantly clear that women – particularly the middle class, pretty white ones – arent considered to have ascended to the status of accomplished human being until they shuck off that amateur mantle of woman and become mothers. And its here in this meaningless vacuum where the principal pursuits of feminism have become warped, degraded and made reprehensible in their navel-gazing glory.

To prepare students for a career in public healthcare, the University will offer a graduate study certificate online in public health.

According to a news release by UVM, the 18-credit program will become available in summer 2013 to medical and graduate students, health practitioners, public health professionals and healthcare researchers.

“There is an urgent need for more people trained in public health,” said Associate Dean for Public Health Jan Carney. “This is because of rising health concerns in modern society such as obesity, tobacco use and infectious diseases.”

Not only will the program prepare students for health issues prevalent in today’s society, it will also prepare them for changes in the healthcare system, she said.

The classes offered are part of nationally recognized core disciplines necessary for public health education. They aim to teach students the foundations in public health sciences such as epidemiology, which studies the cause and effect of health and disease in specific populations, and biostatistics, Carney said.

Students will take five of the core courses and are allowed one elective from a list including Global Public Health and Public Health Law and Ethics.

The course is offered online to allow students more flexibility in planning, Carney said.

It also allows students not living in Vermont to utilize the program and provides faculty with the chance to use a variety of teaching methods, she said.

“Changes in the health care system will benefit from health professionals having additional knowledge in public health, to prevent more diseases and help entire populations of patients,” Carney said.

The end goal of the course is to prepare graduates to practice in a changing health care environment, engage in public health practices effectively and demonstrate knowledge and skills in foundation public health sciences.

By Scott Daugherty
The Virginian-Pilot
copy; April 12, 2013

CHESAPEAKE

Three men were convicted Wednesday of misdemeanor assault for their roles last August in a shooting in Indian River.

After almost 8 months in jail, James Cooper, 22, Brendan Graff, 22, and Daniel James, 27, were release from the Chesapeake Correctional Center and placed on probation. If they violate their probation, they could be sent back to jail for another 16 months.

Police initially charged Cooper, of Chesapeake, Graff, of Richmond, and James, of Sedley, with one count each of robbery and two counts each of malicious wounding.

The charges stemmed from an Aug. 11 altercation in the 1500 block of Walnut Ave. During the altercation, which occurred about 2:45 am, Christopher Wood, 22, and Melinda Gula, 27, were assaulted and Cooper, Graff and James were shot with bird shot.

No charges were filed against Wood and Gula.

According to attorneys, the three men called and threatened Wood over an incident involving Coopers girlfriend. Using colorful language, Wood responded that he would be waiting for them.

By the time the men arrived, Wood was joined by Gula at his home. When the men got out of their car, Wood and Gula met them in the driveway armed with a .45 caliber carbine rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and .40 caliber handgun.

Defense attorney said the men, who were unarmed,attacked Gula and Wood. They took the rifle from Gula and caused Wood to drop his handgun.

As the men retreated to their car, Wood fired his shotgun twice, attorneys said. He hit the passenger side of the car and the three men inside.

After the incident, Gula was taken to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital with injuries to her face and head, police said. Wood was treated by a medic at the scene. The three men refused medical treatment for the bird shot.

Before handing down his verdict, Circuit Judge Randall D. Smith noted several inconsistencies in the statements of Wood and Gula. Among other things, they told police the men were armed when they arrived.

Their inconsistencies are just too much to ignore, he said.

At the same time, Smith said Cooper, Graff and James couldnt claim self defense. He noted they sought out the altercation with Wood and Gula.

They didnt go over there to debate infidelity in modern society, he said.

Scott Daugherty, 757-222-5221,[email protected]

Their Words

I think thats modern society. You see a lot of that with supporters reaction to many things. I dont think we can change that. Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson on Sunderland cheering when United lost the title last season.

The Radar

1. Club soccer returns.
2. Liga MX on ESPN2.
3. FA Cup on Monday.
4. Holdens loan move.
5. NY – Phila.

Ten Stories

Power of the press can advance USA as a footballing nation – from MLSsoccer.coms Jonah Freedman: “This country needs football to matter.”

Freed of a Secret’s Burden, a Soccer Player Looks Ahead – from The NY Times Sam Borden: Rogers, in an interview from his home in London, said he understood the questions.

Robbie Rogers: why coming out as gay meant I had to leave football – from The Guardians Donald McRae: We end up laughing, helplessly, which shows how much football has to change

Can Mike Petke lift Red Bulls curse? – from Fox Soccers Leander Schaerlaeckens: This team is supposed to be cursed, after all.

Patrice Bernier, the Socrates of Montreal – from Grantlands Graham Parker: Bernier is chuckling as I talk to him, and fills in my reaction for me.

HOW TO SURVIVE A SOCCER GAME – from The New Yorkers Reeves Wiedeman: That record is owed at least in some part to Mexico’s fanbase.

Pressure of top-four target too much for Liverpool says clubs psychiatrist Steve Peters – from The Independents Ian Herbert: It depends on how others play, not just you.

Chelsea hoping to emerge unscathed from fixture pile-up – from ESPN FCs Phil Lythell: any kind of respite must be savoured when looking at Chelseas immediate future.

SFL clubs refuse to rush into change – from The Heralds Michael Grant: and were split down the middle on whether or not it could, or should, be done in time for next season.

Meeting your heroes can get embarrassing – from WSCs Mark Sanderson: This had two effects: my friends disappeared and I didnt get the autograph.

All links are provided as a courtesy. US Soccer Players nor its authors are responsible for the content of third-party links or sites. For comments, questions, and concerns please contact us at [email protected]

Lest you think you’re at the top of the evolutionary heap, looking down your highly evolved nose at the earth’s lesser creatures, Marlene Zuk has a message for you: When it comes to evolution, there is no high or low, no better or worse.

From evolution’s standpoint, people are no more special than microbes evolved to survive in extreme surroundings that might kill mere humans.

Zuk, a professor of ecology, evolution, and behavior at the University of Minnesota, took aim Wednesday evening at popular misconceptions of evolution, the human kind in particular. The biggest misconception, she said, is that the process is linear, with a beginning and an end, and that human evolution is progressing somehow from worse to better.

Evolution, rather, is the continual adaptation of organisms to their surroundings. When the surroundings change, those life forms poorly adapted to the new environment perish, while those it suits survive.

“There is no ‘progress’ in evolution. No living thing is trying to get anywhere,” Zuk said. “And humans are not at the pinnacle of the evolutionary ladder.”

She also took aim at the notion that anything is ever “perfectly adapted” to its environment. Evolution, she said, is no engineer, building the perfect organism from scratch every time the environment changes. Rather, evolution is the ultimate tinkerer, always having to make do with the parts on hand. Its creations tend to be imperfect, just fit enough to survive.

Zuk, the author of a new book on the subject, “Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us About Sex, Diet, and How We Live,” spoke at the Harvard Museum of Natural History (HMNH) as part of its “Evolution Matters” lecture series. Zuk was introduced by Jane Pickering, executive director of the Harvard Museums of Science and Culture, of which the HMNH is part.

Zuk cast a jaundiced eye on the modern nostalgia for our rugged caveman days, saying that the idea that we were somehow “perfectly adapted” then isn’t true — just a “paleofantasy” — and neither is the idea that we haven’t evolved since and are somehow ill-suited to life today.

Those supposedly “perfectly adapted” cavemen were evolutionary compromises, just good enough to survive and pass their genes to the next generation. They might themselves have been nostalgic for the days when ancestors ran about on all fours, since walking upright can cause back pain, Zuk said. Or they might have bemoaned all the effort required to hunt for a living, longing to return to the days when humans scavenged other animals’ kills.

“Why stop there? Why not long to be aquatic, since life arose in the sea?” Zuk said. “All living things are full of compromises. We’re jury-rigged.”

The idea that our physical traits somehow make us better fitted to the ancient savannahs of Africa than to the demands of modern society is widespread in popular culture, Zuk said. It is evidenced in everything from the popular “Paleo diet,” whose adherents only eat foods a caveman might, to the rise of barefoot running, to explanations of the obesity crisis, and of our darker emotions and desires.

Zuk illustrated her point with images from popular culture, showing a Glamour magazine cover offering “A Cavewoman’s Guide to Good Health,” a New York Times article about New Yorkers who model their lives on cavemen — giving blood regularly to mimic blood once lost in battle — and several versions of a common cartoon showing human evolution as a progression from chimpanzee to caveman to well-muscled, anatomically modern man to office slouch, hunched over a computer, or tubby, balding guy munching on a sub sandwich.

Human evolution is still happening, Zuk said. Researchers examining data from the Framingham Heart Study, which began in 1948, detected a large enough signal in the 14,000 study subjects to predict that, 10 generations on, women will be shorter, plumper, with lower cholesterol and blood pressure.

“Selection is continuing in our lives, as it was in our ancestors’,” Zuk said.

There are other instances of recent human evolution, including the evolution of lactose tolerance in herding populations in Africa and Europe. Most mammals lose the enzyme lactase, which confers the ability to digest dairy, as they mature. But in these populations, the continued ability to use a readily available food source must have conferred enough added fitness for the gene to spread. And an increase in fitness doesn’t have to be large, Zuk pointed out, to have a significant impact over long periods of time. Just a 3 percent fitness increase would result in a gene becoming widespread in a population in some 300 to 350 generations, a relative blink in evolutionary time.

“Nobody heaves a sigh of genetic relief and then stops,” Zuk said. No life form can say, “OK, we’re not evolving. We can all now learn to knit.”

I remember when I first discovered Kickstarter.

Now anybody can be a patron of the arts? How cool is that!

I remember growing up, considering a career in the arts, and being told that without a record label, I could never put out an album. Without waiting in cattle call audition lines, I could never perform on Broadway. Without writing a multi-million dollar check, I could never be considered a patron of anything.

Then, along came Kickstarter, and everything changed. It democratized the arts and enabled anybody to post a creative project and find funders. What an amazing idea! Why shouldnt a movie have a thousand producers listed in the credits? Why shouldnt a band be able to fund an album directly via fans? Through Kickstarter, we saw the Pebble watch raise a record $10.2 million. We saw the Veronica Mars movie raise $2 million in less than 10 hours! I supported my good friend, Jimmy, in producing It Gets Better: The Musical — a theater production that likely would not have happened in a pre crowd-funding world. A Kickstarter-funded film won an Academy Award this year. Heck, Philadelphia got a pizza museum and Chattanooga even got their very own font!

But the novelty and appeal have long since worn off.

Lately, Ive heard many people complain that they feel inundated by Kickstarter requests. Rather than a platform to support creative visionaries, its become just another way to hit people up for money. Its quickly gone from a celebration of the arts to a commentary on modern society where (1) its become totally acceptable to ask people for money all the time, because we are protected behind a computer screen, and (2) absolutely everyone thinks they have something to say or showcase that warrants public attention.

I really love supporting my friends. I like sharing their Facebook posts, contributing to their charity marathons, buying their books, linking to them from my blog — you name it. As someone who once dreamed of singing on Broadway (and not so secretly still dreams it), I get so much enjoyment from supporting the arts and feel horrible knowing that if someone doesnt raise the full amount of their Kickstarter pledge, then all the money gets forfeited. But I also acknowledge that theres a really fine line between supporting artistic projects and socially acceptable pan-handling.

Im just feeling a bit burnt out. Am I soon going to have to start the next Kickstarter of my own just to fund my own Kickstarter giving?

If youre creating a crowd-funding campaign, here are a few etiquette tips to keep in mind before asking others to support you:

1) If you promise something, and people give you money, you need to deliver on your promise. You only get one chance with most people. That means that you shouldnt have multiple Kickstarter projects going simultaneously. Offer a wide array of funding levels (not just $5 and $500) to enable anyone to back you without feeling weird about it. Provide creative incentives that you can realistically deliver on to show people you appreciate their support at any level.

2) Make sure your promotional video is really awesome. Keep it short (under a minute is ideal), and make it as creative and shareable as possible. People need to like you, believe in you, and feel excited about your project. Seeing you speak will reassure backers that you are trustworthy and committed. Most importantly, people are going to want to understand exactly what you plan to do with their money. So be honest with them.

3) Its bad etiquette to keep hitting up your friends and family repeatedly for money. Make sure you have at least a little bit of a fan base before you go out and start Kickstarting. If your only support base right now is friends and family, you might want to wait a bit longer.

And if youre on the giving side of a Kickstarter campaign, here are a few recommendations:

1) If you decide to support a project, theres no pre-determined etiquette around how much you have to give. Remember that any amount is okay, even $5. Sometimes the symbolic value of giving means more to a friend than the actual amount itself. If its someone who has supported one of your asks or charity walk-a-thons in the past, though, you might consider matching the level they gave you.

2) Consider impact. Even though many Kickstarter projects fail and are definitely a gamble to back, remember that your support of a $4,000 photography project likely means so much more to the artist and has the potential for a much bigger impact than the same contribution to a museum that has a multi-million dollar budget.

3) No matter what, only give money that you can afford to lose. Because youre not investing in a project when you back it on Kickstarter (meaning youre not a shareholder), youll never see financial returns from your money. So set a budget for yourself that is reasonable, where you can have fun supporting budding artistic projects without feeling so stressed out about financials that youre tempted to sue over $70, like this guy.

To be the first to see more content like this, click here to subscribe to my newsletter, Dot Complicated.

Just about everyone in America agrees and feels that there is too much regulation everywhere — local, state and federal. Just about everyone also feels that there must be regulations of some sort to keep todays complicated society in balance to protect them from the people and institutions that might infringe on their lives, needs, rights and freedoms.

Is that a dilemma, or what?

To a lot of people, that set of issues is at the core of todays malaise and concerns about how modern society works.

Recently Roger Porter, a distinguished Professor at Harvards Kennedy School of Government, who has worked in several Republican presidents White Houses made an extremely important and interesting argument that the main problem with regulation may not be the amount of regulation but its unnecessary complexity. He argued convincingly that aiming for more simplicity could help a lot. I agree but the tougher question is how. A lot of the regulations today embrace big, complicated and sometimes subtle matters in finance, health and safety, just to mention three. Complexity sadly cannot be dismissed with a magic wand.

Two things could help, however:

One would be to attack the problem the way banks have to make consumer loan documents readable and understandable. For years lawyers said it could not and should not be done. Well, it has been quite well done by a lot of lenders. More power there!

Second, periodically there should be an effort to scale back and down the simple bulk of materials that comprise the rules and regulations. There seems to be a rule of nature that requires more of everything in embroidering rules of human behavior and process.

This is where the metaphoric solution may have something interesting to offer.

Most people over the age of about 40 probably know what a telegraph key was/is. Many kids had one as a toy and some learned the Morse code for tapping out yesterdays equivalent of twitter messages.

Telegraph keys usually had/have a thumb screw that regulates the width of the gap of the key and thus controls the loudness of the clack sounds created by the key.

In the early part of the 20th century, business that communicated with many customers and clients around the world had rooms full of telegraph operators sitting side by side clacking away to do their business. It was the Internet of the day. But there was one big, continuous problem. Most telegraphers had trouble after a few hours at work hearing their key over their neighbors key because all the telegraphers were constantly loosening their thumb screws to hear their key better.

Thus it became a regular practice in the telegraph rooms for the manager to loudly announce at lunch time: Time to turn all your thumb screws DOWN NOW!

And they would all start over where they had begun the day. It worked pretty well for a long time.

The lesson in this little sermon is — we need to learn how to turn back a lot of the thumb screws which are squeezing us in the modern world.

All it takes is figuring out where and what those metaphoric thumb screws are in the maze of regulations we live in.

The first step in solving a problem is to decide what the problem really is and where it is. May be this is a first step?

Go figure!

What Would Jane Austen Say about modern society? Trisha Lewis reveals all next week From Basingstoke Gazette)

On March 18, the Family Law Act replaced the outdated Family Relations Act in BC The old act came into effect in 1979 – its fair to say that family life and society in general have changed significantly over the past 34 years. For example, the number of common-law couples is on the rise. In fact, the latest Statistics Canada census shows there are more than 67,500 common-law couples living in Greater Vancouver alone. Many common-law couples have children and resemble married families.

Unlike what some headlines have claimed, the new family law does not force unwanted nuptials upon unsuspecting common-law couples.

The reality is this: Separation and divorce are not unusual. More often than not, couples that split up will have to decide on how to best split their assets. If they cannot agree, the law needs to provide a clear and fair way for these couples to resolve their disputes.

Couples have the option of preparing their own agreement about how to divide their property if they break up. If they cannot do so, the Family Law Act provides fair rules around the division of property – and ensures that those rules are clear and predictable.

The new family laws model is fair: You keep whats yours, but you share what you accrued together. This means that property brought into a relationship, and property you might receive during your relationship such as inheritances or gifts, are generally not divided upon separation, regardless of whether you are married or not. Only property and debt that a couple accrues together during their relationship is divisible upon separation.

It is important to put this into context. Take, for example, a young couple who has lived together for three years. They rent their condo, have no kids and own no valuable assets. This couple would have little or no financial obligation to each other when it comes to dividing property under the family law. As well, debt that each partner brought into the relationship would not be divided. However, if that same couple bought a car together during their relationship, they would share equally the value of that car, upon separation.

On the other hand, take a couple that has been living together for 20-plus years. They have children, a house and a shared line of credit. Under the new family law, if they break up, the debt and assets that accumulated during their relationship will be equally shared. Under the old law, unless the couple could agree, the property would stay in whoevers name it was in. It would not be considered joint property and divided in half, as would be the case for married couples.

These changes in family law go above and beyond fair rules around property division. They are centred on the best interests and well-being of children. A fundamental shift was needed to encourage and assist parents and spouses to resolve their disputes cooperatively, with courts being a last resort. Under the Family Law Act, approaches like mediation and parenting coordination are encouraged. These family dispute resolution processes are generally quicker, less expensive and have fewer emotional consequences for families than going to court.

Of course, some family disputes require court intervention, especially where there is a risk of violence. The Family Law Act creates tools, including a new protection order, to help the courts deal with family violence situations more effectively. Breaching a protection order – formerly called a restraining order – will be a criminal offence. The new family law also provides a range of remedies and tools to deal with situations when parenting arrangements arent honoured.

Consultations for the Family Law Act began seven years ago. We received feedback from more than 500 groups, organizations and individuals. Im confident the new family law is a reflection of those consultations, societal shifts and norms, and modern BC families.

Shirley Bond is BCs minister of justice and attorney general.

TALLINN, Estonia — The changes in the digital world today represent a dramatically sped-up version of the changes the world underwent in a century of industrialization. It is a paradigm transformation of our world: Notions of a nation’s size, wealth, power, military might, population and G.D.P. mean something altogether different from what they meant a generation ago.

These relations are in constant flux, and old assumptions no longer hold. Today, a small, poor East European country can be a world leader in e-governance and cybersecurity.

In February, the United Nations praised Estonia’s e-Annual Report system, by which entrepreneurs can submit annual reports electronically, as the “best of the best” e-Government application of the past decade. Last autumn, Freedom House ranked Estonia first in Internet freedom for the third year in a row (the United States and Germany were second and third).

At the same time, Estonia is also remembered as the first publicly known target of politically motivated cyberattacks in April 2007, which inundated the Web sites of Parliament, banks, ministries, television stations and other organizations.

Disruptive as the attacks were, they were by today’s standards primitive, consisting of “distributed denial of service” attacks (DDoS), which essentially overload servers with signals from hijacked, hacker-controlled PCs. Six years later, as computing power and IT dependency have increased hugely, cyberattacks are far more sophisticated and our vulnerabilities are far greater.

Yet those attacks were a blessing — Estonia took cybersecurity seriously earlier than most. In 2008, NATO opened its Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence, to enhance NATO’s cyberdefense capability, in Tallinn.

Cybersecurity needs to be taken seriously by everyone. We continue to think of cyberthreats in military or classical warfare terms, when in fact cyber can simply render the military paradigm irrelevant. The whole information and communication technologies (ICT) infrastructure must be regarded as an “ecosystem” in which everything is interconnected. It functions as a whole; it must be defended as a whole.

Today, almost everything we do depends on a digitized system of one kind or another. Our critical infrastructure — our electrical, water or energy production systems and traffic management — essentially interacts with, and cannot be separated from, our critical information infrastructure — private Internet providers, lines of telecommunications and the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (Scada) systems that run everything from nuclear power plants to delivery of milk to our supermarkets.

Understanding that cybersecurity means defending the entirety of our societies, we need to re-examine many assumptions of security. In cyberwarfare, it is much harder to identify the attacker, and therefore to know how to retaliate.

In a modern digitalized world it is possible to paralyze a country without attacking its defense forces: The country can be ruined by simply bringing its Scada systems to a halt. To impoverish a country one can erase its banking records. The most sophisticated military technology can be rendered irrelevant. In cyberspace, no country is an island.

This requires rethinking some of our core philosophical notions of modern society: the relations between the public and private spheres, between privacy and identity.

At a time when the greatest threats to our privacy and the security of our data come from criminal hackers and foreign countries (often working together), we remain fixed on the idea that Big Brother, our own government, is the danger.

This may have been true in the past, when only national governments had the ability to monitor citizens. Today, as we know, a single hacker can access the most intimate details of your digital and nondigital life, your finances and your correspondence.

This is a clear case of market failure. A bank that builds identity theft and fraud into the cost of doing business is an example of market failure. A power company that treats a cyber-induced power outage as an act of God, no different from a tornado or earthquake, demonstrates market failure.

If the private sector is unwilling to take the necessary steps to guarantee the integrity of its online activities, the government must step in to fulfill its most fundamental task — to ensure the security of its citizens; that is, to provide them with a secure identity.

Identity lies at the core of security online. Virtually all breaches of computer security involve a fake identity, be it stealing a credit card number or accessing the internal documents of the European Commission. A three-digit security code on the back of a credit card does not provide you with a secure identity, nor does an ordinary computer password. The fundamental question is whether you can be sure the person you interact with online is who he claims he is.

The key to all online security is a secure online identification system. But a nebulous fear of an imagined Big Brother prevents citizens in many places from adopting a smart-chip-based access key that would afford them secure online transactions.

In Estonia, the government has become the guarantor of secure transactions online, while identity is authenticated by a body independent of the government. We use a two-factor identification system in which the ID is protected by both a chip and a password. A binary key or public key infrastructure guarantees securely encrypted transfer of information. Thus far, our system has proved secure. Even during the DDoS attacks of 2007, our digital government system remained online and intact.

Precisely because we offer a verifiable and reliable identification system, Estonia has gone further than any other country in investing in digitizing the basic processes of society. A quarter of the electorate votes online; 95 percent of tax returns are done online, and 95 percent of prescriptions are filled online.

By the end of 2012, Estonians gave more than a hundred million digital legal signatures. Citizens, as legal owners of their own data, have access to their digital medical and dental records. And we have more and more e-services available every year.

In the future, we hope to connect our digital services and make them interoperable with our neighbors in Northern Europe. In the longer run, we’re looking toward uniting systems in all of Europe. Ultimately, government data will move across borders as freely as e-mail and Facebook and follow the international flows of commerce and trade.

The job of cybersecurity is to enable a globalized economy based on the free movement of people, goods, services, capital and ideas. This can only be accomplished if identities are secure.

Undoubtedly the most effective means by which our societies could be safeguarded from cyberattacks would be to roll back the clock — to go back to the pen, typewriter, paper and mechanical switch. We should give up on mobile phones, iPads, online banking, social media, Google searches — everything we have become accustomed to in the modern world. But that won’t happen.

Cybersecurity is not just a matter of blocking bad things a cyberattack can do; it is protecting all the good things that cyberinsecurity can prevent us from doing. Genuine cybersecurity should not be seen as an additional cost, but as an enabler, guarding our entire digital way of life.

Toomas Hendrik Ilves is the president of Estonia. He is speaking Friday at the Forum for New Diplomacy hosted in Paris by the International Herald Tribune and the Académie Diplomatique Internationale.