It seems to me that there's been a general breakdown of honest, and therefore trust, in society - something that had been worsening for some time. It's not just CEOs and Politicians - their high profiles make them easier targets - but throughout society. At the other end of the scale, look at the London "Riots" last summer. Those taking part came from a wide range of socio-economic groups, and did so because they thought it was OK to get something for free. Then look at what the "rich and famous" in sport and entertainment get up to, and get away with...

The rot runs a lot deeper than just politicians and CEOs, I'm afraid, and we need to start having leaders in all spheres setting the example...

There's no question in my mind that there is already a low-level cyber-war going on. I suspect that few governments are not already involved, and also suspect that much of the activity is still being done by independents that may, later, approach governments to sell the results...

I agree that it is a more likely/real threat than nuclear war: no country could afford to launch a nuclear attack today, due to the level of global response to this emotive action. Cyber warfare is more like guerilla warfare - low profile, tightly targeted and more easily deniable...

Will it escalate into a full-scale war? Unlikely - I think it will continue to operate in the shadows, but that makes it no less dangerous.

Some of the online publications are reproducing the print adverts, others are using different adverts, and some are not really using advertising. I agree that getting the advertising right is key: online should be able to provide more accurate contextual adverts and so lead to better conversion rates than print, if done properly.

I think that the online subscription model is developing - albeit slowly. In the UK, a number of publications now have online subscriptions and seem to be starting to gain traction with this.Prices vary from around £2.99 a week down. The key is what they deliver. If a paper can deliver the electronic version of the printed content for that sort of fee, it can make sense as they remove the costs of distribution which are high (I subscribe to a printed paper, too, for about £5 a week (7 days), so am happy to pay up to that for a good quality electronic read - particularly if the information is more frequently updated.

As you say, Catarina, leadership is not about knowing more than everyone else, but about knowing enough to bring the experts in their areas together and ensure they work well together to achieve the organisation's goals. It's about leading a team in the true sense of the word.

The bills are very poorly put together - fortunately they seem to have been withdrawn. Copyright protection is reasonable, but must be handled in a reasonable fashion and not this heavy-handed way.

Imagine the uproar if China, for example, was able to shut down a website in the US for some reason...

The bills need to be completely rewritten to ensure they are fair and reasonable for all parties.

My view is that the oil passing through the Straits is just too important to the world to allow it to be blocked, and there would be a near-universal global response should Iran try to block them.

Having said this, what are the motivations?

Could it be the Iranian government trying to pull the majority of the population behind them by adopting an Orwellian approach of identifying a "strong enemy trying to damage the country" and so move [a portion of] the internal opposition to backing the government? Or, could it be that the Iranian government is trying to cause the global oil price to rise strongly on these threats and so increase revenues? I seem to recall the view that the production price of Iranian crude is $95 per barrel (so, about twice the number for most other Gulf states) and so they need to get the oil price back into the $120 range as it has been steadily declining for a few months (albeit slowly).

How strong is Iran? Numerically, they have a huge army - larger than that of the US if active, reserve and paramilitary forces are all included. However, technologically they are well behind - aging aircraft and other equipment means they are unlikely to prevail in modern warfare.

So, I have to assume this is more sabre-rattling than anything else - either to try to get the oil price back up, or to try to refocus the internal opposition on a common enemy, or both.

I suspect that the banking fraternity today is viewed in the same way as used-car salesmen used to be :-)

I wish I had a solution to the rampant corruption that plagues society today, but I don't. It just seems to be a fact of life in all parts of the world, and from those who have (lots of!) money as well as those who don't. As you say, the sad fact is that it seems that it's only the "small people" that are prosecuted. The big ones escape unscathed and protected by the politicians.

Having said that, stealing from anyone is terrible and should be punished, but stealing from your own poor people is a magnitude worse and should be even more harshly dealt with. What a pity it won't (look just down the road at Afghanistan and what Hamid Karzai and his family have very publicly got up to).

The problem is, in one word, politicians. There was no way any of the governments in the Euro zone would allow themselves to be subject to (or, as they see it, subservient to) a central European one. That's why they chose a nonentity as European President - he won't take the limelight from the country Presidents/PMs.

They would have known that a lack of central control would ultimately doom the currency but presumably thought that this would not happen "on their watch" and so kept going down the flawed route.

That's why I think the currency ultimately has to disappear. It may remain as a trading currency in the Free Trade Zone for ease of inter-country trade (albeit one that is pegged against different national currencies from time to time), but I cannot see the President of France, the Chancellor of Germany or any of the other national heads of state giving up fiscal control to a central government. Consequently, the currency has to go.