[nandemo]

I think they're very different arguments. uber is saying that this incident is relatively insignificant, since more people died of heart attack today. Schneier is saying that (i) we overstate the impact/probability of terrorist attacks. Note that this is not the same as merely comparing number of bombing deaths with deaths from natural causes; if this was happening every week, surely it would be considered a worrying development, even if the number of daily bombing deaths was still less than deaths by heart disease or car accidents. And (ii) that we should refuse to be terrorized as that gives power to terrorists.

I think (i) isn't a very solid argument since we can't estimate the probability of future terrorist attacks the same way we can calculate the probability of winning the lottery, or as we can estimate the probability of x deaths by heart attack in the next 5 years. For example, suppose we count the number of bombings against civilians in pre-2nd-intifada Israel. In 1999 there were 2 bombings. In 2000, when the intifada started, 5. In the following 2 years, 40 then 47. I haven't checked, but I suppose the same pattern would hold for pre- and post-invasion Iraq (note that this isn't an argument pro or anti the invasion).

I'm not saying that the same thing is likely to happen in the US, I'm just pointing out a weakness in the argument. Overall, though, I think Schneier has a point.