It is not a practical attack yet; 2^69 operations still is very much.
It turns out Schneier did not have access to the paper and misjudged the
results.
"it seems that Schneier forgot to mention that the paper has a footnote
which says that the attack on full SHA-1 only works if some padding
(which SHA-1 requires) is not done."
from: http://www.financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000355.html
So SHA-1 is not broken at all, only reduced round versions and full
SHA-1 without this padding. But these are important results that perhaps
can be improved.