For all its bloodiness, the Paris attacks were far simpler than 9/11.
Then why are the surveillance supporters pointing to it as an intelligence failure and asking for more powers? Although maybe that has died down now that we know they weren't using encryption. If what you say is true, they should be talking about what a great success the Paris attacks were because they were on a much smaller scale than 9/11. Of course, even then they would go on to say "so we need even more money and power so the next attacks will be even smaller". There is no path that doesn't end with them asking for more.
He points out that software bugs are really quite common, especially for hand-crafted scientific software:
Is there some other kind of software? Software produced on an assembly line maybe? Or are you drawing a distinction between custom made software and "shrink-wrapped" (a less relevant term now that almost everything is distributed electronically but I'm not sure if there's a new term to replace it)?
First you point to Video On Demand as cable's savior vs. the streaming services.
Not Video On Demand in capital letters, as in paying the cable company extra money to watch a movie. Video on demand in lower case, as in watching a video stream whenever I want to, for example from Netflix or Amazon.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the fuck are we to decide what's 'right'?
The only item from the list that you sort of refuted was the last one. I didn't see anything that rebutted any of the other claims. There was a lot about how everything we did was justified, but that seems to agree with the original premise that we have in fact done all those things:
- invaded countries - break their moral laws (OK I don't know about this one) - force a new style of government on them - kill their family members - bomb their homes - kill their leaders - meddle in their affairs
I would say other than the second one, all those others are events that pretty everyone agrees have actually happened. Your original comment seemed to dispute that - is that not what you meant?