In an open system it is going to be impossible to cover every contingency. Someone who thinks long enough and hard enough and is determined to address every obstacle in order to launch such an attack will be able to do so.
As we step up security measures, they have diminishing returns in terms of cost of resources, convenience and freedoms for the safety gained. And we're raising questions now regarding the effectiveness of all the post 9/11 measures we've taken. The TSA, the FBI anti-terror efforts, the War on Terror and the mass surveillance program all look like some very expensive Tiger-Repellant Rocks rather than effective measures to counter terror.
My guess is that we should protect our planes (and whatever other sensitive resources we have) with enough security to fend off the rampages and idiots, and then suffer the occasional mad genius that succeeds, knowing that they're rare and that it takes a lot of time and effort to plan such an attack. Keep calm and carry the fuck on.
The problem there is that we're not very good at moving on from high-drama catastrophes like that, whether it's 9/11 or rampage killings or an industrial accident or a natural disaster. So we focus far more energy on those things that might kill us in a high-profile way, than those things that might kill us in a pedestrian way (e.g. utilizing municipal crosswalks as a pedestrian).
Re: That they outsmarted our best, and that our best was careless and inobservant
... is not only our most likely scenario ... but is also the worst possible scenario.
I question just about everything you said there. "Our best" back then, along with pretty much everyone else, understood that the chances of getting killed in a terrorist attack in continental USA was miniscule compared to other far more likely ways of being killed (traffic accidents). Hence, the authorities knew that they needn't bother much about that possibility and were free to fight the far more personally satisfying Drug War instead. Add to that all the agencies were hoarding intel, not sharing, and any sufficiently annoyed teenager could walk rings around them, and had been for years (cf. Columbine).
Bin Laden pulled 9/11 because it could be done easily with very little money and minimal training (they signed up for flying lessons; they didn't bother learning how to land).
If the feds weren't so preoccupied with the Drug War, they might have found time to actually protect the country from terrorist attacks. After all, 9/11 was not the first attack on the towers. They'd already failed (?) with a prior truck bomb attack. Oh well.
Hmmmmm..... given that the virtual theft of virtual goods was perpetrated by virtual characters upon other virtual characters, in a virtual environment created by a virtual game, I would assume that the virtual penalty would be virtual incarceration of the virtual characters who perpetrated the virtual crime, in a virtual lock-up, for a virtual period of virtual time, roughly equal to the jail time that a real person would receive for a similar crime in the real world. That would be virtual justice.
Or have the the same tactics not been successfully exploited to justify continuing the failed war on drugs.
Only difference is that the 'war on terror' version of reefer madness, was produced by ISIS! And while the videos are certainly horrific and brutal, how many people have they killed? How many were American? How many of those American's willingly went into a dangerous place knowing the risks?
Gray Lady Down: What the Decline and Fall of the New York Times Means for America Hardcover November 16, 2010
by William McGowan (Author)
The New York Times was once considered the gold standard in American journalism and the most trusted news organization in America. Today, it is generally understood to be a vehicle for politically correct ideologies, tattered liberal pieties, and a repeated victim of journalistic scandal and institutional embarrassment.
Again though, Comcast (and IIRC) AT&T cut the threat part of the notice out completely without problems so far.
Am I misreading the article? Because it looks like it says that a couple Comcast users are being sued for non-compliance with demands that they never received and were never informed about, because Comcast never forwarded the on. I'd call that a problem, particularly if I was the one being sued, even if the lawsuit and the demands were entirely bogus.
This is why I said that Comcast has picked one bad solution and Google has picked a different one.