No, there should be a rule against devs actually playing on the production server _at all_. There should be GM's that have a system that logs what they do and makes them accountable. They shouldn't be on the dev team.
Devs can go play on the test server. On the test server, nobody gives a damn if they're cheating.
No kidding! FNH's P90 PDW -- the gun so badass that MacGyver uses it to defend earth from evil alien armies. Let's not forget the companion sidearm, the Five-seveN -- perfect for pistolwhipping any crazy scientist who becomes VP and thinks that they're a Cylon.
Newsflash: Civility on the 'net in games died in the mid 90's. Once the "user-friendly" bar reached a certain point where any dumb schmuck could play, dumb schmucks started playing. There were asshats before, sure, but the ratios were way different.
As for stopping profanity...well, good luck with that. Your only hope is to mask it from delicate eyes on your end, because humans have this thing about swearing to express strong emotions of certain types.
You have half of the right idea. I've heard of an assassination that used a bomb in a satchel on a bicycle placed beside the road. The satchel was wired up so that it was armed remotely (I want to say by radio), and detonated locally by way of a laser trip. I forget if the laser was in the same package, or placed apart from the bomb, but the idea went like this: Bomb is armed remotely. Laser trip system activates. Front of car breaks beam, and either A) (if in the satchel) waits a certain time to allow the car's passenger section to be directly in front of the bomb, then detonates, or B) (if the laser was placed seperately) triggers the bomb instantly when the beam is broken, and the bomb blows up right beside the passenger compartment.
The bomb was a smaller charge, but was a shaped charge. The result was that the passenger section of the car was hit by a very large chunk of metal which utterly demolished it. I'm pretty sure the target was killed instantly. The car looked like it had been hit by an anti-tank weapon (which is what the bomb was, effectively).
The assassin had the advantage of not having to be physically close to the bomb, and being able to hit his target with precision. All he needed to know was how far the passenger compartment was from the front of the car, which car it was, and the route the car was taking.
Use the same idea, but arm it remotely via another laser, as you mentioned. After all, turning something on in the few seconds of "dead space" between two cars is a lot easier than getting the precise timing down.
Not that I am making any suggestions, or think that it's a good idea. I'm just pointing out that a little ingenuity can defeat pretty much any system.
You mentioned 24, which I originally thought was pretty cool.
"Sweet!", I thought, "Here's a show which should be pretty good. 24 eps, it's done with, and there's no room to draw it out."
As you mentioned, though, they've re-done it several times now. It's not cool anymore, because we all know what's going to happen. We've seen it before. Jack's gonna run around with his man-purse, be a vicious bastard when required, and save the US one hour at a time. Wooo.
I disagree. Fox gives shows a chance, then brutally slaughter the good ones that appear to be making it. Ever see what they did to Space: Above and Beyond?
It's fun to see how far you can make the ratings drop by preempting shows, then rescheduling them two or three times in the space of as many episodes.
Yeah, the "reality-show" jerk-cam is always a major turn-off for me, too. It does nothing for immersion, and tends to annoy me a hell of a lot because it does a really nice job of making it hard to get a good look at a lot of the detail that _should_ be there.
Camera jerk blows, unless the viewer's perspective is supposed to be that of a guy running around looking through a freaking camera. Personally, I don't throw my head around like a rabid bull even when running, so it doesn't work for me. At all.
Yeah, that was one of the most retarded moves ever. I mean, come on, it's not like Sci-Fi had a really pressing need to shift schedules to free up space for their second-string good shows. They simply don't have any! The _only_ things worth watching were on Friday nights, and it was a pretty powerhouse combo, even if SG1 was losing steam pretty quickly.
Sci-Fi is right up there with Fox as far as changing schedules to utterly bone a show, though, so I guess it isn't a shock.
In light of this revelation, I suggest we start adding the "theodpsht" tag to all submissions by theodp for visibility purposes, like the old 'pigpile' tag.
I'll have to fetch numbers when I have some free time. The two I remember may not have been in the UK, but I recall them being in a place where firearms weren't "available".
I'll also dig up an interesting example of pro-gun laws lowering crime (though that depends on how you look at it). A town in GA put a law on the books requiring every household to have a gun. It wasn't enforced, but violent crime dropped per unit of population. The town's size increased 3x in a matter of years (not related to the law), and the raw crime numbers went up as well. Percentage wise, though, they fell. It's interesting in that the anti-gun types use it as a failed example of pro-gun laws based on the fact that more crimes were happening, but the 2A crowd uses the same town as an example of pro-gun laws cleaning things up, since violent crimes committed per unit of population fell noticably.
My last post of the day. I'll try to fetch examples when I have more time -- check back in a day or two, if you're genuinely interested.
You make some very good points that appy to colleges specifically. Drunken frat boys (or drunken anyone) and guns don't mix. Impared judgement + lethal device = bad news. Perhaps background checks limiting CCW licenses to those under 26 who don't have records of public drunkeness and (especially) DUI should be considered. At any rate, getting caught with a gun on your person while drunk should be an instant, irrevocable loss of CHP/CCW privs.
Joe college vs. a person armed with a fully automatic weapon isn't going to stand a very good chance, admittedly -- unless he's not being paid attention to. This is more likely in a crowd, but crowds interfere with one of the most basic rules of concealed carry: ALWAYS make sure you have a clear shot AND know what is behind the target. Still, it's a better chance than nothing at all. The situation also changes as more people are armed: Joe and Bob may not be much more of a threat than Joe alone, but when it's Joe and 12 other people in class, there's substiantally less of a chance that the crazy shooter is going to be able to engage all, or even most of the armed students before he dies.
I'm all for required training, as long as it is either free or reasonably priced. Taxes and spiked prices are a "secret" control method frequently used, let's not forget. IMO, more training should be required, and gun laws should be relaxed for those who are willing to be trained and prove that they are responsible and stable. Also, I'd like to note that everyone with a CCW has gone through some sort of background check, and usually some training. I'd suggest stopping by your local police station if it is convenient and picking up literature on what it takes in your state. You may not be interested in it personally, but it's good to know what those around you that do carry concealed have to know, and what they're expected to do/not do.
Nice try, but this is hardly original thinking. That might be the case if you just handed out guns out front (assuming the people could even figure out how to operate them), and had double-gun-tuesdays for anyone with an IQ under 75. Real life has shown that this doesn't happen. I'd advise you to go pick up some literature on obtaining a CCW/CHP in your area, as well as some general firearm safety booklets. They should both be available locally -- check your local PD, they're bound to have some.
I'm not asking you to go register for a CCW/CHP, but please...at least inform yourself before you speculate.
Erm...I can think of two within the last five years. I could probably find links, but I'm not going to bother right now. It's not critical to my argument anyway.
Crime overall (especially violent crime) tends to be higher in places that have banned guns. The opposite is true where gun ownership is almost assured. The reason for this is the same reason that an exceptionally high number of incidents involving concealed handgun carriers end without a single shot being fired -- often without the firearm even being drawn. Most people don't want to die, and trying to make a victim of somebody that is equally or better armed than you are is a real risk. If you want examples on a city level, look at Washington DC and San Francisco in the US. Gun control is tight, but murder is a real problem in both.
Not interested in US figures? Compare the Swiss (where a large chunk of the population is armed with military hardware, those eeeevil assault rifles!) to the UK.
If school grounds were places where you could carry legally, then you'd have people who A) Know when they can shoot, and in most states B) Have shown that they can aim. Collateral damage is low. You DO NOT take a shot when you don't know what the bullet can hit, it's one of the fundamentals.
Real life has shown that these "bloodbath" what-if situations don't happen.
The short answer here is yes, armed civilians do indeed stop these sort of things. Many, MANY crimes are stopped by simply showing that the person is armed. Of course, those are more of the average street crimes perpetrated by people who actually want to continue living.
This sort of event also gets stopped, though I'll be the first to say that they're not always bloodless. Regular, sane people don't want to kill someone else, so fairly often the CCW-holder fires in response to somebody who has already been shot, and they have seen it, and they are at risk, or are one of a group of people at risk.
The reason you don't see it on the news is because you end up with headlines like this: "Two killed at..." or "3 dead after..." or "Shooter critically wounded after assault..."
It's not quite the same as headlines reading "30 dead at XXX school after enraged gunman..." Also, bear in mind that these school shooting stories happen in _gun free_ zones. They're supposed to feel safe. Not only are there high body counts, but these are people being killed in a place that is _supposed_ to be safe for them to be at. It's a double-whammy, and it's the kind of thing that gets headlines and stays in the news.
Wow. Your post is filled with singularly bad ideas, and assumptions that simply aren't valid, as real-life situations have shown. Most of the replies to this already have covered those, but I'd just like to point out one critically BAD IDEA you have in your post -- that charging down a hall with a firearm drawn is a valid response to the sound of gunfire. That's a recipe for getting yourself shot, and possibly killed. In these situations, there is quite frequently no way to tell who the real shooter is. You do NOT go looking for him, and even if you do, you do NOT go charging through doors with your weapon in sight. You will quite likely get shot. It's a stupid move that nobody who actually passed a test to get a CCW/CHP should even consider as a real possibility. Building clearing is for police/SWAT.
While your point about further 'locking down' security-wise is valid, I take exception to your statement regarding carrying weapons on school grounds. I would like to ask you to think about your standpoint logically.
I felt the same was until I thought about it a bit, and could not come up with a valid reason to prohibit firearms in such places. I'm curious if you have any reasons I haven't considered.
The main point of the argument is this: People who would take a firearm and murder others are obviously not concerned with the legal implications. One doesn't commit open murder of 1 person, let alone 30, if they are worried about going to jail. As such, they simply don't care about the lesser crime of carrying a weapon in a prohibited area. It's a non-factor to them, and the result is that you're vulnerable because you are a law-abiding citizen, and the criminal is gauranteed victims that are largely incapable of defending themselves.
In light of this, there is no reason to prohibit firearms from campuses other than the false notion that firearms should be banned to make them a safe haven. The same is true for churches, libraries, etc. While the idea is appealing, with no way to actually enforce the law until after the fact (no metal detectors, screening, etc), the law is only a disaster waiting to happen -- and this is just another example of how those disasters happen.
Airports are somewhat different, as are most federal buildings these days. They do screen, though the screening can be lacking. That's another argument, though.
Right, but when the only options left are things like "aabltisiqntwsngoffzeg.com", the original purpose of DNS is largely voided. At that point it becomes far easier to simply remember an IP address.
There may be nearly infinite namespace available, but that's like saying that there's nearly infinite room for humans to live in. Sure, it's there, but most of it is in hard vac with no source of power even remotely close. It's worthless outside of being a technicality to be used in an argument.
Seriously, though -- you make a very good point. Free speech is not the same as "Speech which doesn't offend me, or minorities, or anyone else for that matter."
People need to grow up and get used to the fact that people will say things that might offend them. Too bad. If they don't like it, they can leave or speak back. Having said that, I would like to point out that there is a big difference between outright lies (libel, slander), messages which threaten the physical well-being of people (fire in a crowded theater), and things like calling people "nappy-headed hoes" or displaying the outline of a nude woman (or man, if that's your thing) on a mudflap.
This should've been bad for Imus's career. Yeah, it was not a smart move -- offending entire groups rarely is. Let's face it, though -- this was REALLY blown up for the rest of the media, which is why he's getting fired. That bit is BS.
You have a point, but some of this is taken to absurd lengths. I fly, and I'm not concerned about shoe bombs, because anybody with any damned sense is going to think something is amiss when the guy next to them starts trying to light his shoelaces. As for bottled liquids, well, that was blown way out of proportion. The guy was never a real threat -- were's not talking "Mix red liquid with blue liquid, and BOOM!" like some might have you think. For that guy to pull of what he was trying to do, he'd have had to lock himself in a bathroom with a generous supply of ice for almost an entire trans-atlantic trip just to synthesize the stuff, and then he would've had to find a way to dry the result before it would be any real threat. Perhaps if he'd been able to bring a portable lab on a circumnavigation of the globe by jet, he'd have had a chance. Even if he had pulled off making the stuff, chances are good that the yeild would be low enough that he'd not have been able to do much more than depressurize the jet by blowing out a window, or perhaps a slightly large hole.
Terrorism will happen. You can't stop it, but you can stop running around freaking out at every pair of nail clippers and toy guns for GI Joe dolls (both of which have been known to be confiscated before boarding). That's absurd. The goal of terrorism is to instill terror. They've failed on my part, but it looks like they're doing a pretty good job with the masses.
Nowdays? No. The internet isn't as robust as it used to be, because real redundancy costs a lot of cash. There are single buildings that could be hit that would cripple internet connectivity to entire regions, or at the very best reduce traffic to a near standstill. It's far from nuke-proof these days, nor is it very terror-proof.
Having said that, I think terrorism isn't the big threat here. Earthquakes, hurricanes, and flooding are more pressing concerns. It is a certainty that one of them will do severe damage to a US city at some point in the future, and those sort of events do much more than take down a single building. Fiber cuts, power interruption, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
No, there should be a rule against devs actually playing on the production server _at all_.
There should be GM's that have a system that logs what they do and makes them accountable. They shouldn't be on the dev team.
Devs can go play on the test server. On the test server, nobody gives a damn if they're cheating.
No kidding!
FNH's P90 PDW -- the gun so badass that MacGyver uses it to defend earth from evil alien armies.
Let's not forget the companion sidearm, the Five-seveN -- perfect for pistolwhipping any crazy scientist who becomes VP and thinks that they're a Cylon.
Also, you may be able to collect multiple bounties from different organizations for the same hole.
Yeah, but pimpin' ain't easy.
Newsflash: Civility on the 'net in games died in the mid 90's. Once the "user-friendly" bar reached a certain point where any dumb schmuck could play, dumb schmucks started playing. There were asshats before, sure, but the ratios were way different.
As for stopping profanity...well, good luck with that. Your only hope is to mask it from delicate eyes on your end, because humans have this thing about swearing to express strong emotions of certain types.
You have half of the right idea.
I've heard of an assassination that used a bomb in a satchel on a bicycle placed beside the road. The satchel was wired up so that it was armed remotely (I want to say by radio), and detonated locally by way of a laser trip. I forget if the laser was in the same package, or placed apart from the bomb, but the idea went like this: Bomb is armed remotely. Laser trip system activates. Front of car breaks beam, and either A) (if in the satchel) waits a certain time to allow the car's passenger section to be directly in front of the bomb, then detonates, or B) (if the laser was placed seperately) triggers the bomb instantly when the beam is broken, and the bomb blows up right beside the passenger compartment.
The bomb was a smaller charge, but was a shaped charge. The result was that the passenger section of the car was hit by a very large chunk of metal which utterly demolished it. I'm pretty sure the target was killed instantly. The car looked like it had been hit by an anti-tank weapon (which is what the bomb was, effectively).
The assassin had the advantage of not having to be physically close to the bomb, and being able to hit his target with precision. All he needed to know was how far the passenger compartment was from the front of the car, which car it was, and the route the car was taking.
Use the same idea, but arm it remotely via another laser, as you mentioned. After all, turning something on in the few seconds of "dead space" between two cars is a lot easier than getting the precise timing down.
Not that I am making any suggestions, or think that it's a good idea. I'm just pointing out that a little ingenuity can defeat pretty much any system.
Personally, the black ICE doesn't concern me. Slamhounds, on the other hand...
You mentioned 24, which I originally thought was pretty cool.
"Sweet!", I thought, "Here's a show which should be pretty good. 24 eps, it's done with, and there's no room to draw it out."
As you mentioned, though, they've re-done it several times now. It's not cool anymore, because we all know what's going to happen. We've seen it before. Jack's gonna run around with his man-purse, be a vicious bastard when required, and save the US one hour at a time. Wooo.
I disagree. Fox gives shows a chance, then brutally slaughter the good ones that appear to be making it. Ever see what they did to Space: Above and Beyond?
It's fun to see how far you can make the ratings drop by preempting shows, then rescheduling them two or three times in the space of as many episodes.
Yeah, the "reality-show" jerk-cam is always a major turn-off for me, too. It does nothing for immersion, and tends to annoy me a hell of a lot because it does a really nice job of making it hard to get a good look at a lot of the detail that _should_ be there.
Camera jerk blows, unless the viewer's perspective is supposed to be that of a guy running around looking through a freaking camera. Personally, I don't throw my head around like a rabid bull even when running, so it doesn't work for me. At all.
Yeah, that was one of the most retarded moves ever. I mean, come on, it's not like Sci-Fi had a really pressing need to shift schedules to free up space for their second-string good shows. They simply don't have any! The _only_ things worth watching were on Friday nights, and it was a pretty powerhouse combo, even if SG1 was losing steam pretty quickly.
Sci-Fi is right up there with Fox as far as changing schedules to utterly bone a show, though, so I guess it isn't a shock.
If I had mod points, you'd get a +1 Sad but True for this comments.
Sadly, I ran out two days ago.
In light of this revelation, I suggest we start adding the "theodpsht" tag to all submissions by theodp for visibility purposes, like the old 'pigpile' tag.
I'll have to fetch numbers when I have some free time. The two I remember may not have been in the UK, but I recall them being in a place where firearms weren't "available".
I'll also dig up an interesting example of pro-gun laws lowering crime (though that depends on how you look at it). A town in GA put a law on the books requiring every household to have a gun. It wasn't enforced, but violent crime dropped per unit of population. The town's size increased 3x in a matter of years (not related to the law), and the raw crime numbers went up as well. Percentage wise, though, they fell. It's interesting in that the anti-gun types use it as a failed example of pro-gun laws based on the fact that more crimes were happening, but the 2A crowd uses the same town as an example of pro-gun laws cleaning things up, since violent crimes committed per unit of population fell noticably.
My last post of the day. I'll try to fetch examples when I have more time -- check back in a day or two, if you're genuinely interested.
You make some very good points that appy to colleges specifically. Drunken frat boys (or drunken anyone) and guns don't mix. Impared judgement + lethal device = bad news. Perhaps background checks limiting CCW licenses to those under 26 who don't have records of public drunkeness and (especially) DUI should be considered. At any rate, getting caught with a gun on your person while drunk should be an instant, irrevocable loss of CHP/CCW privs.
Joe college vs. a person armed with a fully automatic weapon isn't going to stand a very good chance, admittedly -- unless he's not being paid attention to. This is more likely in a crowd, but crowds interfere with one of the most basic rules of concealed carry: ALWAYS make sure you have a clear shot AND know what is behind the target. Still, it's a better chance than nothing at all. The situation also changes as more people are armed: Joe and Bob may not be much more of a threat than Joe alone, but when it's Joe and 12 other people in class, there's substiantally less of a chance that the crazy shooter is going to be able to engage all, or even most of the armed students before he dies.
I'm all for required training, as long as it is either free or reasonably priced. Taxes and spiked prices are a "secret" control method frequently used, let's not forget. IMO, more training should be required, and gun laws should be relaxed for those who are willing to be trained and prove that they are responsible and stable. Also, I'd like to note that everyone with a CCW has gone through some sort of background check, and usually some training. I'd suggest stopping by your local police station if it is convenient and picking up literature on what it takes in your state. You may not be interested in it personally, but it's good to know what those around you that do carry concealed have to know, and what they're expected to do/not do.
Please, cite one source where this has happened.
Nice try, but this is hardly original thinking. That might be the case if you just handed out guns out front (assuming the people could even figure out how to operate them), and had double-gun-tuesdays for anyone with an IQ under 75. Real life has shown that this doesn't happen. I'd advise you to go pick up some literature on obtaining a CCW/CHP in your area, as well as some general firearm safety booklets. They should both be available locally -- check your local PD, they're bound to have some.
I'm not asking you to go register for a CCW/CHP, but please...at least inform yourself before you speculate.
Erm...I can think of two within the last five years. I could probably find links, but I'm not going to bother right now. It's not critical to my argument anyway.
Crime overall (especially violent crime) tends to be higher in places that have banned guns. The opposite is true where gun ownership is almost assured. The reason for this is the same reason that an exceptionally high number of incidents involving concealed handgun carriers end without a single shot being fired -- often without the firearm even being drawn. Most people don't want to die, and trying to make a victim of somebody that is equally or better armed than you are is a real risk. If you want examples on a city level, look at Washington DC and San Francisco in the US. Gun control is tight, but murder is a real problem in both.
Not interested in US figures? Compare the Swiss (where a large chunk of the population is armed with military hardware, those eeeevil assault rifles!) to the UK.
Welcome to the land of FUD.
If school grounds were places where you could carry legally, then you'd have people who A) Know when they can shoot, and in most states B) Have shown that they can aim. Collateral damage is low. You DO NOT take a shot when you don't know what the bullet can hit, it's one of the fundamentals.
Real life has shown that these "bloodbath" what-if situations don't happen.
The short answer here is yes, armed civilians do indeed stop these sort of things. Many, MANY crimes are stopped by simply showing that the person is armed. Of course, those are more of the average street crimes perpetrated by people who actually want to continue living.
This sort of event also gets stopped, though I'll be the first to say that they're not always bloodless. Regular, sane people don't want to kill someone else, so fairly often the CCW-holder fires in response to somebody who has already been shot, and they have seen it, and they are at risk, or are one of a group of people at risk.
The reason you don't see it on the news is because you end up with headlines like this: "Two killed at..." or "3 dead after..." or "Shooter critically wounded after assault..."
It's not quite the same as headlines reading "30 dead at XXX school after enraged gunman..." Also, bear in mind that these school shooting stories happen in _gun free_ zones. They're supposed to feel safe. Not only are there high body counts, but these are people being killed in a place that is _supposed_ to be safe for them to be at. It's a double-whammy, and it's the kind of thing that gets headlines and stays in the news.
Wow. Your post is filled with singularly bad ideas, and assumptions that simply aren't valid, as real-life situations have shown. Most of the replies to this already have covered those, but I'd just like to point out one critically BAD IDEA you have in your post -- that charging down a hall with a firearm drawn is a valid response to the sound of gunfire. That's a recipe for getting yourself shot, and possibly killed. In these situations, there is quite frequently no way to tell who the real shooter is. You do NOT go looking for him, and even if you do, you do NOT go charging through doors with your weapon in sight. You will quite likely get shot. It's a stupid move that nobody who actually passed a test to get a CCW/CHP should even consider as a real possibility. Building clearing is for police/SWAT.
While your point about further 'locking down' security-wise is valid, I take exception to your statement regarding carrying weapons on school grounds. I would like to ask you to think about your standpoint logically.
I felt the same was until I thought about it a bit, and could not come up with a valid reason to prohibit firearms in such places. I'm curious if you have any reasons I haven't considered.
The main point of the argument is this: People who would take a firearm and murder others are obviously not concerned with the legal implications. One doesn't commit open murder of 1 person, let alone 30, if they are worried about going to jail. As such, they simply don't care about the lesser crime of carrying a weapon in a prohibited area. It's a non-factor to them, and the result is that you're vulnerable because you are a law-abiding citizen, and the criminal is gauranteed victims that are largely incapable of defending themselves.
In light of this, there is no reason to prohibit firearms from campuses other than the false notion that firearms should be banned to make them a safe haven. The same is true for churches, libraries, etc. While the idea is appealing, with no way to actually enforce the law until after the fact (no metal detectors, screening, etc), the law is only a disaster waiting to happen -- and this is just another example of how those disasters happen.
Airports are somewhat different, as are most federal buildings these days. They do screen, though the screening can be lacking. That's another argument, though.
Right, but when the only options left are things like "aabltisiqntwsngoffzeg.com", the original purpose of DNS is largely voided. At that point it becomes far easier to simply remember an IP address.
There may be nearly infinite namespace available, but that's like saying that there's nearly infinite room for humans to live in. Sure, it's there, but most of it is in hard vac with no source of power even remotely close. It's worthless outside of being a technicality to be used in an argument.
Anon, if only you had a name...
Seriously, though -- you make a very good point. Free speech is not the same as "Speech which doesn't offend me, or minorities, or anyone else for that matter."
People need to grow up and get used to the fact that people will say things that might offend them. Too bad. If they don't like it, they can leave or speak back. Having said that, I would like to point out that there is a big difference between outright lies (libel, slander), messages which threaten the physical well-being of people (fire in a crowded theater), and things like calling people "nappy-headed hoes" or displaying the outline of a nude woman (or man, if that's your thing) on a mudflap.
This should've been bad for Imus's career. Yeah, it was not a smart move -- offending entire groups rarely is. Let's face it, though -- this was REALLY blown up for the rest of the media, which is why he's getting fired. That bit is BS.
You have a point, but some of this is taken to absurd lengths. I fly, and I'm not concerned about shoe bombs, because anybody with any damned sense is going to think something is amiss when the guy next to them starts trying to light his shoelaces. As for bottled liquids, well, that was blown way out of proportion. The guy was never a real threat -- were's not talking "Mix red liquid with blue liquid, and BOOM!" like some might have you think. For that guy to pull of what he was trying to do, he'd have had to lock himself in a bathroom with a generous supply of ice for almost an entire trans-atlantic trip just to synthesize the stuff, and then he would've had to find a way to dry the result before it would be any real threat. Perhaps if he'd been able to bring a portable lab on a circumnavigation of the globe by jet, he'd have had a chance. Even if he had pulled off making the stuff, chances are good that the yeild would be low enough that he'd not have been able to do much more than depressurize the jet by blowing out a window, or perhaps a slightly large hole.
Terrorism will happen. You can't stop it, but you can stop running around freaking out at every pair of nail clippers and toy guns for GI Joe dolls (both of which have been known to be confiscated before boarding). That's absurd. The goal of terrorism is to instill terror. They've failed on my part, but it looks like they're doing a pretty good job with the masses.
In the original model, yes.
Nowdays? No. The internet isn't as robust as it used to be, because real redundancy costs a lot of cash. There are single buildings that could be hit that would cripple internet connectivity to entire regions, or at the very best reduce traffic to a near standstill. It's far from nuke-proof these days, nor is it very terror-proof.
Having said that, I think terrorism isn't the big threat here. Earthquakes, hurricanes, and flooding are more pressing concerns. It is a certainty that one of them will do severe damage to a US city at some point in the future, and those sort of events do much more than take down a single building. Fiber cuts, power interruption, etc.