Re: OT: Debian Mailinglist server slow?

[Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:32:26 -0400, 
Bijan Soleymani <bijan@psq.com> _both_MAILED!_and_ posted in message 
<[🔎] 20030831183226.GA21983@server.crasseux.com>:

> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 03:30:14PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:58:52 +1200, 
> > cr <cr@orcon.net.nz> wrote in message 
> > <[🔎] 200308310703.h7V72uxj010926@dbmail-mx2.orcon.co.nz>:
> > 
> > > On Sunday 31 August 2003 14:04, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > The London Underground was originally designed to allow
> > > > > through running from the mainline railways to stations more
> > > > > convenient for central London than the mainline termini, which
> > > > > were very much on the outskirts of the London of the time.
> > > > > There are several connections between the two systems, and the
> > > > > "suburbs" end of several Underground routes is reached over
> > > > > main line track, so Underground drivers on such routes have to
> > > > > know two sets of operating rules, Underground rules and
> > > > > national rules.
> > > >
> > > > ..this sounds like a _very_ good time to pour a shipload of
> > > > concrete onto those wintendo-style dual rule tracks, to replace
> > > > the nice hard rock that _should_ have separated those two track
> > > > systems.
> > > 
> > > Now that's nonsense.   The operating rules are basically the same
> > > for both systems, there's no major difference.    And the trains
> > > are no more different than, say, an express passenger and a slow
> > > goods, which have always shared the tracks with a good degree of
> > > safety for 175 years.    
> > > 
> > > It also makes all sorts of sense to extend Underground services on
> > > to less-busy mainline branches where the traffic patterns justify
> > > it.
> > 
> > On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 04:35:55 -0700, 
> > Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca> wrote in message 
> > <[🔎] 20030831113555.GI8074@ursine.ca>:
> > 
> > > Why?  Passenger and freight peacefully coexist on tracks
> > > worldwide.
> > 
> > ...as does airliners and high rises.  You both ignore how 
> > war criminals and terrorists work; they _break_ the rules.  
> 
> What you say seems to imply that the solution to that problem is to
> either get planes to fly on the ground or to get rid of high rises :)

.. ;-)  Speaking of the baaad guys; chk out the quote headers.  ;-)

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.