Re: OT: Debian Mailinglist server slow?
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 02:24:19 +0100,
Pigeon <jah.pigeon@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
<[🔎] 20030902012419.GF4369@pigeon.pigeonloft>:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:22:21AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:24:56 +1200, cr <cr@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> > > Never do it the easy simple way if you can do it
> > > the hard complicated way. ;)
> > >
> > > Incidentally, even the truck-on-the-line won't normally cause a
> > > huge death toll. Trains are remarkably crash-resistant things.
> > > If you want to kill heaps of people, an airliner's a *much* better
> > > bet.
> >
> > ..in the open, I agree, train impact survivors just escape into the
> > neighborhood or the surrounding terrain. Now, try that in a tunnel,
> > and then consider the common major metropolitan rush hour numbers.
>
> True. But the difficulty of setting up a collision is correspondingly
> much greater. An exploit on the signalling system alone probably isn't
> enough; you'd have to coordinate it with a hijack of at least one
> train, and you'd have a job to get it done quickly enough to avoid
> someone noticing something odd was going on and cutting the
> power. Again, there are far simpler methods of inducing disaster:
> starting a fire, for instance, or using nerve gas, like in Japan. In
> fact, if you stood at one end of a crowded Underground platform and
> shouted "Nerve gas! Nerve gas!" you'd probably cause a fairly severe
> death toll as people panicked and trampled each other to death, pushed
> each other onto the track etc.
..true, like 2 years ago, it took only the 4 hijackers fully knowing
the purpose of the hijacks, although transcripts from the "Lets roll!"
affair into that Pennsylvanian potato field suggests they all knew.
..knowingly taking part in something that causes your own death,
speaks loudly about resolve; these guys _had_ other options.
--
..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.
Reply to: