>From: Ken Clements <Ken@Innovation-On-Demand.com>
>>"S.J. Van Sickle" wrote:
>>If nothing else, the passengers probably reacted with the
>>assumption that, like all previous hijackings, they were to be
>>held for some sort of ransom. If they knew that they were going
>>to die anyway, they would fight. This is apparently what
>>happened on the flight that crashed in Pennslyvania. It is going
>>to be a hell of a lot harder to hijack any plane again in the
>>future.
>As indicated by S.J. above, I do not think we need to look for new
>solutions. It is the idea that hijacking equals death of the
>passengers, and perhaps thousands of others on the ground, that
>will stop this. When people understand this, a hijacking
>situation reverts to the deepest primal human response. No matter
>what weapons they have, it would be very difficult for a few to
>stand against a mob ofover a hundred humans who have reverted to
>lizard brain.
Indeed now that the cat is out of the bag this is unlikely to work
in the future, and I'm sure additional safeguards will be added.
(maybe a bulkhead between pilots and passengers).
Another possibility is some sort of international database for air
travelers, maybe everyone using a passport everywhere with an
instacheck system like we use for guns.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
Disclosure notice: currently "plonked"
"Joe Dees" <joedees@addall.com>
"Party of Citizens"<citizens@vcn.bc.ca>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:29 MDT