From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Sep 29 2001 - 20:53:58 MDT
"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > Damien Broderick wrote:
> > >
> > > At 12:06 AM 9/29/01 -0400, Eliezer wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Lots and lots and lots of nuclear power plants.
> > >
> > > Each of them protected by a force field and ray guns, to keep the next lot
> > > of terrorist-hijacked planes at bay.
> >
> > There will be no more terrorist hijacked planes. That is not
> > difficult to guarantee. At least much less difficult than force
> > fields and ray guns.
>
> I don't know that a passenger mass attack is an absolute protection. I
> can think of at least two ways to hijack a plane anyway.
>
I was suggesting no such thing. Have the cabin full of cameras
constantly feeding data to ground automatic and manned
facilities scanning for trouble, armed air marshal on board,
remote control facilities on the plane and/or self-destruct and
scramble fighter jets at any sign of trouble or veering from
course. Some mixture of these things will make the chance of a
repeat of 911 almost nil. If you believe you have a way that
these would not be sufficient then please present it so it can
be factored into the protections.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:03 MST