Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Hardware

Remote Control To Prevent Aircraft Hijacking 544

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the fly-by-really-long-wire dept.
Snad writes "The UK's Evening Standard is reporting that Boeing plans to roll out aircraft remote control systems in a bid to eliminate the threat of terrorist hijackings, and prevent any repetition of the events of September 11 2001. 'Scientists at aircraft giant Boeing are testing the tamper-proof autopilot system which uses state-of-the-art computer and satellite technology. It will be activated by the pilot flicking a simple switch or by pressure sensors fitted to the cockpit door that will respond to any excessive force as terrorists try to break into the flight deck. Once triggered, no one on board will be able to deactivate the system. Currently, all autopilots are manually switched on and off at the discretion of pilots. A threatened airliner could be flown to a secure military base or a commercial airport, where it would touch down using existing landing aids known as 'autoland function'.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Remote Control To Prevent Aircraft Hijacking

Comments Filter:
  • Different problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Threni (635302) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @06:44PM (#18268494)
    Won't terrorists instead try and find ways to take over the remote control system? Why limit yourself to simply crashing one plane when you can crash them all.
  • The obvious? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Em Ellel (523581) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @06:47PM (#18268540)
    Basically this turns planes into remote control missiles - and this is a GOOD THING????

    I mean to do something like 9/11 you don't even have to be ON the plane???

    It seems to make thing MORE dangerous, not less.

    -Em

  • by ResidntGeek (772730) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @06:48PM (#18268566) Journal
    Sorry, maybe next generation. This one isn't even tough enough to get hit with a rubber ball in gym class without crying and suing the school.
  • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ResidntGeek (772730) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @06:52PM (#18268616) Journal
    No remote access allowed to a computer without the administrator password, either.
  • How about... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ObiWanStevobi (1030352) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @06:54PM (#18268664) Journal
    How about locking the f***ing cabin door??!!! Doesn't cost anything, no one gets hijacked. Instead lets make a remote control terminal to fly the plane into a building. Only good old fat government defense contracts can bring us such stupidity. Heck, lets give the contract to Diebold and let the central control program be an Access VBA App on a Windows machine connected to the internet.
  • Skyhook (Score:4, Insightful)

    by roach2002 (77772) <murcnh102@snea k e m ail.com> on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @06:56PM (#18268684) Homepage
    Skyhook [amazon.com] is a book centered around this concept. The interesting part was that they wouldn't actually deploy this system in commercial aircraft, they'd just have a press release to make people think they had.

    (And no, that isn't a referrer link where I get money. I don't know why it has 'ref=')
  • by kansas1051 (720008) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @06:59PM (#18268726)

    Autopilot systems that can take off and land large commercial aircraft already exist and are commonly used (they are called "CAT III" autopilots). If a pilot is feeling lazy, all he or she must do is program the flight computer and taxi the aircraft to the runway -- the aircraft will take off, fly, and land at the desired destination without any input from the pilot.

    This new system seems to be a way of locking-in the autopilot function so terrorists cannot manually fly the plane after the pilot triggers an alarm. Seems like a good idea to me.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot [wikipedia.org] as always.

  • by flyingfsck (986395) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:06PM (#18268810)
    Hijackers simply start shooting passengers until they remotely fly him where he wants to go.

    Fanatics are irrational by design...
  • by Chineseyes (691744) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:08PM (#18268848)
    Successful Hijackings? I guess people are more cowardly than I thought, these days no weapon would keep me in my seat if someone tried to hijack a plane I was a passenger in, I'd rather die fighting than strapped in my seat.
  • by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:12PM (#18268906) Journal

    If we weren't such pussies we would have done what Israel did to Lebanon when Hamas took two guys hostage.

    We aren't pussies. Our fearless leader just had other priorities. Rather then rally the country behind him ala FDR after Pearl Harbor he decided to try and use it as an excuse to take down Saddam. Days after 9/11 Bush and Cheney were looking at ways to tie Saddam to the attacks.

    FDR desperately wanted war with Nazi Germany but he didn't try to blame Pearl Harbor on them.

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@nOSPam.lynx.bc.ca> on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:16PM (#18268964) Journal
    We don't need this. If anything genuinely good came out of 9/11, it's this: passengers will *NOT* sit idly by while a hijacker goes and tries to seize control of an aircraft, as they know that their lives would likely be forfeit anyways if they did. It was a very costly wake-up call, and although I would never go so far as to say it was worth it, I think it's safe bet that no hijacker will ever be able to take control of a passenger aircraft ever again... at least not over USA soil.
  • by BarnabyWilde (948425) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:21PM (#18269016)
    With your idea:

    "One passenger dies every minute until the door is unlocked".

    Duh.

    With the new system:

    "One passenger dies every minute until the fancy auto-pilot is turned off".

    Another duh.

    Any questions, Einstein?
  • by eln (21727) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:27PM (#18269098) Homepage
    Al Qaeda may prefer to use planes as missiles, but many other terrorist groups still hijack planes the old-fashioned way: They take over the plane and force the pilot to fly them somewhere else. In the US, we are now (since 9/11) far more likely to assume that a hijacker is of the kill everyone, Al Qaeda type, because we have recent and very memorable experience with that sort of hijacker, and no recent experience with the old fashioned kind. This may not be the case in other countries.
  • by bahwi (43111) <incoming@RABBITj ... minus herbivore> on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:31PM (#18269174) Homepage
    Hours, eh? Knock out the hijackers, probably a few casualties, turn off the jammer, remote control reactivated. :)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:31PM (#18269176)

    If we weren't such pussies we would have done what Israel did to Lebanon when Hamas took two guys hostage.
    Kick ass in every battle, but lose the war because there's no coherent strategy or goal?
  • by CorSci81 (1007499) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:31PM (#18269180) Journal

    2. How does Boeing "secretly" patent "The so-called 'uninterruptible autopilot system'"

    Boeing has "secretly" patented all sorts of classified technology, as have most companies working in the Defense/Intelligence industries. The classified patent system has been in place for a while. Just because something is patented doesn't mean it's publicly available knowledge.

  • by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:33PM (#18269224) Journal

    Our president's intentions to take down Saddam after 9/11 don't change the fact that we, America and probably most of the first world, are pussies. Have you ever been in a fight? I've never been in a fight. I was a gigantic asshole for the last two years high school and never found myself in the slightest danger of receiving even a single punch.

    And what's the point? If the powers-that-be had decided to glass Afghanistan do you really think they wouldn't have been able to rally the American people behind it in the days after 9/11? Throw some propaganda in the mix, make the Pearl Harbor comparison (though 9/11 is inherently worse -- Pearl Harbor was a military target) and demand nothing less then total victory. I think you'd be surprised by the American people.

    That said, it was all for naught, because from day 1 of being sworn in this administration wanted to go into Iraq.

  • by amRadioHed (463061) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:34PM (#18269232)
    They do have "nicer" hijackers over there [smh.com.au]. Most hijackers don't want to kill themselves and everyone else. As is true for most things, 9/11 didn't change that.
  • by Rakishi (759894) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:38PM (#18269276)
    United flight 93 would disagree with you, 9/11 happened because up to then almost all plane hijackings led to few if any casualties. If you cooperated then you'd all likely leave alive and if you didn't you'd likely be causing the death of 200+ people due to your own stupidity. As its been pointed out in other places, the problem is that there is a big difference between stopping terrorists in a plane and regaining control of the plane as again flight 93 illustrated. Contrary to some people terrorists aren't idiots (or geniuses) and its downright stupid to assume they'd even attempt to hijack a plane now instead of simpyl crashing it the first chance they get.

    This system would be a lot more effective than a passenger attempt to stop the hijackers.
  • by RMelon (1068520) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:40PM (#18269306)
    Couldn't this system make hijacking more likely? Say terrorists take over a plane. Knowing they don't need them, the terrorists kill the pilots. The remote system turns on, and the terrorists say "control, take us to *insert Middle Eastern or African country here* or we start killing hostages every 10 minutes until you turn to heading 180 or what have you... maybe the developers should look into being able to control the displays in planes, but then the terrorists could also carry compasses and maps... it just doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. p.s. -hey terrorists, i have just trademarked that idea so you can't use it.
  • by Anarchitect_in_oz (771448) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:42PM (#18269328)
    Why just "terrorism"? Cockpits are at the pointy end of the plane for obvious reason. Which means things like Bird Strike as an example off the top of my head are a real threat to airline safety. Or for some reason the cabin has depressurised and the crew have all black out. Surely such a system could be brought online in any number of situtations where the crews capacity is effected? Sure nothing beats real people for doing the job, but nothing wrong with having back-ups
  • Exactly. If this system ever comes online then hijackers will simply plan and figure out a way to disable the system. Its easier said than done, and probably very costly, but if you get the right hackers you can break into (almost) any system.
    Funny... I'd think that terrorists would LOVE such a system... don't disable it, just co-opt it! You don't even need to be ON the plane to crash it into a target. If the system is hardwired (let's say it has pre-plotted landing locations, and picks the closest one based on GPRS signal), then there are numerous choices: 1) change out the module, 2) disable as mentioned above, 3) screw up the GPRS detection or transmission somehow. I'm sure there are other means I haven't mentioned.
  • by Ryan274 (1067758) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:45PM (#18269370)
    And what's going to happen when certain computer savvy individuals decide to play the Boeing Flight Simulator? AKA. hijacking the control signal to the plane and lock eveyone else out and having fun seeing how many passengers they can make sick... or worse
  • by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @07:55PM (#18269524) Journal

    wouldn't jump a hijacker with any sort of impressive-looking or effective weapon

    Doesn't United 93 kind of prove you wrong there? I still think you are underestimating Americans.

  • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @08:06PM (#18269658) Journal
    300 people on a large jumbo-jet vs. 3000+ in an office building in manhattan. I would have taken the 300.

    You're not alone in making that calculation. The passengers on the fourth 9/11 hijacked jet came to the same conclusion - even though they themselves were the collection on the light side of the balance.

    (IMHO they deserve a posthumous award of the Medal of Freedom.)
  • by hondo77 (324058) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @08:25PM (#18269926) Homepage

    If we weren't such pussies we would have done what Israel did to Lebanon when Hamas took two guys hostage.

    You mean start a war they were bound to lose/not win and not even catch the original bad guys? I think we're doing a pretty good job of that already.

  • by Jeremi (14640) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @08:30PM (#18269970) Homepage
    Our president's intentions to take down Saddam after 9/11 don't change the fact that we, America and probably most of the first world, are pussies. Have you ever been in a fight? I've never been in a fight.


    Is "pussies" another word for "civilized, decent human beings"? If so, then I'm glad that we (and most of the world) are pussies. Violence is an ineffective way to solve problems.

  • by krray (605395) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @08:34PM (#18270008)
    As a passenger ... and a pilot I think this is a VERY dangerous idea. More so than dealing with the terrorists in other ways.

    Let me qualify myself -- I am a hobbyist when it comes to flying. Single and dual engine props are the largest I've ever flown myself, but I know a damn good landing when I see / feel one. Flying "runs in the family" as my brother does it, my father, my grandfather [did, passed away], and my Uncle is a commercial pilot himself. Growing up it was common to go and visit grandpa (or more often have him fly over to us) in the rent-a-plane type club -- why drive and deal with all the traffic? When we wanted to go downtown to the city -- just fly in. I was flying when I was six... Anyway, I digress...

    On a recent commercial trip to Hawaii I can remember two specific landings that took place. One was in bad weather and the landing impressed me so much that I waited around to find out who landed the plane. The pilot proudly introduced me to his co-pilot and informed me it was his first real landing as such [flying passengers and not testing / in a simulator]. The other landing scared the hell out of me and within seconds of touching down I looked at my white-knuckled scared wife and said "somethings wrong, we're going off the runway". The weather was calm and clear -- and at the gate the pilot apologized to *everyone* over the PA system and informed us that the landing that took place was done by the emergency autopilot landing system [a scheduled test -- WITH PASSENGERS]. THANK GOD he was able to dis-engage said system and go with a hard left rudder when he did...

    Due to that last landing it has been the _last_ commercial flight I've taken (or plan to take). I'll fly myself, thank you.

    What do I do for a living? Ironically computer [programming] -- and I know all too well what can (and does) go wrong with these types of computer programs. There is NO WAY that all the bases and/or possibilities could be covered with our computer knowledge today.
  • by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @08:36PM (#18270044)
    This idea is a non-starter, for many reasons:
    • It's a proposed technical solution for a past social problem. barn door and all that. even if it worked perfectly, the bad guys would just change their approach in some small way.
    • Pilots will never give up the principle that they're in charge, always.
    • There are over 100,000 flights every day. All it takes is a false positive rate of 0.0001% to be totally unacceptable.
  • by smackt4rd (950154) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @08:40PM (#18270088)
    I think a bat would last longer when you're beating the shit out of a terrorist. :) Maybe if it was a rubber snake?
  • by Dr. Zowie (109983) <slashdot.deforest@org> on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @08:43PM (#18270124)

    This increases their planning overhead, their budget overhead, and possibly their coordination overhead.


    No it doesn't. Instead of having to prepare and deploy dozens of suicide pilots, they can work in secret safety on figuring out the control protocol, and make the attack wirelessly from the safety of a suburban house.

    Just ask Captain Video...
  • by illegalcortex (1007791) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @08:58PM (#18270258)
    Unfortunately, it also increases OUR planning overhead, OUR budget overhead, and OUR coordination overhead. WE also have to acquire more information from more sources, and design and manufacture additional equipment.

    All to prevent an incredibly low probability attack. I doubt the serious terrorists still consider airplanes to be a useful target. Maybe only the crackpots that got kicked out of terrorist boot camp for being unable to complete a simple plan. They're moving on to newer, more accessible pastures. I'm much more worried about a ground-based plan to simultaneously blow up large numbers of people.
  • Simpler Solution (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DieByWire (744043) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @09:18PM (#18270526)

    There's a far simpler (and less risky) solution - two doors between the flight deck and the main cabin, so that the flight crew can always have a closed door between them and the cabin when they have to leave the cockpit. El Al's been doing this for years, and IIRC, United is on track to do so. If the cockpit can't be stormed, the airliner can't be used as a weapon.

    Autopilots malfunction. That's why there's a big red button on every yoke or sidestick (not just on the flight guidance panel) - an autopilot disconnect switch. The thought of having an autopilot that you can't disconnect on every flight of every airliner is just plain scary, probability-wise.

    Here's a more likely use for it: The FAA wants to raise the pilot retirement age to 65. You'll need it to land the airplane after the old geezer pilots fall asleep.

  • by Dun Malg (230075) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @09:20PM (#18270554) Homepage

    With your idea:

    "One passenger dies every minute until the door is unlocked".

    Duh.

    With the new system:

    "One passenger dies every minute until the fancy auto-pilot is turned off".

    Another duh.

    Any questions, Einstein?
    Yeah one question: how long before 300 people on a plane being executed one a minute does it take for the remaining passengers to figure out that the best odds (in either case) lie with using laptops, coffee pots, and even fists to beat the living crap out of a hopelessly outnumbered handful of hijackers who aren't going to get their way?

    I know, this sounds like algebra, not your strong suit.
  • Thats fine (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KKlaus (1012919) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @09:27PM (#18270652)
    No one cares if a plane is diverted to Algeria. They care if it's flown into the ground or a target, which is of course something the pilots will never do no matter how many passengers are killed, for obvious reasons. Seperating pilot from passenger accomplishes only one thing, but its a very important thing. Namely, it prevents the class of hijackings in which all passengers die, and those are the ones we care about.
  • Re:Thats fine (Score:3, Insightful)

    by camperdave (969942) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @09:59PM (#18270978) Journal
    Seperating pilot from passenger accomplishes only one thing... it prevents the class of hijackings in which all passengers die...

    Not quite. It prevents the type of hijacking where the hijackers take physical control of the plane. It does not prevent the hijackers from killing all the passengers.
  • Implementation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @10:56PM (#18271578)

    Scientists at aircraft giant Boeing are testing the tamper-proof autopilot system which uses state-of-the-art computer and satellite technology.

    For something *that* secure, I'm sure they're using Vista. I can see it now, "It looks like you're trying to let someone take over your aircraft by remote control. Allow or deny?"

    But more seriously, how could a system like that EVER be trusted? M$ spend lots of time and way more money trying to make Vista secure, and it's already cracked. Same for HD-DVD DRM. And if terrorist really can't think of anything better, they can do this:
    1. Put a strong jammer in a pickup truck or a Cessna, and have it near the plane at the time of hijacking.
    2. Take over a plane as it's taking off or landing, and jam the remote control signal at the same time.
    3. Crash the plane into the airport concourse, another plane, whatever. The sky's the limit!
  • not necessary. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pizza_milkshake (580452) on Wednesday March 07, 2007 @11:05PM (#18271638)
    what people don't realize is that the "solution" to the hijacker/bomber has already been implemented in various forms. civil rights have been reduced, law enforcement power has been increased; potential plane hijackers/bombers are more likely to be caught in the planning stages. airport security has been upgraded from a complete joke to slightly less useless. but most importantly, the crew and passengers are much more likely to put up a resistance, as they did in Flight 93 [wikipedia.org] on 9/11 and against the "shoe bomber [wikipedia.org]" Richard Reed.

    in this case the solution is a social one not a technological one. the most powerful force on a plane are its passengers.

  • Oooh boy. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @12:03AM (#18272106)
    There's a good amount of evidence [wtc7.net] to suggest that 9-11 was the result of radio-control piloting.

    # Behavior of Villains
    The behavior of the alleged hijackers preceding the attack is inconsistent with skill and discipline needed to have a hope of pulling off such an attack.
            * Mohammed Atta allegedly barely caught Flight 11, a key flight in the event that he was supposedly planning for years.
            * The alleged hijackers partied at topless bars and drank alcohol, despite being portrayed as fundamentalist Muslims, for whom such behavior would be surprising, to say the least.

    # Evidence Void
    There is no hard evidence that any of the alleged hijackers were on any of the doomed flights, and substantial evidence that some weren't involved.

            * No video of any of the 19 hijackers at any of the three originating airports of the four flights has been made public, except for a video allegedly showing hijackers of Flight 77.
            * At least six of the alleged hijackers have turned up alive since the attack.
            * None of the four flight crews radioed Air Traffic Control about hijackings in progress.
            * None of the four flight crews punched in the four-digit hijacking code.
            * No public evidence indicates that the remains of any of the hijackers was identified at any of the crash sites.
            * None of the contents of any of the black boxes have been made public.
            * The only 4-1/2 minutes of the phone call from Flight 11 Attendant Betty Ong made public describes a stabbing but does not provide any details indicating that Arab hijackers were on board.

    # Phenomenal Success
    The success with which hijackers allegedly took over four jets with knives and then piloted the jets to small targets is simply miraculous.

            * None of the four flight crews were able to stop the alleged hijackers, in spite of several of the pilots being Vietnam veterans.
            * None of the alleged hijackers were good pilots, yet the three buildings were hit with phenomenal precision.

    --And what precision! To be able to accurately target a building which is so far away that you can't even see it is amazing. These were guys who couldn't even pass flight school. Sounds like a computer assist to me.


    -FL

  • by xkhaozx (978974) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @12:14AM (#18272172)
    So what happens if the remote control station gets hijacked?
  • by ResidntGeek (772730) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @12:43AM (#18272358) Journal
    You're a dumbass. A complete dumbass. If you want a third-party candidate to enter office, vote for a sodding third-party candidate. Don't vote for the lesser of two evils, you're just agreeing to submit to that level of evil.
  • by geoff lane (93738) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @02:23AM (#18273010)
    There should be a scale, like the Richter scale for earthquakes, for dumb ideas.
    This one would be 11/10.

    Hijacks are very, very rare so the effectiveness of this stupid idea is dominated by the failure modes. The obvious failure mode is accidental activation. This will occur much more often than an actual hijack.

    So rather than being a solution, it will be just another cause of flight delays.
  • by mOdQuArK! (87332) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @03:20AM (#18273244)
    I think you're underestimating "average" people, especially people who have every reason to believe that their plane is going to be flown into a building (and that they will _all_ die) if they don't do something.

    The people on Flight 93 were just "average" people, but when they fully realised the situation they still fought their captors. I don't think that the character of the "average" person has changed that much between now and then.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08, 2007 @06:05AM (#18274052)
    The US have NEVER been interested in 'heroic' type military actions, of the kind that European nations value. I think it's something to do with the different histories - Europe has a tradition of feudal battles which emphasise 'valiant last-ditch stands' (probably to encourage the knights and house-carles to fight to the last!), while the US looks back to the Indian Wars, where technological imbalance and slaughter were the order of the day.

    The net result is that for much of its history the US has been an oddly peaceable nation. It has only been interested in fighting wars where it was sure it would easily win. When it does fight a war, US doctrine is to bring overwhelming fire power to bear, and eradicate everything in the vicinity from a distance, while preserving the lives of its own soldiers.

    Compare that approach with, say, the British action at Goose Green in the Falklands War, where 600 British soldiers assaulted a well dug in force of over 1000 elite Argentinian troops, in defiance of conventional military practice. Both sides showed extreme bravery - Lt Col H Jones' death while leading a direct charge over open ground up a steep hill to silence machine gun posts was only one of a number of such incidents where soldiers on both sides took actions involving almost certain death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Goose_Green [wikipedia.org] refers.

    This European ethos looks good in the cinema, so good that Hollywood frequently takes European fighting occurances and transposes them to a US setting (which causes a lot of bad feeling) But I do not think this indicates a 'lack of moral fibre' on the part of the US. It's just a different way of doing things, and, I think, the US can argue that it has a more sensible approach.

    If I were to be asked to join an army where we only fought where we had an overwhelming superiority over the enemy, compared to one where we were expected routinely to engage with inferior weaponry, numbers and tactical position and still win, I know which army I would prefer!

  • by mpe (36238) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @06:35AM (#18274216)
    Why would they bother disabling it? Threats are for more effective for coercing 'favors' from the authorities and we would be handing a lot of easy hostages to determined terrorists. How would it look for the FAA to allow gruesome death (and worse) to befall little girls on board the flight?

    Sounds like a variation on "Die Hard 2". Which is the problem with all these attempts to address "movie plot" senarios. If you don't guess right then the system is utterly useless. The newspaper really needs to talk to someone like Bruce Schneier before running this kind of story.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08, 2007 @08:00AM (#18274606)
    That leaves the terrorist with a simple question - How do I get hold of the pilot's gun?

    I have never understood the American belief that arming people is the royal road to health and sanity. It is universally understood that, if someone is intending to attack, they are overwhelmingly more likely to succeed than someone who is not intending to defend. Arming people just ups the ante in the death stakes.

    Incidentally, the moronic partnt poster bendodge is wrong on all fronts - the FBI did a study a little while ago and found that, comparing a man with a holstered gun and a man with a knife ten feet away, the man with the knife won 9 times out of ten. And that was with participants who knew what was going to happen.

    Americans live in a little world of their own where movies are more real than reality. You can see that in their foreign policy. The reason Iraq is such a mess is that they really thought the film ended when the white hats won and rode off into the sunset!

UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch). -- Andy Tannenbaum

Working...