On about the idiot box, again.

WTF the **** would a scottish football team bring to the party?

But seriously - the last thing you want in this sort of decision
making is "hearts" - Personally, I hope whoever's in chanrge if such a
thing happens is using cold-hearted reason.

 

cheap lager and coke, I'd expect.

 

As long as the reason isn't politically minded or money based. IMO,
too much of the above is used as an excuse, a lot of the time.

 

Well, funnily enough, last night's programme ended with the contestants
being told how much their decisions would have cost the British economy
(around £56B, IIRC), but not how many people were likely to have died.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Well, politics is ultimately about how society is organised and people
live their lives, so I would suggest that such decision making *must*
be politically minded. And if you think such decisions can't me made
without reference to cost, then you're very naive indeed.

 

Got a BT link?

 

I was shouting "shoot!" at the tv along with the rest of the country:
post 9/11, terrorists who want to try the traditional hostage
negotiation techniques should know the rules for planes have changed
and that they're much less likely to get the opportunity to kill the
passengers one by one. Besides, I see no reason they wouldn't have
agreed a divert to Stansted in that case.

But really, what makes an expert expert? The sequence of events is
being decided largely by the scriptwriter: if you leave the people on
the trains and the producers decide to have a bomb, a gas attack, and
a mass panic, then you made the wrong decision and should have taken
them off. All of these things have happened, so you could easily
write the script to accomodate them then find an expert who'll tell
you that getting people out of the tunnels is the correct choice.

Yup. There was no excuse for not getting fighters in the air as soon
as they knew something was up.

Triage. I wouldn't usually AOL after all the subsequent posts have
described it in detail, but I want to point out that I already said
that in the post you replied to ;-)

Fair point. But Time Commanders had a much better model of
consequences following decisions. Last night's offering was like some
Choose Your Own Adventure game: "To station a couple of policemen
around the edges of the carnival where they can dance along with the
crowd and have their picture taken, turn to page 23. To crush the
rebellion with armoured riot police, horses and CS gas, turn to page
46"


-dan

 

AndrewR wrote

I didn't watch it. Don't seem like I missed much though.

 

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:59:06 -0000, "AndrewR"

I got really frustrated. I think if I'd been on the show I'd have
thrown their lily-livered arses into the brig and taken control,
unless any of the military spods had a gun I could use. They had three
hours in 'reality', didn't they? So it was even worse than it appeared
in terms of dithering. Like with the tunnel - by the time they'd
decided to close the flood barriers, too late. So instead of 500
floating bloaters in a contained space they had a network full of
them. Did they mention the impending health disaster in the summary?

 

eh? I thought you just drank the rubbing alcohol and stole the morphine.

You live and learn.

 

****, sounds like ukrm.

 

"AndrewR" wrote in message

[snip]

Me and the missus got all 7 options right - virtually instantly. Trouble
was those bozos were in the mindset of trying to save everyones lives,
whereas if they had started out with the idea that lots of people are going
to die today how can we keep that down to a minimum, I think they would have
done a lot better. They shouldn't have thought of people but numbers.

As for the plane business, it seemed daft that they didn't employ all the
options 1) Launch intercept aircraft 2) try to make radio contact with them
3) Tell them that when they are within ten minutes of London the intercept
aircraft would fly in such a pattern as to divert if they didn't follow
their commands. When within five minutes of London warning shots would be
fired, and once within two minutes of London they would be shot down.
Problem solved. Actually, would a plane hitting Parlaiment be a disaster?
(methinks, perhaps they got that one right).


--
Martin -Yamaha XVS650A (Im a Norfolk boy ... nearest thing I could afford
to a tractor)

Norfolk n' good

www.rockdoctors.org.uk

 

Daily Mail mindset = on

If that plane had been full of good ol' white British Desert Rats war
heroes back from a remembrance service in North Africa and you'd popped a
cap in its ass over the channel. The resulting security alerts delaying
honest holiday makers on their ferries and in airports. For a
/perceived/ risk.

Bear in mind you're a Labour government.

I have to say if an aircraft was to crash into Palace of Westminster
would I give a ****? It would sort out a lot of fucking traitors and
shaved women collaborators.

Sometimes.....

 

Problem is;
The plane was first detected acting strangely over French airspace.
Would/should the French not have launched attack aircraft first (as per
international rulings) when the plane did not respond?

 

Well, obviously, bluddy French only obeying the rules that suit them again.

 

again.

Intente Cordial

 

"sweller" wrote in message

Agreed, a tough decision but one that had to be made and my decision agreed
with the opinion of the military expert.

Eh? A plane which identifies itself as being in the control of terrorists,
disobeying legal orders from the ground, flying an erratic course is only a
"perceived" risk? No way. In my book that is a full on threat to major
targets filled with thousands of people.

Who sez?

[snip]

As I said, think numbers not people, that's the only way of dealng with
difficult decisions like that. Remove the emotion. The fact was that the
plane had already identified itself as being in the control of post 911
terrorists and the military expert was nearly apopleptic trying to persuade
the 'ministers' to put into operation a contingency plan which already
existed for such situations ... the result of which would have been shooting
the plane down. As I said in my original post I would have made sure that
exactly what we were going to do was explained to the terrorists beforehand.

--
Martin -Yamaha XVS650A (Im a Norfolk boy ... nearest thing I could afford
to a tractor)

Norfolk n' good

www.rockdoctors.org.uk

 

"harrycott" wrote in message

Perhaps they should have ... but they didn't. Probably thought they were a
plane full of asylum seekers who had given up on trying to get through the
tunnel.

--
Martin -Yamaha XVS650A (Im a Norfolk boy ... nearest thing I could afford
to a tractor)

Norfolk n' good

www.rockdoctors.org.uk

 

I'm not that bloody naïve. I just think it'd be good to do something
like that and forget the costs. I know IRL, that will never happen,
but one can always dream.

 

Snowleopard wrote

Exactly the same reason my father threw away his chance at a knighthood.

He blew out the Civil Defence years ago on the grounds that in a real
emergency things would progress almost exactly in the way they seem to
have shown it on the telebox.