On Friday 24 September 2004 19:14, Jon S Berndt wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:55:54 +0200
> Boris Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Also, regarding the whole terrorist issue that you mentioned:
> >terrorists usually have the funding available to really use
> >*professional tools*, so the 9/11 terrorists did not only
> > fool around with a version of Micro$oft's flight simulator,
> > but also attended REAL flight training, they even used fixed
> > base sims...
> >FlightGear is not going to become interesting for that group
> > of people!
> Yeah (it sounds like you've considered these questions before
> ;-) I agree with your logic. But, it can make one a little
> queasy, nonetheless: I believe I recall that MSFS was used by
> some of the 9/11 perpetrators.
Security through censorship has never worked. It's never worked
through obscurity either. Furthermore, the 'censors' don't have
a monopoly on clever minds either - the times when governments,
or even commercial enterprises, had the best minds working for
them never existed.
Even furtherermore;) the growth of the internet as a
communication medium has increased collaborative working at an
explosive rate (hmm... Freudian slip?) enabling groups of
relatively mediocre minds to achieve high standards.
Terrorism can't be 'beaten' - you can't 'win' against it,
especially if it's reactionary terrorism. Trying to 'beat'
reactionary terrorism only ensures a stream of new recruits from
those who see some validity in the terrorists point of view.
I think that the only way to deal with reactionary terrorism is
to deal with what is motivating those who resort to terrorism.
No offence intended to anyone but I'm afraid that the word
'terrorism' has been hijacked by politicians for the sole
purpose of keeping them in their positions of power and
authority, seeing as if they were rated by their performance
alone, they'd get the sack.
If I have offended anyone: Sorry.
Flightgear-devel mailing list