46 ms·
I'm curious - is it effective because having another person there discourages these types of attacks, or that having another person there means that they can ac
by bentcorner 12y ago
I'm curious - is it effective because having another person there discourages these types of attacks, or that having another person there means that they can actively intervene in the event of something like this happening?
- showerst 12y agoThose systems are set up so that responsibilities are split; one person alone doesn't have the knowledge to knock everything out.
- pavel_lishin 12y agoThat would be difficult to implement in this case. How are you going to un-teach one of the team members that fire near computers is bad?
- cjg_ 12y agoSeparate rooms with separate access control for redundant systems. Preferably made so fire from one room does not spread to the next.
- paulannesley 12y agoI think that's a different concept to the “Two-Man Policy/No Lone Zone” mentioned above.
- Phlarp 12y agoBoth.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- judk 12y agoWhat is the probability of one person wanting to do damage? Square that. Now consider that even if two people wanted to do damage, each might not know and trust the other to allow them.
- ceejayoz 12y ago> What is the probability of one person wanting to do damage? Square that. What's the probability of one person wanting to do damage and having a momentary opportunity to smack the other person in the head with a hammer? Substantially more doable.
- SoftwareMaven 12y agoBut you've now significantly dropped your original odds because your person who wants to do damage now has to be willing and capable of serious violence.