Re: Death porn, media, and socmedia

[Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 04:00:32PM -0500, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> The real question is if a large number of nonfatal crashes might have  
> been enough to cause alterations to the track to compensate. 

The organizers have already tacitly admitted that the site was flawed,
at the same time they denied it.

They added (overnight,  Friday night), an improvised but likely quite
effective wooden "retaining wall" at that corner in order to keep anyone
who lost control from flying off the track.  While skidding down the
track banging off the walls and getting whacked by the sled is No Fun,
it beats going airborne at 85 MPH and finding a stationary object.

So the organizers, by putting that change in, have flatly admitted
that they were wrong: the course was NOT safe as-built.  If it was:
they wouldn't have added that.   And of course they're lying about
it because the last thing they want to do is admit that they screwed up.

So all the own-the-podium stuff aside (and that IS a valid point
of concern) the real question is why these morons didn't figure out
that having an *exposed* steel pole at/near a corner where multiple
crashes had occured was a problem.

---Rsk
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.