Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ohio Emergency Responders Stage Mock Zombie Invasion

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the rick-grimes-appoved dept.

Government 219

destinyland writes "An Ohio Emergency Management Agency staged a mock zombie attack using more than 225 volunteers dressed as zombies at an Ohio college. 'Organizers hoped the theme would attract more volunteers than previous simulations of industrial accidents or train crashes,' the AP reports, quoting a spokesman for the agency as saying that 'People got zombie fever here in Delaware.' The exercise included decontamination procedures for hazardous materials, and was inspired by an 'emergency preparedness' post on the CDC web site citing the popular fascination with zombies. Now, 'Dozens of agencies have embraced the idea,' the AP reports, 'spreading the message that if you're prepared for a zombie attack, you're prepared for just about anything.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Zombies in Ohio... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886174)

Based on what I see in the news, is it safe to assume that all Zombies from Ohio are orange instead of the usual green?

Re:Zombies in Ohio... (5, Informative)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886504)

They do that as a safety precaution. If an actual zombie uprising happens to occur during the exercise, they need to be able to discern real zombies from fake ones, so they make the fake ones orange. It's standard emergency preparedness exercise protocol.

Re:Zombies in Ohio... (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886522)

They do that as a safety precaution. If an actual zombie uprising happens to occur during the exercise, they need to be able to discern real zombies from fake ones, so they make the fake ones orange. It's standard emergency preparedness exercise protocol.

Can we still decapitate the orange ones, as an additional safety precaution? After all we could have a real zombie masquerading as a fake one...

Re:Zombies in Ohio... (2)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887340)

Or fake zombies BECOMING real ones!

Re:Zombies in Ohio... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37887116)

surely theres no difference its Ohio the transition between life and death isnt noticeable.

Re:Zombies in Ohio... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37887494)

It's due to the way we make meth here. We're not real picky about

13.9% increase in zombie titles (4, Interesting)

destinyland (578448) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886240)

Another interesting random statistic: The number of zombie ebooks in Amazon's Kindle store has increased by 13.9% since September. (Which is now four times as many zombie books as are in the library of Congress.) http://www.beyond-black-friday.com/2011/10/29/how-zombies-conquered-the-kindle/ [beyond-black-friday.com]

Re:13.9% increase in zombie titles (-1, Troll)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886470)

Possibly this indicator points to a Republican president in 2012 (or FEAR of a Republican president)?

Zombies/Vampires for Republicans/Vampires [signonsandiego.com]

Re:13.9% increase in zombie titles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886706)

Outrage! Why aren't more of my tax dollars being spent on zombie awareness at the federal level?

I'd like to see the CDC freeway sign (4, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886250)

Suggesting that every household have a machete and a shotgun.

Re:I'd like to see the CDC freeway sign (3, Informative)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886680)

Never happen. For many families in these tough economic times, it's usually a choice between the two. The CDC knows this.

Re:I'd like to see the CDC freeway sign (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887354)

And they're the lucky ones. In the rest of the country they've run out of machete's and they have to chose between a shotgun and ammo!

Re:I'd like to see the CDC freeway sign (0)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887392)

Shotguns are completely overrated anyway. Everyone knows when the undead horde start rushing, the last thing you want to do is fire a few shells and then have to reload. Dual machetes seems the much more logical choice.

AP: 'People got zombie fever here in Delaware" (2)

vaporland (713337) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886252)

Damn - we're too late - it's already started.

How far is this zombie fever outbreak from the Monroeville Mall [deadohio.com] in Pennsylvania where George Romero filmed "Dawn Of The Dead"?

If someone has 'zombie fever', go for the double-tap.

For their next performance (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886254)

Here is a list of proposals for their next training exercises (all are scary):

* an alien invasion
* earth core cooling, stopping and disrupting the magnetic field
* a tear in time continuum
* the Sun exploding
* ghosts
* Richard Nixon
* Obama winning the second term
* One of (Bachmann, Perry, Romney, Jizzbucke.... Santorum, Gingrich, Cain) becoming POTUS

Re:For their next performance (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886292)

One of (Bachmann, Perry, Romney, Jizzbucke.... Santorum, Gingrich, Cain) becoming POTUS

You forgot to mention the possibility* of Ron Paul becoming president, which is even more terrifying for the emergency responders. After all, Ron Paul would pretty well gut the civil emergency response systems, which would leave the responders - if any remained at that point - to then have to figure out which properties and people were properly covered for emergency assistance. They would spend more time trying to figure out whether or not to put out a fire than they would likely spend actually fighting said fire.

*Thankfully, we all know that Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Just because he gets enormous and highly vocal support on slashdot and other right-wing sites on the web doesn't mean that he could ever get the votes he needs to win a nomination, let alone the white house itself.

Re:For their next performance (3, Insightful)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886356)

Pretty sure he'd just remove the federal level CERS, though as a more low priority objective. And even then, states would do a better job.

Re:For their next performance (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886360)

I left out Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on principle that they are the only people that will address the underlying fundamental issues, everybody else in that race is a zombie for the undead party (both, one and the same).

Ron Paul would bring US troops home, the National Guard as well and would cut militarist costs by hundreds of billions and would cut 1 Trillion in spending in the first year with the goal of balancing the budget in 3 years and with the goal of getting rid of the Fed and restoring liberty.

There is nothing better that anybody else either proposes or would do (well, I think Gary Johnson has good ideas too, but he won't get nominated, they don't acknowledge him at all.)

You THINK Ron Paul has no chance of winning, but we'll see. AFAIC you are wrong, and we'll see how the next steps goes - the Register as a Republic Bomb [facebook.com] to make sure that Ron Paul is nominated. The biggest hurdle in front of Ron Paul is not Borat Chubaka, because Borat is a plant by the military industrial complex and by big pharma and by the banking and insurance industries.

Re:For their next performance (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886474)

Ron Paul would bring US troops home, the National Guard as well and would cut militarist costs by hundreds of billions and would cut 1 Trillion in spending in the first year with the goal of balancing the budget in 3 years and with the goal of getting rid of the Fed and restoring liberty.

Good job completely avoiding the topic at hand. How does your favorite candidate's plan to bring home the troops make any difference for emergency responders?

It's doesn't, of course. And being as Ron Paul would slash the emergency response budget as well, the responders are screwed over even more if Ron Paul is elected than if nothing changes.

The biggest hurdle in front of Ron Paul is not Borat Chubaka

Oh, how cute. Most conservative idiots just try to link Obama to the middle east or Islam. Instead you want people to think he is a Star Wars Wookie from Kazakhstan? Yeah, that makes perfect sense if you're on heavy drugs.

is a plant by the military industrial complex and by big pharma and by the banking and insurance industries

As opposed to what other president that we've had in the US in the past several decades?

Re:For their next performance (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886632)

Good job completely avoiding the topic at hand. How does your favorite candidate's plan to bring home the troops make any difference for emergency responders?

- National Guard would come home AND money would be available in case of real emergencies.

Oh, how cute. Most conservative idiots just try to link Obama to the middle east or Islam. Instead you want people to think he is a Star Wars Wookie from Kazakhstan? Yeah, that makes perfect sense if you're on heavy drugs.

- no, I just like the SOUND of it:

Just say it outloud: BORAT CHUBAKA.

It really sounds better than his name.

By the way, it's on the record in this site (I can find the links), I don't believe in any of the nonsense about Obama, he is whatever, it doesn't matter to me one bit. His mother is a US citizens, so is he. He says he is Christian, good for him. I am an ATHEIST. I don't care.

As opposed to what other president that we've had in the US in the past several decades?

- PRECISELY.

--

Now, tell me this: are you sympathetic to the OWS demand that the banks stop having special privileges with the government? Are you against special privileges that the banks have, with all that money?

If you say 'YES', then you are a hypocrite. You are against some special privileges but you are for other special privileges.

FEMA is no better than the banks, it's all moral hazard, it's all fake insurance and it's all financed by theft (either via taxes or via inflation - printing or via future taxes - borrowing).

To me the banks getting bail outs or the victims of natural disasters getting bail outs - SAME DEAL. They all have moral hazard provided by government and they all get bailed out with theft. They all should go out of business and they all should have private insurance and be regulated by market regulations, not gov't bullshit.

if you say 'NO' - then I can understand your position. You like big gov't, you are with all this spending, you are fine with borrowing, taxing income, printing and inflating money, then your position is NOT hypocritical, but it is the WRONG position.

--

As to whether Ron Paul has no chance. Whatever. Let [chron.com] us [politico.com] look [libertymaven.com] at the facts [ronpaul.com] .

Ron Paul is pulling in millions from tiny donations, he pulled in 8 million [dailypaul.com] in the third quarter of 2011. He is steady at 11-15% support.

He just won another straw poll in Iowa [cnn.com] with 82% out of 430 voters.

In the Iowa voters result, Paul took 82%. Following him were Herman Cain with 14.7%, Rick Santorum with 1%, Newt Gingrich with 0.9%, Michele Bachmann with 0.5%, Rick Perry with 0.5%, Gary Johnson with 0.2%, with Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman 0%.

for non-Iowans who voted he ALSO won:

In the tally of non-Iowans who voted, Paul won 26% followed by Cain at 25%, Perry and Santorum tied at 16%, Gingrich at 11%, Bachmann at 6%, Romney at 1%, and Huntsman and Johnson with 0%.

See, that's called COMMITMENT. You think it takes a majority to win? It takes a group of dedicated people acting as one and not sitting on their asses.

Re:For their next performance (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886806)

Hopefully you won't suffer the moral or actual hazard of discovering the difference between the government spending money to save a bunch of greedy fools from themselves and the government providing aid to people in dire need.

Re:For their next performance (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886898)

Whatever the pretense is, the outcome is necessarily the same: destruction of liberties, destruction of rights to property, destruction of economy through destruction of money by the policy of inflation.

For the monopoly of FEDERAL government, the only solution is to allow the market work, regardless of the circumstances.

The problems that can and do occur locally are dealt with by State and municipal governments and private insurance.

Federal government getting into this only creates the moral hazard for all parties involved. Some say that States can't handle it - that' because of all the money that the federal government is stealing, both through taxes and through inflation.

Taxes are current and taxes are future, future taxes are created when gov't steals from the future by spending something it doesn't have and thus by financing it with debt. Debt has to be repaid, and so that's a tax obligation + interest.

The federal government has a special role, it is not to look after the sick and the poor. It is to look after the LIBERTY - individual liberty of persons. Individual freedoms and liberties and border protection.

There are no circumstances under which federal government must be 'providing aid to people in dire need' - this is a State issue, it's a municipal issue it's a local issue and in most cases it should be a private issue of charity.

Re:For their next performance (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887086)

For the monopoly of FEDERAL government

Wait, what? As opposed to... state governments? UN One World Lizard-People in Black Helicopters Government?* What is the point of your distinction? All government (state, in political science terms) is a monopoly, by definition and necessity. Why is the US federal government special? This is what I never can understand about US libertarianism. If government is inherently destructive to liberty (I agree), if government is inherently at the root of corporate malfeasance (I think I agree), if government is all of the bad things US libertarians say... then when the proposal is to gut the US federal government and, implicitly or explicitly, bolster US state governments, all of your work is still ahead of you. Again, what makes the US federal government special? Or, what makes the states special? * It's a joke. I'm not trying to imply you're one of those fools. Unless you are, in which case... whatever, it's not relevant

Re:For their next performance (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887168)

Why is the US federal government special?

- because it's one and it can set one monopoly law, while in reality it is up to States to decide such things, and people in States can decide against setting government laws as well, but it is important to make the distinction on what the federal government is allowed and is not authorized to do.

We are not talking about elections of State governors, right? This is about the presidential situation here.

Re:For their next performance (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887284)

because it's one and it can set one monopoly law, while in reality it is up to States to decide such things

This is precisely what I am asking about. Why is it better to have "state" monopolies than "federal" monopolies?

and people in States can decide against setting government laws as well, but it is important to make the distinction on what the federal government is allowed and is not authorized to do

Why? What difference does it make? If a state passes an unjust law, how is that preferable to an unjust federal law? If you will say that it's better because those out of jurisdiction of the state aren't (necessarily) affected, the same logic applies to the federal jurisdiction, and what, we throw the people in that state under the bus?

We are not talking about elections of State governors, right? This is about the presidential situation here.

I don't know what you're talking about; I'm talking about the US libertarian preference for state power over federal power. It's completely bewildering, and I'm asking what its basis is, other than that it was one system among many proposed by a handful of people a couple hundred years ago.

Re:For their next performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37887382)

Except it's NOT up to the states to decide such things, nor should it be.

The states have consistently proven to be more corrupt and corruptible in their governance than the feds ever have. And many problems are best handled on a national level.

Perhaps the best solution would be the elimination of the redundant state level of government completely, and simply districting the country, with absolutely no regard for the old state lines. But since that would require a constitutional amendment, it's more realistic to work within the existing system and simply federalize as much of government as possible.

Re:For their next performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37887016)

Just say it outloud: BORAT CHUBAKA.

Right now, Chewbacca(had to look that up) would make a fair improvement as a transitionary President over Obama's bought and paid for ineptness - oh wait Obama is bush-league!

Re:For their next performance (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37887186)

You just showed how clueless you are. If you cannot tell the difference between a government agency whose purpose is ultimately answerable to the people, versus a bank whose masters are likely some guys out of UAE, then you are an absolute idiot.

Ron Paul is a vocal mouthpiece of the far right. He wants the rest of the US to be as behind the civilized world as the health care system. No fire engines, no police, no roads that are not tolled, polluted streams and air. What he wants is another serfdom, where if you can afford your own police/fire/EMS or have the biggest guns, you will do OK, but if a person loses a job then has a heart attack, they are expected to die right there.

Re:For their next performance (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886636)

Good job completely avoiding the topic at hand. How does your favorite candidate's plan to bring home the troops make any difference for emergency responders?

They would be available to deal with zombies, thus alleviating the emergency responders from having to deal with it.

Re:For their next performance (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886688)

Too much logic was applied in your comment. Your account is pending suspension now since you have been identified as dangerous to the State. Please wait by the door as the Feeling Beautiful Inside reprocessing agency members are coming to help you with your problem, have a bag with 2 pairs of clean underwear with you, nothing else please.

Re:For their next performance (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887096)

Also, you'd probably do your candidate and position more favors (which, despite some misgivings, I genuinely want you to do!) without this kind of paranoid hyperbole. Face it, while libertarian principles are certainly not respected in our society as it stands, you are not uniquely victimized by an Orwellian nightmare state simply for explaining your position on Internet message boards. You have a real struggle to fight. Try to take it seriously enough not to look like a fool.

Re:For their next performance (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886616)

'There is nothing better that anybody else either proposes or would do ....'

That's really sad :(

Re:For their next performance (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886678)

True, it is sad. In place of a president I would not only cut all wars and bring everybody home. I would slash federal gov't spending to 0.1% of what it is now. Wars, all subsidies to all businesses, SS, Medicare, Medicaid all gone in a second. 99% of all gov't employees, contractors gone. I wouldn't wait for attrition to work its way through, there is NO time to wait for that.

Federal reserve - shut down. All actors of the scam investigated and jailed, don't care about the time limits on any of the crimes. This includes federal and State bureaucrats and bank officials.

All unelected offices shut down. All of them immediately (all multi letter agencies, all departments, whatever exists). Everybody goes home and starts looking around at the REAL people and how they live and start thinking about retooling and re-establishing themselves as useful members of society.

IRS - shut down. No more IRS at all. Only excise taxes are collected - 5% import taxes on the borders, and all products get a 10% tax in the stores. Done.

Federal registry gets a nice slashing back to the levels of 1912. All laws immediately repealed to that level.

I would shock the system, make it regurgitate itself and spill its guts.

Re:For their next performance (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886832)

A lot of people will go hungry and will riot. How do you intend to deal with such a situation. If only there was some kind of emergency response team available.

Re:For their next performance (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886918)

People go hungry and riot when the government destroys the most moral, the most efficient system of creating and distributing wealth - free market capitalism.

This is what the US federal government has been engaged in for near 100 years now. People have a right to riot because the government instead of protecting liberties and freedoms of ALL has been protecting financial gain of SOME by destroying the economy of ALL with all this money counterfeiting, anti-competitive regulations and special dealings, all the corruption.

Re:For their next performance (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886944)

Answer the question. How would YOU deal with several million unemployed federal workers rioting because YOU put them out of a job? Especially since you would have no staff to deal with those rioters.

Re:For their next performance (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887208)

Answer the question. How would YOU deal with several million unemployed federal workers rioting because YOU put them out of a job? Especially since you would have no staff to deal with those rioters.

1. MILLIONS. Therein lies the problem, as it is true, there are near 30,000,000 people working for the government in one capacity or another, most not being elected officials and half not even being direct government employees, but instead being contractors.

2. I would fire them from government immediately and I would immediately slash the federal registry (all the laws and regulations) back to 1912 levels. I would immediately shut down the offices of all the unelected officials. Fed, IRS, FDIC, FBI, CIA, dep't of energy, business, education, agriculture, FEMA, FDA, FAA, EPA, FHA, HUD, etc.etc.etc., all gone.

This is a HUGE burden on the PRODUCTIVE part of the population to have those people sucking on the investment capital of the struggling economy.

This is what WAS DONE in 1921. 70% of gov't budget cut - you don't cut 70% of budget without firing 70% of workers, and they DID IT.

Where there riots? But one thing we do know is that in 1923 the unemployment came DOWN from over 12% to 4%.

As riots - if they riot, that's what National Guard can be used for, and while I'd have all the troops brought home and the National Guard, I wouldn't fire them all in a hurry.

The transition from fascist command economy of today to the free market economy must be protected from all sides - from the banks and the banksters and from rioting crowds.

Re:For their next performance (1)

Jstlook (1193309) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887342)

The problem I see with attitudes like this, is the retaliatory theme. Yes, there is a huge problem. Firing everybody, packing up your bags, and running home (to mommy?) isn't going to solve problems. Hell, you're even firing the people who you're turning to to save you from riots. I'll bet they won't be too enthusiastic about that option.

This also ignores the reality that those government workers are also a "PRODUCTIVE part of the population". They pay their bills, buy things, and go to work just like everyone else. In fact, they have probably even recognized the FUD, and do what is in their power to change that. Unfortunately for us (as Americans), those workers probably don't have much power in their situation, considering the American voters tend to vote in whichever direction has the prettiest slogan.

I'd argue the solution isn't to destroy the government, it should be to take part in your government at a community, state, or federal level and help to change things. The true power of the American society has always been to recognize bad shit happening, to get together despite our differences, and find a solution that helps everyone.

This retaliatory theme that's been bandied about got us into messes like the Great Depression, the Civil War, both World Wars, etc. It's our strength in community that got us out.

Re:For their next performance (3, Interesting)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887458)

So you would sack millions of people and then set armed troops on them when they not unreasonably protest about that. That doesn't sound any less fascistic or extreme. You do realise as well that productive people will lose their jobs as the spending power of 30 million people disappears. In 1921 jobs weren't heading to low wage economies like they are now. I'd be interested to know which government employees you consider to be productive. So far we have the National Guard. Who else?

Re:For their next performance (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37887120)

Bringing the troops home in some places may seriously endanger our national security in the future. Take Korea. No troops means that DPRK doesn't even have to use up their millions of artillery rounds to destroy Seoul -- they would be able to easily overrun the border in minutes to hours. As of now, the response would be immediate. However, if the US had to spend days/weeks getting back there and moving troops/munitions, it is likely that a good chunk of the West's manufacturing capability will be destroyed.

Take Japan. We go home and leave them to do whatever. They WILL militarize. The only reason why China hasn't repaid the carnage done during WWII is because of the US's presence in the region. If that goes away, the Pacific Rim will become a war zone that will make the Middle East look like two raggedy hookers in a bitch slap fest.

Already, China has the ability in 24 hours to completely devastate the West's manufacturing capability. Seoul is a button press from becoming a crater with the sheer amount of DPRK's conventional armaments. Singapore and Taiwan can be overrun in hours. Japan would end up having to surrender again if China decided to send its navy there -- just the threat of another Hiroshima would have Japan part of mainland China due to lack of defenses.

Yes, we can bring the troops home and be isolationist... however we are not living in the 1800s where air flight was limited to hot air balloons and some Frenchmen flying over bridges. Do we want to have troops quietly keeping the peace, or do we want our troops fighting on our home soil at impossible odds with allies either completely neutralized (like Germany and the fact that Russia can kill millions of German citizens by turning off the natural gas lines), or completely overrun.

Ron Paul has an audience, but it is for high school drop outs who have little formal education and who have never understood the concept of "balance of power". Ron Paul would be laughed at if it wasn't for the fact that basic history and civics are not taught anymore. He caters to the stupid with catch phrases and one liners. However, nothing he stands for makes any sense, much less would be a viable foreign or domestic agenda.

Re:For their next performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886620)

Well, at least the National Guard would be in the area of any emergency and not overseas. And yes, Ron Paul will get my vote in the Primary and National elections, as well as a campaign contribution.

Slashdot a "right wing site?" Are you reading the same Slashdot I am?

Re:For their next performance (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886842)

Oh, by the way. You have NO CLUE what a 'right wing' site looks like [freerepublic.com] .

And they HATE [freerepublic.com] , they HATE [freerepublic.com] Ron Paul. They HATE [freerepublic.com] him with passion [freerepublic.com] that you can NEVER [freerepublic.com] understand or deploy. You are incapable of HATING [freerepublic.com] somebody as much as they HATE [freerepublic.com] Ron Paul.

Because he shows them what they really are.

But what are YOU?

Re:For their next performance (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886960)

Do you read anything other than freerepublic.com for news? Perhaps you should step outside your hermetically-sealed bubble and look at what people actually have to say about your idol. Just because a ton of people who think the same way you think (if it could really be counted as thought) claim that 103% of the world's population hates your idol with the heat of a thousand suns does not make it true.

Hell I happen to agree with your idol that the war in Iraq should end yesterday; I have opposed it since it was first proposed by GWB and company, and have opposed it consistently throughout. I just happen to think that your idol is wrong on pretty well every other thing he has ever suggested.

Re:For their next performance (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887220)

I don't actually read their site, but I am quite familiar with their take on Ron Paul, and you don't hold water to their hate. You just don't have it in you, compared to their expression of hate, you are no more than a whiff in the wind.

Re:For their next performance (0, Flamebait)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887276)

and you don't hold water to their hate

First of all, what the hell do you then think your point is?

And second, I never claimed to hate Ron Paul. Just because you worship the ground he walks on does not mean that every sentient being on the planet automatically hates him.

I happen to think he's an idiot, with the exception of his wanting to end the war. But that is a far cry from hating him.

You just don't have it in you, compared to their expression of hate

Congratulations, dumbshit. I have told you numerous times that I do not hate your idol. You finally have almost figured it out for yourself. Apparently you are just as slow as we already figured you to be. Good thing you are only one vote, for a candidate who doesn't have a chance of winning.

Re:For their next performance (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887050)

And while you're at it, could you respond by citing your own slashdot comments (as you often like to do)? After all, once you've already been demonstrated to be clueless on the ramifications of what you are asking for, nothing demonstrates your understanding of reality like citing yourself as a source of information!

/. = right wing? Since When? (3, Insightful)

witherstaff (713820) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886912)

I wouldn't say /. is right wing at all (As currently defined). Libertarian on the philosophy charts is dead center which is where most /. stories show. In general /.ers dislike being tracked by corporations and feds, don't care for government mandated monopolies, actually like science (and understand it), have critical thinking skills (Which politicians of all callings dislike), and want an equal playing field for everyone. They're against corporatism, That means /. does correspond to the personal freedoms of the right wing, maybe the classical libertarian sense. But the being able to think for ourselves, are for more science across all things, believe in peer reviewed things like global warming, openly mock creationism, embrace open source free as in beer, would shred patent laws to something more logical, and has probably shared at least one title on a P2P network in their lifetime is definitely not right wing.

Oh and federal level responders aren't all they're cracked up to be. Forget the utter failure in New Orleans, even the recent wildfires in Texas had FEMA turning away help from the local firefighters. Since 71% of all firefighters in this country are volunteers it shows people are willing to put their lives on the line to help their fellow person without the gov't stepping in.

Re:/. = right wing? Since When? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886996)

I wouldn't say /. is right wing at all

You must not read many comments - or stories - here. The most frequently posted opinions on slashdot are far to the right of 99% of the world.

Libertarian on the philosophy charts is dead center

Not in the way that "libertarian" is applied in the US. Most libertarians in the US are just more conservatives who don't like the label conservative.

Since 71% of all firefighters in this country are volunteers it shows people are willing to put their lives on the line to help their fellow person without the gov't stepping in.

It is one thing to be willing to fight a fire, that isn't that difficult. What is really difficult is to fight a fire with no equipment. Try fighting a fire with no axe, oxygen tank, fire truck, fire hydrant, or water. Those supplies are provided by taxpayer funds in >>99% of all cases. And being as far-right crusaders like Ron Paul want to strip that money away to allow "free market solutions" to take over, it means that many people won't have volunteer fire depts to rely on.

Re:/. = right wing? Since When? (0)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887404)

The most frequently posted opinions on slashdot are far to the right of 99% of the world.

Other than the fact that that's just obvioulsy wrong on the face of it, the real issue is that lefty people who don't like to come right out and say what they think (that productive, creative people should be slaves to people who are not or don't want to bother being so) don't make substantive comments here because those comments are so easily refuted. Instead, they just down-mod what they consider to be too-conservative or libertarian-minded comments, and trot out completely BS statisics in an attempt to persuade non-critical-thinking products of the Nanny State to give them their tepid moral support.

Re:For their next performance (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37887068)

What will happen will exactly like how it was in the 1800s. Your building would have an insurance ID painted on it. This way, the fire responders would see if you had valid insurance or not before firing up the truck.

EMS will be similar -- a transponder will be used in insurance cards, and if it is valid, then they will be permitted to use CPR.

It is sad, that the Bachmann and Ron Paul type even exist, but it just shows the failing of our schools -- anyone who passed US history, government or economics would be laughing at both of them and what they stand for because it just won't work -- history showed that in the late 1800s with the robber barons and laissez faire government.

Re:For their next performance (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886496)

I fail to appreciate your sense of humor. Didn't it strike anyone in the government yet that zombie exercises would be a great way to disguise preparations for countering massive civil unrest? Or does that "dozens of agencies have embraced the idea" exactly mean that it did?

Kill them ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886268)

Are you allowed to kill them ?

I thought this was great... (1)

Shark (78448) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886282)

... until I started factoring in the potential for volunteer head wounds (to put it mildly).

Accurate Simulation? (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886288)

So, it an emergency. You want to prep your team of responders so they do well - but unlikely things always happens. Always the weird, unexpected thing. I would assume that a zombie attack would be a bit like the bird flue - (except a bit faster - the zombie virus vs flue virus - not the zombies themselves?) Is this a valid idea?

Re:Accurate Simulation? (1)

del_diablo (1747634) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886328)

Anti-zombie simulation is basically simulating what happen if the lower classes decide to assault the police. So its a accurate simulation in its own right, for something we don't want.
Its also a simulation of what happens if things get desperate enough, lets say you have 40 cures for a lethal disease and there is 2000 infected people.

Re:Accurate Simulation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886508)

Simulated zombie grade ammunition?

think of children (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886396)

Haven't you seen some adult try to fool children into doing something by billing it as something else then put a thinly veiled theme around it?

Sir, could you be a zombie victim who hasn't died yet? Our EMTs don't know about the invasion at this point so they will need to rescue you.

Mam, you and your friends were shot so much that all you can do is lay on the ground moaning unable to bite anybody...

Hay! I faked biting this cop and he just ignored me and then cuffed me-- he wasn't in character! No cop is going to let a zombie bite them and why would they arrest one instead of shooting it in the head? Whats going on?

Excuse me, why do you have a group of us zombies standing around behind some plastic police tape and a couple barriers when we clearly could get past them? You didn't think this thing out did you? Have you seen a zombie movie?

Re:Accurate Simulation? (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886498)

Chimneys can get a virus?

Yes (1)

vuo (156163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886698)

Bacterial contamination of cooling towers [wikipedia.org] is possible. Bacteria can grow in cooling water, viruses cannot. There was one Legionella outbreak in France.

Re:Yes (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886862)

This is why I come to this site :)

Combined with the Emergency Broadcast System test (3, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886310)

This could have been a hoot and a half, if people actually believed that it was happening, like with Orson Welles' "The War of the Worlds"- Folks driving around in pickups, blasting away at anything that moves with shotguns.

It would certainly get the voters' minds off economic problems.

Re:Combined with the Emergency Broadcast System te (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886442)

That kind of panic really depends on people not having internet and cellphones...

Re:Combined with the Emergency Broadcast System te (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886568)

What part of Ohio were they in? The Amish communities don't have many electronic gadgets...

Real Zombies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886326)

The real zombies are the great grey masses that get up every morning, commute in trafic at work, spend most of their energy there, commute back, eat, watch tv, sleep... rinse and repeat. Vested business interests firmly in control of the governments. Change is mostly for the worst, rarely for the better. You can vote for another party, but it makes no difference in practice. You can try and save money all you want, you will not get ahead. The zombies are the 95%. (Excludes the "famous" 1% and the 4% that are lucky enough to have a job they'd even do for free).

Re:Real Zombies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886756)

So what do you propose people actually do instead of get an education, a job? Sit around... smoke weed... sex... plant a tree... watch it die because you did it wrong... sit...think of things you wont actually do because you don't have the foundation to actually do it....

Get up every morning, commute in trafic at work, spend most of their energy there, commute back, eat, watch tv, sleep... rinse and repeat. Seems like a better option. I like waking up in the morning vs 4 in the aftrenoon. I work because I like to eat good things. I like to sit at a comfortable temp in my apartment. I like watching the history channel on my 50in LCD TV I bought with my own money. I like learning about the world through the internet. And I like sleeping in my comfortable bed in my clean home knowing a wolf wont eat me.

Why Prepare? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886332)

From my thorough research via simulations, there is no need to be prepared. First aid-kits will already be deployed in strategic locations, especially before/after a zombie hoard, as well as significant weapons caches will always be readily available. The only thing you need is a buddy (or three), to fight along side you.

Re:Why Prepare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886460)

b-but, but, my guns are on my counter-strike game and all my buddies' guns also. How do we fight from basements with simulated guns?

Deal with zombies by killing their parents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886454)

The parent processes are supposed to call wait() or waitpid(), but aren't doing their job.

By killing the parents the zombies will be adopted by init, which will call waitpid() so the kernel can recycle them. Maybe Dennis Ritchie had something to do with that.

Oh Bother! (3, Funny)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886466)

And people think Trekkers need to get alife!

Re:Oh Bother! (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886646)

At least zombies don't have slash-fic.

Re:Oh Bother! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886744)

You don't know about rule 34, do you?

Re:Oh Bother! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886836)

Um, did you have to mention that fact? because we now have at least 500 slashdotters going "hmm, zombie slash fic, thats a winner right out of the starting gate", with 50 of them realizing they are getting turned on by the images propagated by this new meme. then again, zombie chicks are sort of hot (well, chicks are sort of hot), and a zombie dude who wants to eat brains but has a conscience... and loves him a nonzombie girl...Hey, steph, there's your new franchise!

Mock Zombie Invasion (2)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886502)

A "mock" zombie invasion?

That's what they want you to think ...

The life cycle of a trend (4, Insightful)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886552)

In case you're wondering when the zombie thing is going to end, here's the lifecycle of stupid trends.

Black people start doing it.
Black people stop doing it because it's not cool any more.
White kids start doing it.
It becomes an Internet meme.
White kids stop doing it.
The media picks it up and doesn't get it.
White kids' parents start doing it.
People write books about it.
Parents stop doing it after their kids tell them how embarrassing it is.
The government and corporate PR start doing it... <=== we are here
And then stop when someone sues them.
It's filed away in a historical record of memes.
People who don't realize they're 20 years late to the party are still trying to do it.

Re:The life cycle of a trend (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886858)

My thoughts regarding this comment, "When did black peop..., oh, Thriller."

Re:The life cycle of a trend (2)

bluemonq (812827) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887290)

Caribbean voodoo, actually.

Re:The life cycle of a trend (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887546)

Caribbean voodoo, actually.

The modern conception of zombies has practically nothing in common with the voodoo version.

Re:The life cycle of a trend (2)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887036)

Bling bliiing! [youtube.com]

Re:The life cycle of a trend (1)

bluemonq (812827) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887282)

Zombies have been around a lot longer than your stupid memes, and they'll still be here long after you're dead. Respect them.

Re:The life cycle of a trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37887500)

Michael Jackson revolves in grave. Ooops

Bored of zombies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886558)

Too overexposed and played out in our culture. Same with vampires.

BTW, what's with the URL, www.limingdrobilka.ru that shows up above the Subject box in the comment dialog? Is it an ad, or has /. beened hacked?

Is every one in on the "test" (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886572)

I would hate to see some slack jawed yokel with a gun out shooting the zombies... (aside form potential loss of life, it would be pretty funny though)

Prepared for just about anything (2)

RNLockwood (224353) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886618)

"'spreading the message that if you're prepared for a zombie attack, you're prepared for just about anything.'"

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Graham Chapman
Monty Python's Flying Circus

Re:Prepared for just about anything (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886988)

Actually they notified you thirty days in advance, so basically everyone expected the Spanish Inquisition.

You would think that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37886662)

Ohio folks are now prepared for just about any kind of invasion after having been faced by 60+ wild animals released by a psycho-suicidal collector AND an attack of orange zombies. Maybe nowadays they could handle a student anti-war protest without killing the protestors

CDC emergency kit (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886690)

From TFA:

First of all, you should have an emergency kit in your house

  • Water (1 gallon per person per day)
  • Food (stock up on non-perishable items that you eat regularly)
  • Medications (this includes prescription and non-prescription meds)
  • Tools and Supplies (utility knife, duct tape, battery powered radio, etc.)
  • Sanitation and Hygiene (household bleach, soap, towels, etc.)
  • Clothing and Bedding (a change of clothes for each family member and blankets)
  • Important documents (copies of your driverâ(TM)s license, passport, and birth certificate to name a few)
  • First Aid supplies (although youâ(TM)re a goner if a zombie bites you, you can use these supplies to treat basic cuts and lacerations that you might get during a tornado or hurricane)

Okay, where is the shotgun/machete/baseball or cricket bat for dispatching zombies? -- I do like Darryl's crossbow on Walking Dead. He can usually retrieve the bolt and it's not hard to make more, and they're silent.

Re:CDC emergency kit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37887528)

Okay, where is the shotgun/machete/baseball or cricket bat for dispatching zombies? -- I do like Darryl's crossbow on Walking Dead. He can usually retrieve the bolt and it's not hard to make more, and they're silent.

This is why I hate zombie movies and TV shows, they are full of bad ideas. A crossbow is a lousy anti-zombie weapon. Poor range, low capacity, single shot, slow to reload.

Get yourself an AR-15 instead. Excellent range, excellent accuracy, good reliability if well-maintained, semi-automatic, high-capacity, and if we're talking zombie head-shots - excellent stopping power. If you have enough ammo, you don't need to be silent.

Or if you're a commie lover, get an AK-47 clone. -accuracy, -price, +reliability.

Shotguns are good for taking a head off, but capacity and rate of fire are suboptimal against zombie swarms.

As for machetes and baseball bats, if you're close enough to use them - you're doing it wrong. Pack a handgun for your backup weapon.

Brought to you by the People Against Dumb Zombie Movie Ideas (PADZMI - yes, we need a better name).

 

Right to bear shotguns... (1)

David_Hart (1184661) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886788)

Does this mean that emergency kits will now come with shotguns and shells?

Re:Right to bear shotguns... (1)

Mateorabi (108522) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886956)

Just and old Winchester that may or may not work. Oh, and also, dogs can't look up.

What's the difference .... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886976)

... between a zombie attack and Occupy Wall Street?

Zombies will "survive" the freezing cold of winter (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887256)

What's the difference between a zombie attack and Occupy Wall Street?

Zombies will "survive" the freezing cold of winter.

Re:What's the difference .... (1, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887308)

Zombies don't defecate on police cars, or store propane, serve food (but not to poor people!) on property where they don't even have a permit to hold the large assemblies that any other group would be fined for holding.

Also, Zombies have a coherent, identifiable purpose beyond simply whining when the cameras show up, if they're not too busy enforcing their own "no-snitch" rules while having under-age girls and drugs in their tents.

Re:What's the difference .... (2)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887398)

Zombies have a goal....

Re:What's the difference .... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37887480)

A zombie attack would get much more favorable coverage on Fox

Why planning for zombies makes sense (1)

TCPhotography (1245814) | more than 2 years ago | (#37886984)

People tend to have basic ideas for acting in natural disasters, but planning for zombie outbreaks adds the advantage of planning for a disease outbreak without the concern in the general public about infectious disease planning. It also gets the planning people to think outside of their usual box. I know it sounds silly, but it's a good exercise to get people thinking about population movements and control, disease spread, natural resource limitations due to deadly agents, overloading of medical response personnel, ect.

Zombie Popularity Theory (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 2 years ago | (#37887270)

Either a) this is just emergent pop culture following its natural life-cycle or

b) There is a subconscious agreement that the breakdown of civilization is a real possibility in the near future. With this in mind (out of mind, whatever), people can prepare for such a horrific event by lightening it up in a more sci-fi manner, when in reality surviving a zombie apocalypse would in all honesty not be that different from a complete breakdown of modern society (minus the brain eating, but in a shortage of food and clean water and no electricity, you would see cannibalism as well). We rationalize it as "if I'm prepared for the zombie apocalypse, I'm prepared for almost anything", and plus it is more mainstream than gloom and doom survivalist chanting 'it's all going to end soon', so people observing your erratic preparations give you a more humorous passing glance than they would otherwise.

Or it is just pop culture.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?