Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Darwin Awards 2006

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the natural-selection-in-action dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 199

ms1234 writes "The year is coming to and end so it is time to see how our genepool is doing. Darwin Awards 2006 includes everything from whacking RPGs with hammers to recreating experiments by Franklin."

cancel ×

199 comments

Fool me twice... (2, Insightful)

rancher dan 3 (960065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416122)

Are these real events or made up ones, like in previous years?

Re:Fool me twice... (3, Insightful)

Elliot_Lin (972399) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416134)

They are real. There wouldn't be lots of point honoring a non-existent person for something they hadn't done.

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

DrunkenTerror (561616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416164)

So where are the actual sources?

Re:Fool me twice... (3, Informative)

schon (31600) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416198)

I'm not sure about the others, but the "Star wars" one happened in early 2005, not 2006 - although whether one person died or not I don't know (last I heard it was just injuries.)

Slashdot covered it here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/24/141225 3 [slashdot.org]

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416520)

Ah, I did seem to recall that that one was older than 2006. Thanks for the link. :)

Re:Fool me twice... (0)

crimson30 (172250) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416200)

They are real. There wouldn't be lots of point honoring a non-existent person for something they hadn't done.

2003 Darwin Awards [snopes.com]
2004 Darwin Awards [snopes.com]
2005 Darwin Awards [snopes.com]

Snopes sounds convincing to me.

Why do people make things up? To see how many people they can fool, perhaps?

Re:Fool me twice... (2, Informative)

lessthan (977374) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416268)

The article linked is to the Darwin Awards website, which verifies all its winners. the articles you linked are for the chain-mails that make the rounds. why did you do this?

Re:Fool me twice... (1, Offtopic)

crimson30 (172250) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416296)

Because I didn't realize there was a difference.

Re:Fool me twice... (4, Informative)

kirun (658684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416530)

You may well have read some article assuming they were the same, there are rather too many "journalists" who get all excited when they think they can steal something off the Internet in place of doing real work. The Darwin Awards aren't the only ones suffering from this problem, the True Stella Awards [stellaawards.com] site often gets listed as the source for the bogus Stella Awards email.

Re:Fool me twice... (5, Informative)

heyitsgogi (959280) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416348)

From snopes.com: The various "Annual Darwin Awards" e-mails (such as the one which is the topic of this article) do not originate with DarwinAwards.com; they are put together by unknown persons. -- snopes asserts that the website is legit.

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417354)

Why do people make things up? To see how many people they can fool, perhaps?
A few months back I received a forwarded email from my parents with the 2006 Darwin Awards. Naturally I was suspicious as not only was it a few months before the end of 2006, but a lot of those stories seemed really familiar. After checking into it, one of them was a Darwin Award from the late 90s, one from early 2000s, and assorted others. So they all were verified Darwin award winners, but someone felt the need to slap together a bunch and make themselves feel important by being the first one to produce the newest 2006 awards. I suppose it's the same cause as why some people make up stories about themselves that never happened. I don't get it either.
 

Re:Fool me twice... (1, Flamebait)

drsquare (530038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416846)

There wouldn't be lots of point honoring a non-existent person for something they hadn't done.

Tell that to Christians at Easter.

Re:Fool me twice... (1, Flamebait)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416998)

yeah and to Muslims.. all the time.. crap thats gonna warrant a jihad isnt it?

Re:Fool me twice... (3, Funny)

CommunistHamster (949406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417234)

No, just a fatwa. Don't worry.

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

jascat (602034) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417334)

Here I go playing into a troll...

Well, considering jihad means effort or endeavors against man's own self and to work hard to do right things, then yes, it does warrant a jihad to correct your improper use of the term.

Re:Fool me twice... (2, Informative)

El Torico (732160) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416206)

Apparently the one about the drowning Pastor is. This is from the World Net Daily of August 30, 2006 [worldnetdaily.com] ,

Pastor Franck Kabele, 35, told his congregation he could repeat the biblical miracle, and he attempted it from a beach in Gabon's capital of Libreville. "He took his congregation to the beach saying he would walk across the Komo estuary, which takes 20 minutes by boat. He walked into the water, which soon passed over his head and he never came back."

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

El Torico (732160) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416252)

Check that; I realized the quality of the source I referred to, so I went back to find a more reputable source. All of the pages I found use the same article and don't refer to a reputable first source.

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417452)

This guy [sptimes.ru] really should've been on the list.

Lightsabre fuel duels (4, Informative)

CdBee (742846) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416266)

I can warrant for this one, it happpened 100 metres from my house in Hertfordshire, UK

Re:Lightsabre fuel duels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416664)

I know the girl was very seriously hurt, but my understanding is that neither of them died. Do you know if this should be a Darwin award or just an honorable mention?

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

aj1 (935405) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416288)

I've seen more believable chain letters than many of these articles.

Let's review

We have a pastor who wanted to prove to the world he could walk on water and attempts to make the walk to prove this... WITHOUT INVITING ANYONE who obviously knew how to swim. Hey he's supposed to sink first right, and then arise like a submarine surfacing fast?

Or we have the man who missed his stop, forced open the doors, and leaps from the moving car to his death. Since he didn't talk to anyone I would love to know which psychic aboard knew what he was thinking. Personally, if the story is true (very big if), it sounds more like suicide.

You have the electrician playing next to power lines. You have references without actual links (good luck finding the story). And the list goes on...

Re:Fool me twice... (3, Interesting)

drxenos (573895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416312)

Well, the paster story was in various newspapers. Maybe the guy on the train yelled, "Oh shit, I missed my stop!" As for the electrician, I know a very good one with over 30 yrs experience, who whole-heartedly believes its possible to create dynamos (he believes that if you power something, such as a car, with a battery and use said device to recharge the battery, it will run forever).

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416502)

You are right about that. They know the NEC inside and out, but they aren't so strong on the physics side of it usually.

I spent 15 minutes explaining to electricians how a plasma ball might be sustained (for a little while at least) by 1500amp mains shorting out, but I don't think they ever believed me.

The question arose because we blew all 3 phases' 1500 amp fuses when we shorted out what appeared to be two phases' busbars. My theory was that the two phases shorting out caused enough sustained plasma (for a few dozen/hundred milliseconds at least) to touch and short out out the third phase's busbar as well as well.

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

PatrickThomson (712694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416834)

he believes that if you power something, such as a car, with a battery and use said device to recharge the battery, it will run forever

Nitpick: if the car was electric, then yes, that's retarded. However, this is the norm for petrol or diesel powered cars.

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417088)

Nitpick: batteries degrade after time.

Re:Fool me twice... (2, Interesting)

drxenos (573895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417110)

Yes, which is why I said *electric*. By the way, he also believes that if you had a boat with two powerful magnets as opposites ends, it would move without need for power. I cannot convince him that since since they are physically connected (by the boat), that they form a closed system and would not move the boat.

Re:Fool me twice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17417412)

Yes, which is why I said *electric*.
nitpick: No, you didn't say that. You said an electrician said that about a car. You didn't say an electric car. Although you may have been thinking it at the time, it helps to actually write it into your post.
 

Re:Fool me twice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416924)

who whole-heartedly believes its possible to create dynamos

Right, because as we all know, dynamos just magically appear out of thin air.

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

drxenos (573895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417132)

Right, because as we all know, dynamos just magically appear out of thin air.

I don't understand your comment. Dynamos can't be made anymore than they could "magically appear."

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417214)

You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means. Dynamo means roughly "generator", at least in the context of conversations with electricians. You seems to think it means "perpetual motion machine", which is a usage I've never seen before.

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

drxenos (573895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417298)

Well, either the usage is different in your part of the world, or it has changed since I took college phsyics (many, many years). Wikipedia seems to agree with you, but when I took physics in college, the professor used "dynamo" to mean a machine that continuously generated enough power to operate itself, with a surplus.

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

jfeldredge (1008563) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417494)

Your professor was using a non-standard definition. Dynamo is a common term for electric generators, particularly the large units used in generating stations to convert mechanical energy (such as from an engine or hydraulic turbine) into electricity. They aren't perpetual motion machines, however; some energy is lost as heat, so the electrical energy output is less than the mechanical energy input.

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

drxenos (573895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417550)

Well, it could also be that I am miss remembering after all these years! Or (more likely), it was one of those days I was only paying half attention and he jumped topics on me. Either there way, my use of "dynamo" in my original post was my usage, not my electrician friend. He described a hand off of perpetual motion devices that he seriously believed worked. Besides that, he was a great electrician. Still, I cannot believe I have been using that word wrong all these years...sigh.

Re:Fool me twice... (2, Insightful)

GrumpySimon (707671) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416314)

Yeah - this is the problem with these, they sound far too urban-legend-y to be true. The stories do have a "Confirmed True by Darwin" note, but I only counted ONE that backed things up with a link to a newspaper story.

With things like google news, it's certainly not hard to find five or six million versions of the same article, so until they do this, the Darwin awards are just a collection of mildly funny stories that happened to someone's Aunt's cousin twice removed. ( Seriously - one of them starts with "I am 14, and I know this is a true story..." -- WTF? ).

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

GrumpySimon (707671) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416360)

Ok. Make that ONE with a link, and two referencing "BBC News" or "MSNBC.com", i.e. useless.

I believe! (4, Informative)

beaverfever (584714) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416386)

They do claim these are true stories. I can attest for at least one of them [darwinawards.com] . The 1996 silly-sad tale of the lawyer jumping against the windows in the skyscraper office where he worked was in many Toronto news sources at the time. Where this event occurred is a very busy area, so there were plenty of witnesses.

It was later that same year when I heard of the Darwin awards, as someone mentioned that this well-known story was nominated.

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

Ikcor (676683) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416436)

> I am 14, and I know for a fact this story is true.

With attribute such as this, how can you not be sure?

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416696)

>Are these real events or made up ones, like in previous years?

Whatever else they are, they're not particularly amusing/shocking or well written. Boring and piteous.

Let's nominate the Darwin Awards an honorary spot this year by virtue of having shot themselves fatally in the foot.

Re:Fool me twice... (1)

cosmol (143886) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417036)

If they are made up they should be much more entertaining.

If they are real they should list their sources and specific information. Instead they read like a chain-email, "I am 14 and know this to be true" WTF!

I agree, Boring and piteous indeed!

Real as real can be. (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416162)

...although the reaction to some of these should be: "get real".

Fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416176)

I borrowed the book from the library. There was a scene where a snake coiled itself up around a gun someone dropped and then accidentally pulled the trigger and shot the guy. Just earlier, the man tried throwing the gun at the snake because he ran out of ammo.

Re:Fake -- Not! (4, Informative)

SteveM (11242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416254)

The story you are refering to is on page 36 of my copy. References to eight news sources are given for the story. And the story says nothing of the gun being unloaded. It does say that the man was tryign to pin the snakes head with the butt of the gun to catch it alive.

The book lists stories in four categories, Darwin Awards, Honorable Mentions, Urban Legends, and Personal Accounts. Stories in the first two categories "are known or believed to be true". Urban legends "should be understood as the fables they are". Personal Accounts "are plausible but usually unverified". The also rates each of the first two categories as Confirmed by Darwin, meaning multiple credile sources, or Unconfimred by Darwin, for stories believed to be true but with fewer or unverifialbe sources. (Quotes from pages six and seven of The Darwin Awards.)

SteveM

true (almost darwin) story... (5, Interesting)

udderly (890305) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416196)

A friend of mine, who steadfastly refuses to read instructions, was assembling his new wet saw (used for cutting ceramic tile)), when I arrived at his house to help install the tile. A wet saw usually has a diamond coated blade similar to a circular saw (but without teeth), and a water reservoir and pump to cool the blade. The pump obviously has an electric cord, which is usually routed by or through the water reservoir.

Because he hadn't read the directions he had routed the pump's electric cord IN FRONT OF THE SAW BLADE, and it would have been cut in two and dropped into the water pan when he started up the saw. What's more, he had it plugged into a 30-amp circuit. Luckily for him, I saw how he had put the saw together before he fired it up.

The scary thing? He still won't read the instructions.

Re:true (almost darwin) story... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416394)

Thanks for nothing. Let's hope his next fuckup kills himself...uh, I mean doesn't kill anyone else.

Re:true (almost darwin) story... (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416452)

It probably wouldn't have killed him. He'd need new pants though if that 30 amp circuit arced in front of him.

Re:true (almost darwin) story... (1)

tsajeff (925056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417122)

I think that it qualifies for a Darwin Award if he removes his ability to reproduce but continues living.

Not so well... (-1, Troll)

fireproofjew (1042650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416204)

Our gene pool can't be doing too well if people routinely add a "d" to the end of "an".

Re:Not so well... (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416290)

Agreed. After all, the ability to spell is oh so important when determining someone's intelligence.

Re:Not so well... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416620)

u r so rite man !! i tel meh teecha it alla time

"Stuff that matters" (3, Insightful)

chia_monkey (593501) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416278)

Ah yes, Slashdot, the source of news for nerds and stuff that matters.

What would be really nice and noteworthy is if we could actually let Darwinism take its course. You just have to love how current laws and modern medicine continuously allow these people to live in our society, not only endangering themselves but also endangering the rest of society. "Only the strong survive" just isn't applicable anymore.

Re:"Stuff that matters" (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416430)

Be careful what you wish for. 2005 has an account of a winner who believed similarly [darwinawards.com] .

Re:"Stuff that matters" (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417062)

actually, I don't see how this applies, in the incident you quoted the person was against seatbelt laws because he thought that he knew better, and was also stupid enough not to wear one, it is the second category, and not the first that earned him the darwin award. I too can see the value in not forcing people to wear seatbelts (from the darwin perspective) in that it encourages those who aren't smart enough to see that they are a good idea to get themselves out of the gene pool. however the smarter ones will wear the seatbelt even if the law were not in place to force it (such as myself who is NEVER in a moving vehicle without wearing my seatbelt) the 2 statments are not at odds with each other, but only one of the 2 categories will get you a Darwin award.

Re:"Stuff that matters" (1)

MP3Chuck (652277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416438)

""Only the strong survive" just isn't applicable anymore."

Perhaps, but if the Darwin Awards prove anything it's that the truly foolish still manage to sort themselves out! ;)

Re:"Stuff that matters" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17417512)

No, it proves that some fools take care of themselves, not necessarily all. Honestly, in a thread of Darwin worship, I expect impeccible science.

Fool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416570)

"current laws and modern medicine" ??

Ok, so now what do you mean? "modern medicine" ? The less healthy have nothing to contribute to society? A person who's life was saved by antibiotics is incapable of inventing something that improves our quality of life and survivability?

Similarly, by "current laws", I'll assume you mean seatbelt type laws? You may feel this only causes certain less intelligent to dies(though that's not true). However the less intellectual folks among us (am I talking to you?) may contribute something too .. such as being kind to others, helping to build stuff, doing all the actual real work, etc.

Our strength as a species is enhanced by our ability to help others survive.

This must be true in the case of other species too, because even buffalo sometimes attempt daring rescues of their "weak" from the jaws of predators (you didnt know this?).

Now if you weren't darwinally weak yourself you'd probably have known this already.

Anyway, I don't want to over argue this point .. because quite frankly .. what if you're right? So next time you get sick maybe will you be avoiding modern medicine? After all, your view is that you'll be doing your species (clowns?) a favor. I'll personally nominate you for a Darwin award.

Re:Fool. (4, Interesting)

chia_monkey (593501) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416660)

No point in arguing, but I will clarify. For the "modern medicine", I'm not speaking of the sick and weak but more specifically dealing with the people that do dumb things that result in shooting themselves in the face or drinking themselves to oblivion and then being fixed up in the hospital. Same goes with smokers (disclaimer: both my parents smoke and my grandmother passed from lung cancer two years ago)...people smoke knowing it's going to kill them sooner than they would naturally die yet they do it and then the hospitals and keep them living, allowing the smokers to not only fill their own lungs with a cancerous death but also those non-smokers around them.

"Current laws"...one could argue helmet laws. Other laws that diminish our intelligence are all the disclaimers we have to put on everything now. "Do not stick fork in eye", "coffee is hot", etc. If someone doesn't have the common sense not to stick their hand in a blender while it is on, they probably should learn a lesson one way or the other.

I by no means want people to get hurt. It just pains me to see common sense going down the drain...and the people with lack of common sense being "rewarded" with lawsuits that pay them for their lack of common sense.

Re:Fool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17417414)

No point in arguing, but I will clarify. For the "modern medicine", I'm not speaking of the sick and weak but more specifically dealing with the people that do dumb things that result in shooting themselves in the face or drinking themselves to oblivion and then being fixed up in the hospital.


What about shooting themselves in the testicle [darwinawards.com] ?

Okay okay.. it's an urban legend.. but it made me laugh.. and cringe just a bit.

let Darwinism take its course (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416598)

Is that like letting gravity take its course?

Re:"Stuff that matters" (3, Interesting)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417552)

You are missing a crucial aspect of Darwinism if you quote, "Only the strong survive".

The species is lost if there is only one survivor; or even two, three, etc.

The full implication of Darwinism is best captured by, "From a diverse pool of candidates, only the strong thrive."

Right now the effect of current law and modern medicine is to increase the diversity of our gene pool. We now have untold genetic richness what with decreasing disease and infant mortality and high levels of inter-racial mixing. When (not if) a catastrophe occurs we will have a sufficiently rich gene pool to survive such a catastrophe.

Such as, for example, an airborne AIDs epidemic. Until it happens no one (not even you) can predict which gene sequences and which individuals will survive. That is why it is good for as many people to exist before such an event occurs.

RPG? (5, Funny)

Wormbrain (985287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416294)

"whacking RPGs with hammers.."

Here I am thinking one of my favorite MMOs got nerfed. I need to get out more.

Re:RPG? (3, Funny)

amper (33785) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417114)

And here I am, trying to figure out how one could possibly get killed by whacking a D&D set with a hammer...

OK, maybe if you gave a d8 a hard enough glancing blow, it might shoot off at a bizarre angle, blast right through your eye, and lodge in your brain?

Re:RPG? (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417262)

No, no, not the brain - you don't have to kill yourself to get a Darwin award, you know.

Whacking RPG (3, Funny)

stesch (12896) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416404)

On my AS/400 job I wanted to whack RPG with a hammer, too.

Just malicious (4, Insightful)

badzilla (50355) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416408)

I know I'll get flamed but will say it anyway - I think this site is just plain cruel to take the piss out of people who have had severe accidents with fatal results. Especially as things ain't always what they seem, such as the side-splitting hilarious story of Vietnamese bomb-rollers who got blown up. According to TFA they know perfectly well it is dangerous but are forced to do it anyway because they are starving and get a few cents if they can reclaim the scrap metal.

Your name is "badzilla?" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416524)

How can you call yourself badzilla and NOT think the stories are funny ;-)

Humorous reminders need not be malicious (1, Insightful)

dfoulger (1044592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416566)

I have a very good friend who, despite knowing all the reasons why she shouldn't, smokes. This years "Stubbed Out" made an impression. If the effect is to get one person to stop smoking (or doing other really stupid things like igniting gasoline in florescent tubes), they server a valuable social function.

Re:Humorous reminders need not be malicious (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416690)

Valuable social function? And that's for you YOU to decide, hm? Did ever occur to you that non-smokers sound exceedingly stupid in all this self righteous sillyness? Yeah, didnt think so. I might continue smoking just to piss you off...

Besides, making fun off these accidents IS disgusting as is your i'm-a-better-person-cause-i-don't-smoke-smart-ass attempt at justifying it. And now fuck off.

Re:Humorous reminders need not be malicious (1)

dfoulger (1044592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417158)

So good of you to maintain your composure. A true sign of arguing from logic rather than emotion. Forget self-righteousness. I might die tomorrow when a car hits my bicycle in New York City. Death happens. I'd prefer that it happened less quickly than it probably will for my friend, but she'll die eventually no matter what. If you want to commit slow motion suicide its your business. Justify it any way you want. Smoke as many packs a day as you want. Deep fry your food in trans-fats. Just don't shorten my life with it. That, in the end, is what the public bans are about ... hurting other people.

Re:Humorous reminders need not be malicious (1, Interesting)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417218)

You spend too much time in server closets.

....they server a valuable social function.

I imagine that as a non-smoker, smoking annoys you. Fine. Your pretentious self-righteous rhetoric annoys me, but the First Amendment states you have your say. You want to gripe about the evils of second-hand smoke. Fine. I'm not arguing the simple fact that inhaling fine particulate matter isn't healthy. I've lost family to cancer. I've also had 80-year old grandmothers that smoke daily, and get around better than someone half their age. It's a risky individual choice that may not be seen as "proper" {like face-piercing, tongue- or penis-splitting, etc,] but I'll be damned if I'll listen to some pink-lunged ninny lecture me on my life choices. I'll leave you with a thought:

I live in San Antonio, and a little while back we were about to lose some federal funds due to some smog. Well, the local politicos all hit the air, and the suggestions ran from car-pooling to taking the bus to switching to electric mowers and only mowing on certain days, etc. In every smog scenario I'd heard, cars and industry were the problem. Well, riddle me this: Why weren't smokers included?

[BTW, a lame "well, because they knew smokers wouldn't quit smoking" WILL be countered with "..and die-hard yuppies will NOT give up their H3s," so PLEASE choose another line.]

Re:Humorous reminders need not be malicious (1)

dfoulger (1044592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417372)

Good catch. Spell checking can only reduce the effects of dyslexia so much. I don't, however, spend any time at all in server closets (all my servers are under my desk).

Seriously, though, San Antonio does have its problems, including politicians who don't take the problems of the cities rapid growth seriously. I just stayed in a hotel downtown for a week, and it appears that, at this point, most of the city inside the inner beltway could be productively razed and replaced with a theme park. It makes the Bronx, at its worst, look upscale by comparison.

It still doesn't make anything (except maybe having clean air to breath) you address an issue of civil liberties.

Topic dyslexia (1)

dfoulger (1044592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417430)

Apologies for the civil liberties reference (a hangover from the "Bill of Wrongs" article. Smoking has come up as an issue in both discussions.

Its quite relevant in this discussion because of the rather direct and extreme effect on the individual who self-ignited. Both self-ignition and self-nomination for a Darwin award are certainly protected civil liberties. ;-)

Re:Just malicious (1)

shlepp (796599) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416714)

I don't know about you, but i find amusement in reading about people dieing doing retarded things that wouldn't be done with a gram of common sense. With the rolling the bomb down the hill, if they where any sort of experts they would have disarmed and dismantled it and would be alive and have money and maybe even made money from selling the explosives as well.

Re:Just malicious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416830)

Of course they're poor. They live in a communist country.

Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416512)

The Star Wars Dawrin Award has popped up all over the 'net in various forms over the years. I call shenanigans. Anonymous-san...I mean, shit, wrong site. AC is not pleased.

The Slashdot reader Darwin award. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416574)

So, anyways, New Years Eve, there's this guy, right, and, well... let's call him Charles just for the hell of it. Anyway, "Charles", stayed at home on New Years Eve reading Slashdot. He found it so enjoyable that "Charles" continued reading Slashdot every day. After his discovery, Charles never went to any parties, never got drunk, never got laid, never socialized. Charles has been removed from the gene pool. Thanks Slashdot for another Darwin winner!

Re:The Slashdot reader Darwin award. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17417590)

"Charles" never got invited to any parties in the first place. It's hardly his fault he stayed at home.

</bitter>

Not so funny candidate--Christine Boskoff (3, Interesting)

joneshenry (9497) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416578)

So why isn't Christine Boskoff going to be the clear winner for a Darwin Award? The person might have been extremely intelligent, but what can one say about a plan to climb remote mountains in China with only one companion and no method of communication to the outside world for weeks? As the Christine Boskoff Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] notes, she did not even leave word of where she was going so that potential rescue teams would have no idea where to find her.

So why is it funny when probably uneducated people do something stupid while it isn't funny for someone who used to be an "electrical engineer working for Lockheed Aeronautical in Georgia", "a pilot", and who "designed software for a lighted control display for the C-130J" to do something equally stupid to eliminate herself from the gene pool? Articles I have read such as the above article from 2002 [nwsource.com] indicate she had no children, so Christine Boskoff removed herself from the gene pool through her stupid actions. Evidently being a former electrical engineer and then becoming a mountain climber/entrepreneur is something that Darwinian evolution selects against. (Even her former husband killed himself in 1999.) So why aren't we all laughing at that?

Re:Not so funny candidate--Christine Boskoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416688)

That's not really Darwinish, lots of people go off on treks and don't tell anyone where they are going, but they know full well that they could die. That's their right as a FREE human being. I know lots of people who do this and their friends and family accept it. The question is: did she do something stupid ("Darwin-ish") to get herself killed.
Yes, it's sad that she cannot be located, but it's not stupid... maybe she did this on purpose.
Geesh, you don't have to be tethered to email, cell phones, or whatever 24 hours a day... just get out and ENJOY LIFE and be a fatalist...if you die, you die...that's life (or death)!

Re:Not so funny candidate--Christine Boskoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416778)

So why is it funny when probably uneducated people do something stupid while it isn't funny for someone who used to be an "electrical engineer working for Lockheed Aeronautical in Georgia", "a pilot", and who "designed software for a lighted control display for the C-130J" to do something equally stupid to eliminate herself from the gene pool?


I agree with you.. she's even more of a Darwin award candidate since one may assume that she should have known better.

One thing is that coming from a family that's half blue collar and half white collar, sometimes pure intelligence isn't enough. Common sense is the definite issue here. I'd wager that for every time somebody on the blue team does something like "hey, we can make a carbide cannon using a heavy duty soup can.. no.. no wait.. let's use a more convenient thinass beer can instead" we've got somebody on the white team too dumb to kill the breaker before performing DIY electrical work on their house.

Re:Not so funny candidate--Christine Boskoff (1)

sydneyfong (410107) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416986)

> So why aren't we all laughing at that?

Because it's not humorous/entertaining? I mean, many people die from these expeditions, but I would bet that not many would intentionally fly a kite in a thunderstorm...

Re:Not so funny candidate--Christine Boskoff (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417032)

I don't know about you, but I am. Ha ha ha.

Mountaneering and other "Extreme Sports" exempted. (4, Informative)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417346)

From the Darwin Awards rules page at:

http://darwinawards.com/rules/rules2.html [darwinawards.com]

"Those who participate in extreme sports are not automatically eligible, as they knowingly assume an increased risk of death. They are, in a sense, correctly applying their judgment that the entertainment is worth the risk. However bizarre the sport, an additional misapplication of judgment must be present in order for the deceased to qualify for a Darwin Award."

Favorite Darwin Award Classic (2, Insightful)

dattaway (3088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416604)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JATO_Rocket_Car [wikipedia.org]

"the staff of the Darwin Awards decided it was such a funny story to "grandfather" it in and let it keep its award."

cultdeadcow link at the bottom has the most amazing recent version.

Re:Favorite Darwin Award Classic (1)

Maserati (8679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417244)

And here's a legible version [rocketcarstory.com] of the story that CDC is (apparently) mirroring. It's a fun read, kinda like if the Mad Scientists Club did their planning in a dive bar.

Faithful Flotation (4, Interesting)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416622)

The one about the pastor who couldn't walk on water is either particularly hard to believe, or else it is leaving out the most critical/entertaining part of the story.

When I imagine someone trying to walk across a river, the picture that comes to mind is that the fool steps into the river and notices that his feet are wet. Then he takes a few more steps and notices that he's up to his thighs in water. At this point, he's neither dead nor still under the illusion he can walk on water.

So what happened? Did he, having lost face, decide to continue into the water and drown himself? Or did he begin his water walking in a deep part (e.g. take the ferry halfway into the river and try walking from there?). Or did he successfully walk on water until he got to the deep part, then realize how impossible it was and suddenly suffer a loss of faith and fall through the surface? ;-) Or is the story just bullshit?

Re:Faithful Flotation (1)

sydneyfong (410107) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417004)

The REAL question is, if there were people watching him perform this "feat", they should have rescued him when he was submerged. And if there weren't people watching him... who knows exactly why he was drowned?

Re:Faithful Flotation (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417120)

I don't know the particulars of this case, however if it's anything like some of the rivers around here it is quite believable.
a lot of our rivers have rocky banks so that the first step will put you thigh deep in water, these same rivers are extremely fast flowing (not to mention VERY cold) if you take that first step, you're done for, the current will sweep you off your feet the instant you land in the water, and even an expert swimmer is unlikely to be able to recover before their head is smashed in to another rock.

In reality there's no way of knowing all the circumstances surrounding the event from the description on that page (how much detail can you cram in to one paragraph?) however dismissing it out of hand is probably not called for either...

Re:Faithful Flotation (2, Funny)

rtra (1045380) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417310)

I've met a elder villager who tried to walk on water. He strapped some small floaters to his feet. And he floated allright, but upside down, with his head submerse. He was rescued by his spectators. He was from village "Palorca", Trás-os-Montes, Portugal.

Re:Faithful Flotation (1)

dufachi (973647) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417624)

Oh, my bullshit meter is definitely in the red on that one, and not from the tales I tell the people downstairs to cover-up my excessive geekiness. ;-)

And this years special goes to... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416632)

...the 3000 room temperature IQs who bit the dust in Iraq thinking they kill for a noble cause.

Big congratulations, morons, you died for nothing. Well, at least the gene pool got some cleansing.

(Yes, I know, the 3000 weren't all this year, but what does it matter...)

Re:And this years special goes to... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17417104)

You forget that soldiers always convcieve children before they go to war. since most soldiers don't die yet still follow the reproduce-before-deployment rule they actually increase their representation in the gene pool. Why would you make killing your profession (with the risk of being killed) if it wasn't to make room for your genes.

you insEnsitive clod! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17416902)

'*BSD Sux0rs'. This reciprocating bad the rain..we can be long term survival is wiped oof and

hmm missing some notables (0)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416976)

I am surprised Saddam was not mentioned. That and the morons who killed themselves protesting the mohammed cartoons.

No integrity (2, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17416990)

I lost all respect for the Darwin Awards when they refused to give one to JFK Jr. [salon.com]

Some jackass flying an airplane in conditions that he had not been certified for and kills himself, his wife and his sister-in-law and they call it a "lapse of judgement" not worthy of a Darwin award.

LK

Re:No integrity (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417038)

i suspect it has something to do with his "pedigree". Heck you shoudl give it to the woman Ted Kennedy killed too. How stupid can you be riding in a car at night on an island driven by a drunk kennedy.

Re:No integrity (1)

lpangelrob (714473) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417308)

I agree with the final decision; crashing a plane in this method is indeed accidental and stupid, but also commonplace, generally involving people not named John F. Kennedy Jr.

Re:No integrity (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17417474)

I agree with the final decision; crashing a plane in this method is indeed accidental and stupid, but also commonplace, generally involving people not named John F. Kennedy Jr.

How many of those other people were attempting to make an instrument landing at night, during foggy conditions while not certified to do so?

He wasn't included because of who his family is.

LK
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...