Slashdot Mirror

Me: Here Og, take my brand new invention, The Toothpick. It is the best thing to use to kill Sabretoothed Tigers.

Og: But it is very small, and flimsy. How can it kill Tiger?

Me: Trust me. Don't try to think for yourself, that just hurts your big old dumb head. I've killed over 50 Tigers this morning with just this one Toothpick alone.

Og: Hmmm. Okay. Me try Toothpick. Here Tiger, Tiger, Tiger. Me have a surprise for you.

Tiger: Silly caveman. Can't you see your Toothpick is no match for my sharp claws and teeth? With your short piece of wood you have to get very close to use it. Close enough for me to use my claws and teeth. Now die!

Me: Thanks Mister Tiger. Now I go get to console Mrs. Og.

I'm tired of having to listen to people who have to defend the ignorant. You know what? Let the ignorant defend themselves. This would thin the gene pool out nicely.

Of course we would not have any more Darwin Awards, but I'm sure we could think up something else to entertain ourselves.

These are the people who fall for pyramid schemes, who do all those things we read about and laugh. The government *can* do a better job of planning than these people

Bullshit.

Was that clear? Let me make sure you understand my point: BULLSHIT.

This sort of arrogance really, really irritates me, mainly because it is soooo common in the college-educated population. We spend years in school, studying hard and hanging out with people who do the same, then we get jobs where knowledge and brain power are our stock in trade. Employers pay us these large salaries to do nothing but learn and think. Obviously, we must be smart. Heck, we even have the dollars to prove it. With all of that knowledge that we have accumulated, obviously we're much better prepared to plan and handle our own lives than the common plebes <sniff>. And, in fact, we must be much better at it than they are. Heck, they aren't even smart enough to get a job where they make decent money. If that doesn't prove they're incompetent, what does?

Get out in the world a bit. Spend some time with some auto mechanics, garbage men, mail room employees, waiters, fence builders and truck drivers. Force yourself to get past your irritation at all of the stupid things they say, in fact keep at it until you realize how irritated they get at all of the stupid things you say, with your complete lack of understanding of their world (or, some might say, the *real* world).

What you'll find out is that they get along just fine, thank you, and while you may think some of their decisions are foolish ("Lotteries are a tax on stupid people"), you'll find out that they think many of yours are just as stupid ("Anyone who pays $30,000 for a car has more money than brains, and people who'd pay someone else to change their oil are just dumb").

Everyone makes good decisions and bad decisions, but, excepting for a small percentage of people who are really mentally handicapped, everyone, even those of well-below-average intelligence, are perfectly capable of managing their own lives, and...

*AND*...

THEY KNOW THEIR NEEDS AS *NO* *ONE* ELSE CAN! Not only that, they will spend more time worrying about their own situation than anyone else will, ever.

Rein in that snobbishness, and try asking people what they want, what makes them happy, what makes their lives complete and enjoyable (well, better find some ways to ask that don't sound so silly). I think you'll find that the answers are so varied and often so at odds with your own answers to the same questions that you'll have to admit that they are much better qualified to make their own decisions than you are.

Ask yourself: Would you like it if Marilyn vos Savant (just to pick a random person with a high IQ) were to take charge of your life, invest your money, give some of it to charities, choose your doctor, etc. all on the basis of a study of what people "like you" want? What if she worked really hard at it and was really sincere about giving you what she really thought was best for you? She wouldn't have time to actually ask you, of course, except through periodic phone polls ("Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or...").

Now replace Marilyn vos Savant's intelligence and dedication with vote-pandering, contribution-collecting politicians who make broad rules, attach a set of ad-hoc exceptions and compromises that are needed to collect votes for passage and then hand the whole mess over for implementation to dull and uncaring civil servants who can't be bothered to work even bankers hours. Sound good?

Give people some credit, even the most stupid are generally pretty darned smart when it's their own self interest at stake. There are exceptions, of course, but but overall the best-equipped people to decide how individuals should live (and spend) is the individuals themselves.
--

Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-

I will say, I wish they had links to the actual news stories. Been reading urban legends too long not to want to see evidence :)

...so he turned it around to see if the potato was stuck and it nailed him right in the eye at point-blank range.

If he would have used a higher caliber potato, we could have nominated him for the Darwin Awards. He would have been very tough to beat.

This isn't just a Literature prize, it's also a Darwin Award.

One man who submarined, and had his legs all smashed up, but had the top half of the car sheared right off, and would have been cut in half if a seatbelt held him upright. Another who was thrown from a car and landed in nice soft muck when his car rolled and the top was flattened right down.

Of course, I also know a lot of people who have survived accidents wearing seatbelts, and many would probably have died without them. And I've seen people hurt badly from accidents without seatbelts (I mean that, I've seen it happen with my own eyes).

I knew one woman who was burned over her whole body and permanently disfigured, while trapped in the flames by her seatbelt.

I also know plenty of people who had to pay fines because they weren't wearing seatbelts, and plenty more who have just learned to watch for cops and slip their seatbelts on when they see them.

I don't see any point to wearing a seatbelt on the highway. The chances of a crash are small, and you're not likely to survive one anyway. In the city, it makes much more sense, but I still think it should be left up to individual choice.

I find your attitude most offensive, assuming that my opinion is based on lack of real-world experience. I'm quite familiar with the real world. It's a place where everybody dies, sooner or later.

I'm not against seatbelts. Statistically they do lower your chances of death. I'm against "protecting" people from their own choices, and I'm against government pretending it always knows what's best for you.

People have a right to take whatever risks with their own lives that they wish. When it comes right down to it, people who act stupidly tend to die and improve the species. It's not biologically sound policy to interfere with that: eventually, you'd produce a race of hopeless morons who have to be watched constantly

Think of it this way: how many lives would be saved every year if every surface of every wall, floor, and piece of furniture was padded, if nobody had kitchens or workshops in their homes or was allowed to keep any sharp things, if everyone had to follow a diet set by his state-selected physician, couldn't smoke, and had to do the exercies prescribed for him, if cars were restricted to speeds at which they could guarantee the survival of all passengers (say, 15 mph)? Probably over a million. The average lifespan would probably be extended by 10 years.

However, that isn't sufficient justification for those measures; people have a right to destroy themselves, quickly or slowly, intentionally or through negligence. But we are moving toward that, one little step, one regulation, one tax "for your own good", at a time.

---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.

I think the big thing that I think about here is that I just can't believe that people are smart enough to make big decisions on their own. If you think they are then you haven't checked out the Darwin Awards or even the Dilbert True Tales of Induhviduals. I think that some people are smart enough to make decisions on their own, but not most people. Probably not even me.

I assume you are referring to this urban legend on the Darwin Arwards web site. It's a good story, and there may be some truth to it.

Next time include the reference.

I assume you are referring to this urban legend on the Darwin Arwards web site. It's a good story, and there may be some truth to it.

Next time include the reference.

As you may have heard this...it is somewhat wierdly posted here on slashdot. I recall hearing the story of the "rocket car" years ago on the darwin awards. I believe it's one of the oldest. They posthumously (sp?) gave it to a retired army colonel who strapped two JATO's to the top of his chevy Impala and slammed it into the side of a mountain. When the meds arrived all they found was a bunch of metal embedded in the side of a mountain with some teeth and a tiny amount of flesh. A sort of idiot cocktail.

Anyway - if you haven't read this one (yes..of course it's fake) you REALLY need to get your ass to the darwin awards and check out what these fucking idiots do to win them. An excellent read.


FluX

Natural Selection does apply--the weak/dumb don't make it (see the Darwin awards), but it's rather ironic that it hasn't done to much to improve our species. People like Methuselah lived to be over 900 years old, but we can't get anywhere near that. The increased life span has been due to improved medical technology, not evolution/natural selection.

Nowadays, Darwin Awards enjoy increasing visibility and are therefore capable of causing anguish to families of the deceased. My intent is to provide sick humor, not to shove a hot poker into the emotional edifices of families. www.darwinawards.com doesn't use last names, avoids going for the easy and sleazy celebrity punches, and, when requested by survivors, will edit a story to remove references that make it obvious who is being slammed.

This is ethical and considerate behaviour.

Meanwhile, my favorite Darwin Award is the fellow who kept a loaded gun on his nightstand. One night, the phone rang...

... there is no real math or intelligence skills required. All you need a good solid 2 or 3 weeks of training and you can answer the phones too.

When I started, I barely knew how to turn a computer on, and when I left the industry I was building them from scratch.

- Look here, Ed, your brand new Cylon 2000 computer it has arrived. There are several boxes here. However will you make it work?
- Stand aside, Earl, I shall assemble this here computer all by myself for I am a Technical Wizard.

They're not idiots, they just don't understand how a computer works internally. That doesn't mean that they deserve to be made fun of.

Moderate this down (-1, This Doesn't Count)
--

... what about that Dutch scientist who stared at the sun for 14 minutes before going permanently blind

Did he die staring at the sun (or subsequently)? That's the number one rule to be elligible for a Darwin award. Quoted from their site:

"we commemorate those who unintentionally douse the gene pool with chlorine by innovating moronic ways of killing themselves, thereby helping eliminateu ndesirable weaknesses from the genome."

Moderate this down (-1, i^2)
--

With these facts in hand, one can make an informed decision instead of just swallowing pills and hoping that the right combination makes you fell better.

Removing prescription laws wouldn't prevent you or anyone else from doing the right thing and having a doctor prescribe your medication. It also wouldn't remove the manufacturers' responsability to make medical grade products, and to label them properly. It wouldn't remove the pharmacists' responsability to dispense what you ask for.

A doctor would still be responsable for what is prescribed to you. Just as he would be if he told you to drink a gallon of (non-prescription) antifreeze and call in the morning.

What prescription laws really are is an assumption that most of us are darwin award cantidates and the foolish notion that we idiots won't 'find' another way to win the award. The same people who would die without prescription laws probably take their prescription sleeping pills with a pint of vodka (because they'll be more effective that way) and operate a blow drier in the bathtub (saves 5 whole minutes in the morning).

If the prescription awards are necessary, perhaps we should also card people (for an electrician's license) before selling them light bulbs, wall switches, or any tool that can be used to work on electrical equipment. Perhaps a mechanic's license to buy auto parts (people DO die regularly from improperly secured cars slipping off the jack).

Or we could save a ton of money and just require warning labels on what are now prescription drugs.

There may be some problems in third world nations where they may have gotten some old System 34/36 systems shipped in, that will burn up on Jan 1st, but if they're just barely automated, stepping back to non-computerized methods isn't liable to be that much of a problem.

I am a bit less worried about the "people" problem.

• There have been fewer religious "millennial paranoia" movements than I expected (and I was anticipating there to be some. ). Yes, there are crackpots. But they've been remarkably quiet.
• The serious crackpots are going to all load up with guns, and head to a deserted spot in Montana.

  Ed Yourdon says so :-).

  Supposing thousands of crazed lunatics head, heavily armed, to Montana next month. What's likely to happen? They're liable to accidentally shoot each other. This might make next year's Darwin Awards as one of the dumbest things of 1999.

• I agree with Yourdon's assessment that New York City is liable to be a bad place to be on New Year's Eve; if you put vast numbers of partiers wanting to hold "the blowout of the millennium" in one spot, problems are a given.

Telephone relay company night watchman Edward Baker, 31, was killed early Christmas morning by excessive microwave radiation exposure. He was apparently attempting to keep warm next to a telecommunications feedhorn.