Slashdot Mirror


Evidence of Historical Zombie Attack at Hierakonpolis

sertsa writes "A tongue-in-cheek article just published by the Archaeological Institute of America hypothesizes that the formation of ancient Egypt is linked to recurrent Predynastic zombie attacks due to outbreaks of Solanum virus. 'From the very beginning of Predynastic research, Sir W.M. Flinders Petrie reported several headless, but seemingly intact, burials during his famous excavations at Naqada in 1895. Further excavations at Gerzeh and other sites revealed more of these curious burials, but no satisfactory explanation could be proposed at the time. More recently, excavations in the non-elite cemetery at Hierakonpolis (HK43), undertaken from 1996 to 2004, have uncovered more of these strange headless burials in addition to 21 individuals whose cervical vertebrae bear cut marks indicative of complete decapitation. The individuals include men and women ranging in age from 16 to 65. The number and the standard position of the cut marks (usually on the second-fourth cervical vertebrae; always from the front) indicate an effort far greater than that needed simply to cause the death of a normal (uninfected) person. The standard position also indicates these are not injuries sustained during normal warfare.'"

244 comments

  1. Everyone knows it was not zombie attacks by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Funny

    The problem is that the scientist incorrectly classified these as zombie attacks.

    Everyone with an ounce of scientific training can tell that these were actually attacks by ninja pirates, and that the vampire zombies were defending the inhabitants.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Everyone knows it was not zombie attacks by Farakin · · Score: 1

      where's Chris Farley when you need him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Hills_Ninja

    2. Re:Everyone knows it was not zombie attacks by ILuvRamen · · Score: 2

      No no no, let's be logical here. It's much more likely that some idiot ruler just was afraid of zombies so he had every dead person's head cut off...by Anubis jackals with sickles like in Age of Mythology.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    3. Re:Everyone knows it was not zombie attacks by stonedcat · · Score: 0, Funny

      He's dead. We need to zombize him for future releases of lame movies before he decomposes further.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me.
    4. Re:Everyone knows it was not zombie attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Everyone with an ounce of scientific training can tell that these were actually attacks by ninja pirates, and that the vampire zombies were defending the inhabitants. "Ninja pirates" is an oxymoron. Ninjas and pirates mix like oil and water. Pirates are holy creatures. Ninjas are devil spawn. Pirates like water (except for bathing). Ninjas are landlubbers. Pirates say 'arr matey.' Ninjas don't say a single Goddamn thing. They are nothing alike! You could try sewing (or bolting) two together but they would soon kill each other--the pirate killing the ninja with his stench and the ninja killing the pirate with throwing stars.
    5. Re:Everyone knows it was not zombie attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes!!! AOM is such a good game.

    6. Re:Everyone knows it was not zombie attacks by ZzzzSleep · · Score: 1

      No, I think it was zombie pirates. Like this one here.

    7. Re:Everyone knows it was not zombie attacks by Gideon+Fubar · · Score: 2, Funny

      so in order to create a Pirate Ninja, you'd have to make them breed while vibrating in a vacuum, something that both pirates and ninjas should be able to survive, for at least 2 minutes (or 10, if the pirate's name is Guybrush).

      Making them agree to the proposition might be difficult, unless the Ninja is a hot kunoichi and the pirate is played by Johnny Depp...

      --
      http://www.xkcd.com/354/
    8. Re:Everyone knows it was not zombie attacks by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Yes, a Ninja Pirate would make about as much sense as Scarran-Secabean hybrid or something. Or maybe even a half-Shinigami half-Hollow. Totally ridiculous.

    9. Re:Everyone knows it was not zombie attacks by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Maybe they were zombie pirate robots dressed up to look non-robotic?

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    10. Re:Everyone knows it was not zombie attacks by raddan · · Score: 1

      Ninjas and pirates mix like oil and water. So what you're saying is that ninja pirates are kinda like mayonnaise?
  2. I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only wish it were real. I'm preparing for the zombie outbreak, anyhow. It is going to happen some day.

    1. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only wish it were real. I'm preparing for the zombie outbreak, anyhow. It is going to happen some day.

      It already happened, in 2000 the Zombie took over the White House.

    2. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Clinton, you mean? Clinton was the only president during 2000.

    3. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by jonfr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Zombies took over the White House in 2001.

    4. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by mrt181 · · Score: 5, Funny

      you are wrong, oil-thirsty vampires took over the white house in 2001

    5. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by wolfman_jake · · Score: 0

      Who had it before, Vampires? (Oh, wait Billy wasn't doing the sucking so it must have been underlings)

    6. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey, just because a zombie is a brainless being doesn't mean every brainless being already deserves being called a zombie!

      In the name of our zombie brethern I resent them being lumped together with the bunch that currently runs the US! They already got so much bad press, they really don't deserve that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      Judging by the way W handled Harkin Oil, I have to disagree with the thirsty part.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    8. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      GP is probably in a different time zone.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    9. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      True, the current administration is beyond simple brainlessness mixed with darkest evil. Don't you miss the days when the only thing the Zombie In Chief tortured was the English language?

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    10. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, we the Bush Bashers don't remember the exact dates for things that happened so long ago. Plus it is less than 1% inaccuracy

    11. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      The takeover took place in 2000. The occupation took another month after that--if you'll recall, there were some delays in getting out of Florida.

    12. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by Amused+SA · · Score: 1

      Mmmm. Wonder what type of monster will infest the Whitehouse next year... :P

    13. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vampires you say? As I recall the democrats lost that election.

    14. Re:I read this in the Zombie Survival Handbook by Xentor · · Score: 1

      It wasn't the zombies... You can't blame them for everything! Basically, it went something like this...

      American People: We want.... A SHRUBBERY!
      *creepy music*
      Republicans: What!?
      American People: One that looks nice... And not too expensive... NOW GO! ...Time passes...

      Republicans: We couldn't find a shrubbery, but we found a slightly-warped bush. If we chain a few of them together, it would kind of be a shrubbery, wouldn't it?

      And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how we got Bush and Chainy-- Err, Cheney.

      This is why I'm a programmer, not a comedian.

      --
      "The amount of intelligence on this planet is a constant. The population is growing." -Cole's Axiom
  3. reminds me of..... by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Funny

    It reminds me of a classic The Onion story about evidence of a race of a skeletons found all over the world. I'm sure creationist would see evidence of a race of skeletons being proof that evolution was false since there is no way a race of skeletons could evolve.

    1. Re:reminds me of..... by phoebusQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That has to be the hardest I've ever seen someone work to fit an anti-religion message into a post.

    2. Re:reminds me of..... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Funny

      Been watching this skeleton race a real long time now.
      Them bones don' be movin'.
      Mebbe some more tequilya.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    3. Re:reminds me of..... by VultureMN · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anti-creationist != anti-religion

      I'm not religious, but am not bothered by people who are.

      But creationists annoy the living shit out of me because of the tortured "logic" they try to use while attempting to justify their belief that the earth is only 6000 years old.

    4. Re:reminds me of..... by aled · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sure creationist would see evidence of a race of skeletons being proof that evolution was false since there is no way a race of skeletons could evolve.


      That's ludicrous! There's plenty of factual evidence that shows the evolutions of hominid skeleton evolution into human skeleton. Curiously they seem to have inhabited the same places that hominid and humans, but there's not yet enough scientific evidence to prove this theory.
      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    5. Re:reminds me of..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said a race of skeletons. Meaning that each individual "creature" is a skeleton. I think you'll find that real skeletons even don't have a reproductive system, let alone many other things necessary to survive.

    6. Re:reminds me of..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creationists are dumb. Mod me up! Don't ya love /. groupthink? Hey, that guy made the same lame joke that someone else told yesterday. How funny! Seriously, the article makes no mention of creationists, but many leading experts (like Dr. Terrance Schneider of the University of Chicago) don't believe there's a skeleton-human link.

    7. Re:reminds me of..... by criminy · · Score: 1

      It's likely that they said 'boogedy-boogedy' a lot.

    8. Re:reminds me of..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take care one of the moderators is a god-boy

    9. Re:reminds me of..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you haven't been paying attention.

      In any case, creationists are to religion as ufo conspiracy theorists are to science.

    10. Re:reminds me of..... by sconeu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are we sure that this isn't a Sluggy Freelance plug?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    11. Re:reminds me of..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An assist for the parent post:

      http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29976

    12. Re:reminds me of..... by aled · · Score: 5, Funny

      Go ahead, be the reproductive-system-nazi of this thread if you want. But first answer these questions: If skeletons can't reproduce, why can we find so many of them buried? Where Skeletor does came from? Army of Darkness was better than Evil Dead II?

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    13. Re:reminds me of..... by kryten250 · · Score: 1

      The skeleton race was entirely white, so?

      --
      FlyingPizzas.com, for the tasteful hermit
    14. Re:reminds me of..... by DigitalWallaby · · Score: 5, Funny

      Skeletons reproduce by jumping each others bones.

    15. Re:reminds me of..... by TitusC3v5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Somebody call Al Gore so we can give this man his new Internet.

      --
      And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
    16. Re:reminds me of..... by fellip_nectar · · Score: 1

      But creationists annoy the living shit out of me because of the tortured "logic" they try to use while attempting to justify their belief that the earth is only 6000 years old.

      Does this "tortured logic" involve the use of an Excel spreadsheet?

      --
      Worst. Signature. Ever.
    17. Re:reminds me of..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Army of Darkness was better than Evil Dead II

      IMHO not, but they are two completely different movies. Army has more of a family movie feel to it, where as II has is just plain creepy.

    18. Re:reminds me of..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, and you are at uiuc? I always thought that was a pretty good place for science. I guess reason goes down the drain pretty quickly out there over the ocean.

    19. Re:reminds me of..... by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

      the tortured "logic" they try to use while attempting to justify their belief that the earth is only 6000 years old.

      How does their argument go?

      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    20. Re:reminds me of..... by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      Oh please. Tortured logic? They're just waterboarding it.

    21. Re:reminds me of..... by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      If you really want tortured logic, you should see the Unified Theory of Existence - it proves that creationism, intelligent design and evolution are only pieces of the puzzle. The truth is much bigger.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    22. Re:reminds me of..... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      I'm not religious, but am not bothered by people who are.
      It doesn't bother you at all that the majority of the people you interact with believe they are taking orders from an invisible man who has ordered his followers to commit genocide (as described in the first books of the major monotheistic religions)?

      That kind of bothers me.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  4. PLEASE! by williamyf · · Score: 1

    Stop taking part in intrigue campaings for the next VideoGame/Movie/Book/TVSeries

    Also, no inside jokes from scientists. After Gary Larson, none of that is allowed anymore.

    Mod me as you like!

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    1. Re:PLEASE! by dragonmantank · · Score: 1

      Kinda too late for that, Max Brooks wrote his books a few years ago...

  5. hmm by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't know why everyone hates on zombies. I mean, zombies were people too.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:hmm by CaptainPatent · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't it obvious!?

      Anyone with half a brain, well...
      is probably being attacked by a zombie.

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    2. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hate zombies because they use phrases like "The number and the standard position of the cut marks (usually on the second-fourth cervical vertebrae; always from the front) indicate an effort far greater than that needed simply to cause the death of a normal (uninfected) person."

      I mean, normal people don't talk like that.

    3. Re:hmm by hajus · · Score: 1

      That's one thing that I've never understood. If there were human zombies, ghosts, vampires, wouldn't there also be non-human versions of such thing? I don't like the thought of countless cockroach ghosts all over the place though, but they logically follow from the existence of human ones. I assumed the same of zombies, but if they were caused by a strain that infected humans only.... well, maybe the virus could mutate.

    4. Re:hmm by nebaz · · Score: 1

      Ummm...don't you know animals don't have souls? All animals are therefore zombies already.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    5. Re:hmm by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      Go to Walmart and ask for help some time. Evidently there is no policy against hiring zombies.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    6. Re:hmm by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Vampires are simple. They don't bother to bite non-humans.

      Ghosts work because only sentient creatures will have the 'unfinished business' to keep them here.

      Zombies? Well, how do you know there aren't lots of cockroach zombies? It takes all sorts of crap to kill them, maybe they're just already dead?

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    7. Re:hmm by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      If vampires only bit humans we'd notice a huge surge in people wanting to work night-shifts. One vampire makes one a night, now there are two, they make one each.. and on on. We'd all be vampires. So it's obvious that vampires are real and only drink animal blood. Duh. Why do you think so many species are becoming endangered now?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    8. Re:hmm by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Actually, a lot of people do believe in dog ghosts. Maybe it would have to do with intelligence level, since dogs are somewhat smart for animals. Then again, if that was the case you'd expect dolphin and monkey ghosts running around too :).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    9. Re:hmm by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      My problem isn't finding people willing to help, it's finding people knowledgeable enough to give good help.

      The people in electronics don't know the difference between a USB mouse and a PS/2 mouse. They don't know the difference between a fullscreen and a widescreen DVD (which it seems Wal-mart is the only backwards store still carrying mostly fullscreen). They don't know the difference between an Xbox and an Xbox 360. The guys in the sporting goods don't know the difference between a baitcast and a spincast fishing reel. They don't know the different between FMJ and JSP bullets. I heard one recommend a 12ga trap gun to an old man who was recoil-shy instead of a 20ga because "The 12ga is weaker" :S.

      Wal-mart isn't really THAT bad a place price-wise (and there are no smaller shops to buy most of these things from here. The town was mostly built around the Wal-mart store), but you better know exactly what you're looking for if you go in to buy something.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    10. Re:hmm by djasbestos · · Score: 1

      ...and monkey ghosts...

      That's not ectoplasm on your walls...
    11. Re:hmm by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      I default back to my original comment...

      Customer: I need a minijack headset for my phone.
      WMEmployee: (blank stare)
      Customer: you know , a hands free headset.
      WMEmployee: (blank stare) "Uhhhhh"


      from the "conversations with the braindead" dept.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
  6. Zombie Survival Guide by BigGar' · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Sounds like its right out of Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Survival-Guide-Complete-Protection/dp/1400049628

    --


    Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
    1. Re:Zombie Survival Guide by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      Yes, just like the article says :)

    2. Re:Zombie Survival Guide by db32 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone didn't RTFA. We really need a -1 Well Duh.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    3. Re:Zombie Survival Guide by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Just so you know your signature is not in fact ironic. Well, except for being ironic in the sense that it isn't. Also con air reference.

    4. Re:Zombie Survival Guide by db32 · · Score: 1

      5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

      In fact it is ironic so long as you don't accept the notion that all anti-gay Republicans are in fact gay. Now...it is less ironic now than it was originally because 2 more Republicans have gotten busted soliciting gay sex in the last 2 months or so. So you could argue that the outcome of events IS what is expected now. Either way it is still damned funny that each one of the clowns voted to make discriminating against gays A-OK and then they get busted soliciting gay sex whether you expected them to do that or not.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  7. Doh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid Flinders...

  8. Proof? by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Funny

    We all know that zombies tend to gravitate towards malls, or high school proms and such. If they found headless remains outside a prehistoric shopping mall, then I'd be convinced.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  9. Im guessing by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

    this is a underground campaign for World War Z the Movie?

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    1. Re:Im guessing by bigdavesmith · · Score: 1

      I'm really surprised that there are so many joke comments to this, and not more posts where people are upset that this is passing for news at /.

    2. Re:Im guessing by Grave · · Score: 1

      Probably because the posting of this itself was tongue-in-cheek (note the Monty Python foot next to it).

      As far as underground marketing efforts, this sure ain't bad, and actually seems to make more sense on Slashdot than some of the real articles that get posted.

    3. Re:Im guessing by Dynamoo · · Score: 1
      Funny, those were my thoughts too.. not much at the IMDB apart from JMS writing the script.

      *That*, incidentally, is surely going to be one hell of an expensive film. Most zombie movies are pretty cheap to make, but World War Z is basically an entire future history made up of awesomely expensive-to-make sequences. I won't give too much away in case there are some /.ers who haven't read the book!

      --
      Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
  10. Lurch post by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Funny

    This lends new meaning to the phrase "walk like an Egyptian"

    1. Re:Lurch post by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Okay, you nailed my funnybone on that one.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Lurch post by mkiwi · · Score: 1

      Hey, they could have been doing the Thriller dance.

    3. Re:Lurch post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or "All You Zombies Hide Your Faces"

  11. Eh??? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

    I don't know why everyone hates on zombies. I mean, zombies were people too. What makes you think we hate corporate workers and civil servants??
    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:Eh??? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You know, I wrote 350 lines of code today, had a 4 hour meeting where we busted chops to get some programs improved, and this afternoon I get to review the results from Point to point testing.

      As a civil servant, I'm supposed to be doing nothing! just ask anybody.

      Yes I know someone will point out I'm on slashdot, but I do get a lunch period.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Eh??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I wrote 350 lines of code today, had a 4 hour meeting where we busted chops to get some programs improved, and this afternoon I get to review the results from Point to point testing.

      You must be new there.

  12. Preceding the zombie attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Was a mass distribution scrolls that promised a nude painting of Cleopatra, but was merely a tax bill infected with a virus.

  13. so was by wardk · · Score: 1

    soylent green, but people loved it

    there has to be a connection

  14. French Revolution by Aaron+Denney · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey, I bet this could also explain the heavy use of the guillotine during the French revolution.

    1. Re:French Revolution by Boronx · · Score: 1

      You got to love a front page post on Slashdot making light of mass executions.

  15. What's the deal with this? by necro2607 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Uhh, am I just missing something here? Is this article a joke? Why is this posted on Slashdot? Is there some kind of long-running inside joke about this fictional "solanum" virus? Plus the site TFA is hosted on is apparently a publication from The Archaeological Institute of America...?? What the fuck. Sure, zombies are cool and all, but if I wanted to read some fantastical BS about arbitrary urban legends and whatever memes, I'd just read The Onion or browse through peoples' blogs. Woot, let's write about a bunch of fictional shit and post it in a serious tone so as to mess with people, in the middle of an otherwise factual and educational publication!

    1. Re:What's the deal with this? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Plus the site TFA is hosted on is apparently a publication from The Archaeological Institute of America...??

            October, Halloween. Even archaeologists have a sense of humor. Get one today!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:What's the deal with this? by neverutterwhen · · Score: 1

      Please tell me you didn't just call slashdot a 'factual' and 'educational' publication. I think that only you could be messed with in this fashion. Everyone else giggled and got on with their day. Or touched themselves.

      --
      My appreciation of Douglas Adams is far deeper than yours.
    3. Re:What's the deal with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the fun they are going to have when the news will start popping up in blogs...

    4. Re:What's the deal with this? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A) It's Zombies
      B) There have been several Zombie books of some geek notoriety
      C) (this one might be hard for you to grasp) some people where just having a good time and being a little silly. It's almost like there was some event that involved monsters and zombie around this time of year.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:What's the deal with this? by swonkdog · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Brrrrraaaaaaiiiiiiinnnnnnnnsssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8^)

    6. Re:What's the deal with this? by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 1

      I can see why you're offended.
      With a handle such as "necro2607," you must be one of the undead insulted by this fiction about your heredity.

      Zombies are all around us. I see them all the time working at the local movie theaters taking tickets, making telemarketing calls about vitamin supplements, or even working diligently in bureaucratic jobs (such as secretaries in college financial-aid offices).

      Be dead! Be proud!

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
    7. Re:What's the deal with this? by jamrock · · Score: 1

      Uhh, am I just missing something here?
      Your sense of humor, apparently. Lighten up, Francis.
    8. Re:What's the deal with this? by dameron · · Score: 1

      Lighten up Nancy, with a name like necro2607 (771790) you're not fooling anybody...

      You're prolly knee-deep in the juju swapping war stories with the Dru Naju.

    9. Re:What's the deal with this? by Arnos · · Score: 1

      You, my friend, are what we'd call "Zombie Bait".

      It's probably a good thing that once the Great Panic starts- you'd be among the first to go.

    10. Re:What's the deal with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, the article is dated November 6. You really screwed up changing your clock for daylight savings time. Work in corporate IT, perchance?

    11. Re:What's the deal with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tongue-in-cheek has a meaning. I suggest you look it up.

      Yes, it's a joke.

    12. Re:What's the deal with this? by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      I was talking about the Archaeology magazine.

    13. Re:What's the deal with this? by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      No man, I actually have a pretty huge sense of humour, but... the whole article both in the Archaeology magazine and on Slashdot are both written in a fully serious tone with no actual indication that it's a joke. The fact that the article itself is long as hell is pretty amazing considering the detail they go into, rambling on about pure nonsense. 100% Onion material, not the kind of shit I'd expect to find in the latest issue of Archaeology magazine.

    14. Re:What's the deal with this? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Is there some kind of long-running inside joke about this fictional "solanum" virus?

      It might be kind of obscure, but "solanum" is a reference to the fictional Solanum virus in the Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks. It's also alluded to, but I don't think is explicitly named, in the quasi-sequel World War Z. Both are awesome books, btw, and I highly recommend reading them.

    15. Re:What's the deal with this? by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      I definitely have a sense of humour, don't worry. The thing is, Halloween was over a week ago, and there's no indication at all in the article that it's actually supposed to be funny. I'm reading this article, wondering how in the hell editors at Archaeology magazine are actually cool with publishing an article rambling on and on about zombies!

    16. Re:What's the deal with this? by jamrock · · Score: 1

      I was just funnin' witcha, man. Point taken, and frankly, I do agree with you about Archeology magazine's foray into poker-faced humor, what with April 1st well in the past.

    17. Re:What's the deal with this? by zfractal · · Score: 1

      Although it's a little past Halloween I dig their humor anyway...

    18. Re:What's the deal with this? by doupatex · · Score: 1

      Uuuhh ?

      Well if you look at the photo which is around the middle of the article, I think it's pretty obvious.

      An arm protruding out of a tomb with the legend saying "Do not panic. We stress that nothing unusual has been observed during recent excavations" sure seems like a joke to me. Or maybe I should start to run now ;-)

      Anyway, that's cool to see this kind of article in a scientific journal.

    19. Re:What's the deal with this? by ben0207 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, of course the article is a bit old. They are an Archeology Magazine, after all.

      --
      cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
    20. Re:What's the deal with this? by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      ...tongue-in-cheek article...

      Does that not count?

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    21. Re:What's the deal with this? by LrdDimwit · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt Archaeology magazine felt the need to attach a disclaimer to this article, trusting most would notice it was a joke. Also, the reason this didn't come out around Halloween is a deliberate delay, probably because the magazine wanted the dead tree (undead tree?) issues to get to the subscribers before they put it online. Why would anyone subscribe if the articles were online before your copy arrived in the mail?

      Then again, supposedly the year the BBC did the "spaghetti tree" story for April Fools' they were flooded with calls. I guess Archaeology Mag. just thought the readers would use their braaaaaaaains.

    22. Re:What's the deal with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... yes? Yes. Because it's funny - we need comic relief. Yes. I don't think the last one is really a question, but yes.

      Solanum is the virus identified by Max Brooks in The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Walking Dead. It's a parody of survival manuals written in a very dead-pan manner. If you're absolutely humorless, you won't enjoy it at all, but if you're up for a little escapism and some gruesome tongue-in-cheek humor, you'll like it.

    23. Re:What's the deal with this? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      this is no joke. head for the motherfucking hills we have fast zombies everywhere.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    24. Re:What's the deal with this? by KefkaTheMad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhh, am I just missing something here? Is this article a joke? Why is this posted on Slashdot?
      by necro2607 on Thursday November 08, @06:00PM (#21288405)

      Doesn't it seem strange that the only guy bashing the articles goes by the name necro2607? Methinks he must be part of the zombie cover-up conspiracy, trying to keep their plans a secret while they raise their unholy army of the dead to conquer the world.

    25. Re:What's the deal with this? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Funny

      Uhh, am I just missing something here? Is this article a joke?

      No, it's not a joke. It's 100% serious. That's why it was posted under the category "It's funny. Laugh." and the first few words of the summary are "A tongue-in-cheek article".

      That's the sign of a dead-serious story right there.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    26. Re:What's the deal with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't a sense of humor supposed to obviate the need for explicit indications that a particular article is a joke?

    27. Re:What's the deal with this? by BotnetZombie · · Score: 1

      Sense of humor, arbitrary urban legends. Why, you insensitive clods! I, I well I don't have time for this, got some brain-eating to do.

    28. Re:What's the deal with this? by j_166 · · Score: 1

      Not only did you read it, but you then took the time to comment on it. Why? Obviously there are no such things as zombies. You should have been able to tell that that's what it was about merely from reading the summary. Therefore the conclusion that I come to is rather then there being something wrong with Slashdot, there must be something wrong with you.

    29. Re:What's the deal with this? by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's an undead-serious story.

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  16. As Shaun would say... by kcbanner · · Score: 1

    "Remove the head or destroy the brain!"

    Simon Pegg ftw.

    --
    Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    1. Re:As Shaun would say... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Remove the head or destroy the brain!
      That doesn't always work. Karl Rove is gone and yet our administration still lurches along.
      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:As Shaun would say... by psychicsword · · Score: 1

      "As Shaun would say..."
      Actually it was the news reporter that said to remove the head

    3. Re:As Shaun would say... by kcbanner · · Score: 1

      Yea but he relays the information to the team.

      --
      Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
  17. Good thing he didn't blame The Religion of Peace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Then he would have been modded DOWN.

    Slash-tards attack all religions, except Islam. Probably because Islam bites back. Ask Theo Van Gogh. Of course, there's that big yellow stripe that permeates leftists and makes them afraid of offending anyone who fights back. So busting on Christianity is OK. Remember Piss Christ?

    Although, now that I think about it, the Quran does call for decapitation of subhumans^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hnon-Muslims and women, which is why we see so many mujahadeen beheading kaffirs on YouTube.

    So maybe these bodies are the result of sharia. Maybe they were gays or lesbians. Maybe they dared to have sex outside of marriage. Maybe - horror of horrors - they renounced Islam, leaving decapitation the only viable alternative.

  18. Re:i love dick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Off topic? Can't you remember back to when Dick shot that lawyer guy in the face, and he later apologized for getting in the way of the bullet? Only a zombie would survive a headshot then apologize. I love Dick as well, he's our #1 defense against the zombie plague.

  19. I for one . . . by GwaihirBW · · Score: 2, Funny

    welcome our new zombie underlings! . . . I feel kinda dirty now.

    --
    "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
  20. What by tomsyco · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why do people even open there mouths sometimes. Way to get a PhD to study zombies. All acreddidation that they had just went down the drain.

    1. Re:What by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1
      Wait a second: you post an incoherent comment with sub-literate style and filled with grade three level spelling mistakes and you're attacking others for daring to "open there mouths"?

      Somehow I doubt the Archaeological Institute of America is too worried about their acreddidation with you.

    2. Re:What by Grave · · Score: 1

      Wait a second: you post an incoherent comment with sub-literate style and filled with grade three level spelling mistakes and you're attacking others for daring to "open there mouths"? You must be new here.
    3. Re:What by aonifer · · Score: 1

      Are you from Digg or YouTube?

    4. Re:What by tomsyco · · Score: 0

      No, but I'm on a few Linux forums thats about it.

  21. To answer your questions... by Endloser · · Score: 1

    Yes. Is the Colbert Report a joke? Because it is popular. Yes. Yes. And I am aware that only assholes answer questions with questions.

    1. Re:To answer your questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it that only assholes answer questions with questions, or could it be that the answerer realizes that if the other person works out the answer himself that person will likely understand the answer more fully?

  22. Young earth by CustomDesigned · · Score: 4, Informative
    6000 years != Creationist

    The young earth theory isn't even classic Christianity, having become popular in the US in the 18th century. The church fathers had a variety of theories, and literally counting the years was a 17th century invention. Augustine noted that time as we know it is itself part of this creation, and therefore the 6 days in Genesis 1 could not refer to time in this universe. He speculated that the 6 days were a 6 day "seminar" where the new creation was was presented and explained to the angels.

    1. Re:Young earth by Penguinshit · · Score: 5, Funny

      We're the result of a 6 day Powerpoint presentation??!?

      That sure explains a few things...

    2. Re:Young earth by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now everything makes sense!

      I mean, look at it. First day, light and darkness, works fine. Reason? Angels were fresh and actually listening.

      And from there on it went downhill, right to the 6th day with human. Now tell me, can you sit through 6 days of a boring presentation? I'm fairly sure by the end of the 5th day, every Angel was just sitting there doodling.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Young earth by jamie(really) · · Score: 1

      Were there booth cherubs?

    4. Re:Young earth by OzRoy · · Score: 3, Funny

      That does explain the dangly bits.

    5. Re:Young earth by Pax00 · · Score: 1

      you know that makes me wonder how many BSODs there were. I know I can't keep windows running for 6 days without a BSOD every now and then.

    6. Re:Young earth by danlock4 · · Score: 1

      If God is the creator of all things in the universe, He's not going to say that his days are the same length as the days of this little planet, Earth. His days are obviously much longer, and, consequentially, the earth developed for a LONG time before it was ready to be inhabited by humans.

      --
      To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
    7. Re:Young earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      arrrr..... (sober enogh to decipher the damn thing tha fools machines)

    8. Re:Young earth by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      Well he can't have been running it on Linux - the universe is clearly proprietary.

      So many obfuscated laws...

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    9. Re:Young earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the seventh day, Lucifer suddenly jumped up and shouted "BINGO" and all were greatly astonished.

    10. Re:Young earth by CustomDesigned · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While your premise is true, you missed the point that our time is part of the creation - or in computer terms it is simulation time. Simulation time is neither longer nor shorter than time in the host machine/universe. You can run the simulation/virtual machine fast or slow or backward or forward, or restore to a checkpoint. "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day..." (2Peter 3:8,10).

    11. Re:Young earth by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      No no, the universe *has* to be running some variant of Unix. That's why it's so difficult for us processes to analyze the box. If we were on a Windows system then we'd just be able to tear a hole in the sky and look at the code.

    12. Re:Young earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, on which day were the angels created again?

    13. Re:Young earth by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

      None. Angels are not from this universe.

    14. Re:Young earth by genner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The universe is open source. The API is just a bit kludgy.

    15. Re:Young earth by Langalf · · Score: 1

      No, angels are part of the created order of this universe.

      And to answer the GP, it is usually assumed they were created on day 1.

    16. Re:Young earth by maciarc · · Score: 1

      Day 6, Final Presentation: Human, Human, Human by dougz:

    17. Re:Young earth by robomon · · Score: 1

      "I'm fairly sure by the end of the 5th day, every Angel was just sitting there doodling."

      For a minute there I thought you said they were "googling".

    18. Re:Young earth by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

      Maybe we have a different definition of "universe". I'm talking about the matter and energy system we live in and investigate via science. Maybe *some* angels are native to it, but the ones described in Revelation, Isaiah, Paul's vision, etc, are clearly not in the universe we live in. Heaven is not another planet. I can see defining "universe" as "everything ever created or existing". And that would be a quite literal definition - but utterly useless for discussion. Kind of like the term "Intellectual Property".

    19. Re:Young earth by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      the 6 days in Genesis 1 could not refer to time in this universe*cough*bullshit!*cough*

      If that were the case, no references to time would have been mentioned in Genesis in the first place!

      I refuse to believe than an omnipotent deity would have such piss-poor communication skills as you attribute to him.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    20. Re:Young earth by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      the 6 days in Genesis 1 could not refer to time in this universe
      *cough*bullshit!*cough*

      If that were the case, no references to time would have been mentioned in Genesis in the first place!

      I refuse to believe than an omnipotent deity would have such piss-poor communication skills as you attribute to him.

      (sorry--reposted due to my own poor communication skills)
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    21. Re:Young earth by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You do know he wasn't being literal, right?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:Young earth by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that the universe was created in 6000 days?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    23. Re:Young earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you are not Jewish. It is now 5768, counting from the creation. We had this figured out long long before the 17th century.

    24. Re:Young earth by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

      Beginning of human history != beginning of earth/physical universe. Tracing generations is a reasonable way to get back to Adam and Eve (neglecting generation skipping common in geneologies). You won't even get that much argument from secular paleontonogists. Modern humans are not that old. What I want to see on slashdot is a flame fest over Noah's flood. Now *there* is a story in conflict with modern geology (unless you go for the local flood thing - despite the text taking pains to make it clear otherwise). Age of the earth? All it says is "in the beginning"... everything else is reading into it.

    25. Re:Young earth by Stanistani · · Score: 1

      BSOD? That was the Flood, followed by a reboot.

      Also, see Sodom & Gomorrah.

      They even salted their passwords.

    26. Re:Young earth by drwho · · Score: 1

      Haven't you figured out that the majority of the bible is just ballast to cover the underlying message, which is hidden (see Steganography)? I mean, why do you think that numbers and letters have such a strange relationship in Hebrew? (I don't know about Aramaic though, perhaps the new testament isn't encoded in the same way). Here's some clues:
      Cheese!
      55/89
      This statement is false.
      Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

    27. Re:Young earth by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Here's some clues:
      Cheese!
      55/89
      This statement is false.
      Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

      Wow. You're starting to go insane. Clearly, you are on the path toward religious enlightenment.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    28. Re:Young earth by Langalf · · Score: 1

      I am sorry, I though this particular thread of the discussion was theological in nature. Yes, I was working with the definition of "universe" as "everything created or existing" in a Biblical sense. By that definition, as created beings, angels would have to be part of the created system. I was not intending to extend the answer to a non-theological, materialistic viewpoint in which the discussion of angels has no real validity.

  23. It's worse than you think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rumor has it, they found some of them huddled in front of a Flintstones-style TV. I'd say that about cinches it. Which reminds me. This might be a good time to update the raptor & zombie plan to include raptor zombies. You can never be too careful.

    1. Re:It's worse than you think... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      There's a one man solution for raptors and zombies and it solves ninjas too!.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  24. Re:Obligatory by russlar · · Score: 1

    Braaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiinssssssssss sorry chief, can't help ya.
    --
    Anybody want my mod points?
  25. Satire/Pseudoscience by cosm · · Score: 0

    If you read into the "Zombie Survival Guide" by Max Brooks, you will see that he points out that Zomified people derive from the spread of the Selanum virus, which is spread only by interchange of bodily fluids, without the possibility of airborne infection. Although Wikipedia classifies this as a fictional virus, multiple ensuing publications and productions regarding the Z-Day apocalypse have mentioned Solanum as the constituent responsible.

    While there really hasn't been any hard evidence of such events occurring in the past, there are apparently many stories told by the ancients and now being supposedly researched by 'experts' that conclude multiple outbreaks of Zombiepeople have occurred involving some sort of Zombie type beings, victims of initial exposure to a stimuli or possible through interaction and conversion.

    While I don't know if I can believe in such events actually occurring, there are those out there curious enough to seemingly explore it via actual scientific methods. Still no true evidence exist. It is just these speculative tales that seem to propagate stories like this into semi-recognizable media outlets, hence the running theme of the Zombie (joke?).

    Regardless, I will always have my food supply in excess, an underground military bunker, shingle/Teflon coated armor , and a chainsaw-spike covered school bus on deck in case this ever occurs. God..er..science..er...human meddling...er..divine intervention...er....fast-food forbid.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  26. Huh?... by schmu_20mol · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, just to get this somewhat straight. Solanum is a 'large' organism of a plant/vine/small tree, so we are basically talking about your run of the mill tomatoes and potatoes here (yes, I already hear those zombie biologists heaving stones towards me). So, the next question is what the solanum virus would be ... fiction, just have a look at 'The Zombie Survival Guide' by Max Brooks. I think I'll just have to get me some strong liquor and reread that story again ... kind of, hilarious.

    --
    "Nae Kin! Nae Quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna be fooled again!"
    1. Re:Huh?... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Considering the next closest relative of a tomato or potato is the poisonous nightshade plant (another Solanacae,) I'd well wager the 'virus' was actually a dose of Solanacae poisoning, throwing those affected into a delirious state, making them act zombified, which prompted people to kill them off.

      Hey, it's plausible.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  27. See It Here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  28. Ready 4 Zombies? by kernelphr34k · · Score: 1

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sure as hell ready for a zombie attack! I've got gunz, knifes, tanks, and lots of persons of a certain race for "Operation Human Shield." Lots of my friends as well are prepared. We even have a meeting place; The closest Bimart! :)

  29. Re:Solanum virus? hoax? by GwaihirBW · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "I'm pretty sure this is a fake made up thing. Wikipedia says it's made up pretty much." - Fixed that for you.

    --
    "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
  30. There are 2 kinds of people in the world... by psychicsword · · Score: 1

    Grif:Let me ask you this Doc, Whats your zombie plan.
    Doc: My What?
    Grif:There are 2 kinds of people in the world those who have a plan prepared for when the zombies take over the earth, and those who dont. We call those last people dinner.
    Doc:Nobody does that
    Grif: In my plan I'm going to Alaska zombies have no body heat, they'll freeze like coprsicles. Its Brilliant.

    My plan is to not notice anything that is wrong. I would try to save my family with a cricket bat then I would goto the Winchester bar and shot the zombies that try to hide quietly until I accidentally turn on the jutebox. Then I would wait for the calvary to charge in and shoot up the place.

  31. Re:Obligatory by glittalogik · · Score: 1

    You must be new here.

  32. Resident Evil ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to pre-order Resident Evil Egyptian Chronicles !

  33. Re:not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's talking about his own dick. This makes perfect sense on /., since most of us will never get anyone else to love us.

  34. Re:Solanum virus? hoax? by necro2607 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, apparently I'm not the only one continuously thinking "what the f?" while reading this article, despite peoples' insistence that I just have no sense of humour. Sorry, it's just not funny when it's completely portrayed as some fucking factual scientific article, and is getting reposted in the Science section of other websites as though it's some worthwhile read. :P

  35. Anything is possible but... by Endloser · · Score: 1

    "Just because I think everyone is trying to kill me, doesn't me they aren't." I am, in fact, an asshole. Just the same, I know "the first step in comprehension is interaction".

    The first quote is from someone.
    The second is from me. I said it out loud and then I typed it. So I can put that in quotes right?

  36. TFA is hilarious by steveha · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you enjoy understated, dry humor, go read the article. It's wonderful.

    "While it is an attractive idea, no serious archaeologist would hang their fedora on it without further evidence." Sure; every serious archaeologist wears an Indiana Jones hat, goes without saying.

    "Overall, those with cut marks represent less than 4% of the cemetery's population. Thus, one might suggest that the threat of zombification was relatively low, and those manifesting the disease were dealt with swiftly (though in some cemeteries evidence for cannibalism has also been found suggesting that one or two got a good meal first)." It goes on to suggest that the need for swift anti-zombie action may have led to the early invention of government by kings.

    If zombies re-emerge as a threat in modern times: "Almost certainly the first sign of infection will come from the Hierakonpolis team. [...] The unfortunate side effect of the infection starting within this specialized group of researchers is that they are generally the least squeamish about decapitation duty. I know for a fact that Sean Dougherty, a physical anthropologist with extensive experience at the site, wouldn't hesitate to lop off the head of any member of the team at any time, and for any reason."

    Go read it!

    http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/hierakonpolis/zombies.html

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:TFA is hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sure; every serious archaeologist wears an Indiana Jones hat, goes without saying.

      Um, did you see them unearth King Tut this week on TV? The boss guy was wearing an Indy hat.

  37. Just for the record by Paul_Hindt · · Score: 1

    The synopsis of TFA does say at the very top: "A tongue-in-cheek article just published by the Archaeological Institute of America". Some people just read the headline and then post "Why would they write this?!" I mean, I can understand not reading TFA, but at least read TF article synopsis!

  38. I believe it's the political climate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed that grandparent post was a masterful expression of intelligent thought, but you have to understand that the world at large may not be ready for such tremendous revelations.

    Let's talk about a farcical article written about zombies, instead. That ought to satisfy the status quo.

  39. Re:Good thing he didn't blame The Religion of Peac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In this case probably not mass decapitations by mujahideen, since the decapitations likely happened before Islam was invented. (Around 600 and something AD)

  40. Re:Solanum virus? hoax? by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

    The references to the Zombie Survival Guide weren't enough?
    OK, then look at the choice quotes of a poster just below:
    http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=354929&cid=21289339

  41. zombie survial guide by sh3l1 · · Score: 1
    --
    Help Me! I'm trapped in the tubes! Oh noes! Here comes a internet!
  42. Oh, zombies are real! by Flumbo · · Score: 2

    Finally, valid scientific evidence surfaces! The plague is spreading. Hurry over to IfYouWereAZombie.com to tell your loved ones how you feel before they become a walking corpse. Because once they're a zombie, it's too late to say you care...

  43. Limits of Scientific Humor by First+Person · · Score: 1

    I would like to offer the proposition that scientific humor is targeted for a limited audience and that the form of the publication often parodies that of field-appropriate journals. This later point often makes the joke difficult to translate. It's like having a punchline in a monologue where the timing is badly off. Other elements often depend on an understanding of subtle word play or field specific terminology. This is not to say that scientific humor cannot be understood by non-scientists, but merely that non-scientists are much less likely to find it funny.

    One of my personal favorites was published nearly eight years ago. This was a study on diyttrium potassium which was published in Science. I don't have a link to the original (and more humorous -- at least to me -- article), but maybe this one will do.

    Should the proposition above not resonate, let me offer this second theory. Scientists generally spend too many hours in the lab, in the field, or at the computer. This has resulted in an atrophied sense of humor such that anything beyond this level of funniness could prove fatal. Believe what you will.

    --
    Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
    1. Re:Limits of Scientific Humor by First+Person · · Score: 1

      Three additional quick comments.

      • The name 'Hierakonpolis' or 'Here a con polis' where 'polis' means city basically is announcing 'This is a fake city'.
      • The diyttrium potassium article was actually original research and mildly interesting at that.
      • "The researchers wish to point out to their dean and department head that only 12 hours of supercomputer time were spent on the analysis." This did not appear in the Science article from what I recall.
      --
      Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
    2. Re:Limits of Scientific Humor by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      Hierakonpolis definitely exists.

    3. Re:Limits of Scientific Humor by First+Person · · Score: 1

      How amusing. Thanks for the correction.

      --
      Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
  44. So, apparently nobody's ever read... by Zekasu · · Score: 1
    The Zombie Survival Guide.

    Solanum's a fictional viruses, in a real book.

    The first chapter is entitled Myths and Realities and lays down the specific ground rules that are referenced repeatedly in the book. The most important of these describes "Solanum", the fictional virus that creates zombies, along with how it is spread, treatment of the infected, and why the zombie infection does not spread to non-human organisms.
    The Zombie Survival Guide
  45. brains... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brains!

    Brrraaaiiiinnnsssss!

    1. Re:brains... by cosm · · Score: 0

      spare some chaaaaaaange?

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  46. Missing brainzzz... by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Funny

    "So I saw the fictitious Solanum virus in the missing brain of a headless mummy." Said the blind man to his deaf daughter standing in the corner of the round hut.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  47. Oi! I'm not a virus!! by solanum · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cheeky sods.

    --
    Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
    1. Re:Oi! I'm not a virus!! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but are you sure you're not a zombie?!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  48. huh? by m2943 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That has to be the hardest I've ever seen someone work to fit an anti-religion message into a post.

    Don't worry. Since civil society has put an end to churches burning people at the stake, there is no need to be surreptitious about anti-religious messages.

    Religion is irrational, it's immoral, and it's the single largest cause of human suffering.

    Clear enough for ya'?

    1. Re:huh? by Tibandi · · Score: 1

      Thanks! You've just given me a new sig!

    2. Re:huh? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, people wanting power is the single largest cause of human suffering. Religion is merely the single largest catalyst of human suffering. There's a difference, you know.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    3. Re:huh? by ThaReetLad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The sum of thousands of years of human suffering at the hands of religious leaders can't hold a candle to the hundreds of millions of deaths at the hands of 20th century dictators, nevermind the suffering worldwide today caused by the western greed. Every single day 10 times as people die due to poverty as were killed by the spanish inquisition, when we in the west waste vast sums on skiing holidays, cosmetics and keeping our appliances on standby. That's 10 million people a year!

      The single largest cause of suffering? Greed. For money, power, sex etc. No question. Religion is merely the context in which some people have exercised that greed.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    4. Re:huh? by skoaldipper · · Score: 1

      Religion is irrational, it's immoral, and it's the single largest cause of human suffering.
      Interesting concept. Hmm.

      Joseph Stalin, who purged religion from the state, is directly responsible for 5 to 7 million deaths, and another 30 to 60 million indirectly - meaning, with sanction through direct policy or by external forces under his approval. In totality, he alone probably accounts for more atrocities than all others of historical infamy combined.

      In Soviet Gulag, religion finds you!
      --
      I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
    5. Re:huh? by Belacgod · · Score: 1
      Religion =/= belief in god. Religion = irrational belief that you're right because you're right, rather than because of anything rational.

      Stalin kept referring to how "the wheel of history" was on his side, with as little evidence as anyone who claims that God is on their side.

    6. Re:huh? by nexidus · · Score: 1

      You're not looking at it the right way. Deaths should be looked at with respect to proportion, not numbers. In many cases suffering was equal if not worse to modern day suffering. You say ten times more people die today? Well, there we ten times less people "yesterday". Population growth is exponential, as is mortality. They correlate quite nicely.

      Now just so you know. I do agree with you with respect to the causes. All of the same vices still exist that create suffering today. If you want more proof on this subject look at primate societies. All chimpanzee societies have warfare. It's quite brutal also. Interestingly enough, mortality rates among chimps are usually greater than that of humans. But only if you look at proportionally.

      So saying suffering is worse today isn't quite right, but the fact is that we (Prols, as Orwell would put it) possess the greatest means to end it and yet we do nothing because we are too sparsely united and so greatly divided by culture and ideology. The second of which is greatly controlled by religion.

    7. Re:huh? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, it causes suffering. By it's very nature it promotes ignorance, substitute 'belief' for facts, and is so insidious it cause other people to do harm while they are convinced they are doing good.

      And people use it for a catalyst as well.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:huh? by m2943 · · Score: 1

      Joseph Stalin, who purged religion from the state, is directly responsible for 5 to 7 million deaths, and another 30 to 60 million indirectly

      If Russia hadn't been dominated for centuries by its orthodox church, neither Stalin nor the mass killings would have been possible.

    9. Re:huh? by m2943 · · Score: 1

      The sum of thousands of years of human suffering at the hands of religious leaders can't hold a candle to the hundreds of millions of deaths at the hands of 20th century dictators,

      Religion was responsible for the very existence of many of those dictators, and often supported them.

      The single largest cause of suffering? Greed. For money, power, sex etc. No question. Religion is merely the context in which some people have exercised that greed.

      "Merely the context"? That is exactly the problem with religions: they create "contexts" and conditions in which people can get away with murder, oppression, and genocide.

      In different words, we can't abolish greed--it is human nature. But we can try to create social institutions that limit it and channel it into beneficial directions; religions have proven that they are incapable of doing so.

    10. Re:huh? by Darby · · Score: 1



      Joseph Stalin, who purged religion from the state, is directly responsible for 5 to 7 million deaths, and another 30 to 60 million indirectly - meaning, with sanction through direct policy or by external forces under his approval. In totality, he alone probably accounts for more atrocities than all others of historical infamy combined.


      Except you're dead wrong.
      Stalin did not purge religion from the state, he merely made the communist state the new god. All of the same flaws, problems and atrocities inherent in religion were still there, he just changed "god" to "the State".

      It's still a religion and as such massively damaging.

    11. Re:huh? by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

      I think any reasonably dispassionate view of history would show that those institutions that paid least respect to the actual teachings religion, at least with respect to Christianity, are those responsible for most suffering. Sure, there are many who pay lip-service to the teachings and those who co-opt the religious organisations for their own purposes, but the only real examples we have of totally irreligious bodies with the kind of power that could be used that way are the communist states of the 20th Century, and they were almost universally terrible. There have been thousands upon thousands of religious bodies and kingdoms with religious contexts, and only a few of those have been really horrible, but there have only been a few examples of anti-theist governments and they have been much worse as a proportion.

      You say that religions have proven incapable of controlling greed, but I think they're still better than any alternative.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    12. Re:huh? by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

      so what you're saying is that the death caused by our western greed is only 1 spanish inquisition per day rather than 10? Oh that's OK then. I'll sleep much sounder in bed tonight knowing that!

      I really think that actually the reason we don't do anything about it is that we simple care more about looking good and having more stuff than those around us than we do about people who are dying half a world away. Fundamentally its that our greed overrules our compassion, and if we really did follow the teachings of Jesus, then we'd not let that happen.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  49. A new low by lowell · · Score: 1

    for slashdot, great story guys

  50. Everything is it's Opposite.. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Who are you, The Sphinx?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  51. Braaains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, this brings up a thought.. Why is it specifically brains zombies want, anyway? Was that never explained or was I just left out of the loop?

    (posting anonymously because somewhere out there there's a mod who wants to punish be for being ignorant and uninteresting :-P)

  52. Lots of boogymen have historical/medical roots by phorm · · Score: 1

    I can't remember the exact name of the condition, but there is one that causes an extreme reaction to sun, as well as other symptoms such as receding gums (making teeth appear longer etc). Those who "die" are actually sometimes just torporous, and have recover to some extent for awhile. This explains many vampire myths. I've head supposition that the lack of certain key blood cells also may have led those suffering from this syndrome may also find a taste for blood to replace their own lack, but this may be just hearsay.

    There are also people who suffer from extreme hair-growth, leading them to appear animalistic and wolflike. These may be the source of werewolf legends. I thought this was clinical Lycanthropy, but that appears to be more of a delusion of being able to shape-shift, so again I'm not sure of the actual name of this condition.

    Given the above and many others, it could be possible that zombies were early day sufferers of some disease. Perhaps some form of leprosy... as it would attack the nerves early on, deadening the victims to pain, while the putrification of flesh would make them appear to be the walking dead?

    1. Re:Lots of boogymen have historical/medical roots by jandoedel · · Score: 1

      Porphyria is the name you're looking for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyria

  53. Re:not quite... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    Actually, there are girls on Slashdot. Most of them pretend to be guys.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  54. Re:Good thing he didn't blame The Religion of Peac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slash-tards attack all religions That's 'slash-bots'. Keep your 4chan flavour in 4chan. This is Slashdot, we have our own trolls.

  55. Re:Solanum virus? hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, there was a documentary made about it not too long ago. 'Resident Evil' or something like that. Watch it, you'll learn a lot.

  56. Re:not quite... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    This makes Slashdot anti-IRC. If Slashdot and IRC ever collide they will annihilate emitting enough raw productivity to cause the Internet to collapse.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  57. they're all wrong. by rhinchcl · · Score: 1

    They were immortals! Everyone knows they can only be killed by decapitation.

  58. WALLA! by Doctor+O · · Score: 1

    I wonder... did said PowerPoint presentation have the obligatory last slide proclaiming "WALLA!" ?

    --
    Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
    1. Re:WALLA! by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      I wonder... did said PowerPoint presentation have the obligatory last slide proclaiming "WALLA!" ?

      I thought the always ended with the bullet point: "have fun"

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    2. Re:WALLA! by Doctor+O · · Score: 1

      I wonder... did said PowerPoint presentation have the obligatory last slide proclaiming "WALLA!" ?

      I thought the always ended with the bullet point: "have fun"

      Nah, that depends on the type of presentation. When it's about something *everyone else* is supposed to do, it's "have fun". If it's about something the presenter wants praise, or a raise, or a promotion for, it's "WALLA!".

      Then again, given that we have to take care of this world as this Jehova guy doesn't show up anymore, you might be correct in assuming "have fun".
      --
      Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
  59. but its all still crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, back up a little and think about how severe and outlandish is the effort people have put into rationalizing this silly 6000 year old mythology. It's really silly. The values are good, but the stories really strain credibility, you know? We keep trying to make it all fit into our modern perception of the world...we keep trying harder and harder to reconcile two very different sets of concerns and understandings. Just let it go.

  60. According to Al Gore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it was global warming.

  61. Ctulhu by CdXiminez · · Score: 1

    Great Old Ones, obviously.

  62. SOlanum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its the name of the virus in World War Z. It's a reference to max brook's zombie books.

  63. Talk about strecthing the definitions by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 1

    "Religion is the source of all evil!"
    "But what about all the atheists who murdered tens of millions of people?"
    "Clearly they were religious, because they were evil!"

    If you look at the biggest mass murderers in history- Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot- only Hitler claimed to be religious. Mankind's real problem is that we're a race of assholes, and we like to claim that we're being a asshole for some greater purpose. No one says "I'm killing these defenseless people because it's convenient and profitable" they say "God told me to kill them all" or "I'm killing them all for the greater good" or "They aren't real people anyway, this book I have says so". What did you think Stalin was going to say?

    I'm now going to give you this equally unsound counter-argument, also done through mangling definitions to suit my needs:
    True religious people are never evil.
    Therefore, all evil is done by people who aren't truly religious.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
    1. Re:Talk about strecthing the definitions by Belacgod · · Score: 1
      My point is that killing lots of people due to irrationally believing that an omnipotent sky fairy told you you're right is no more or less evil than killing lots of people due to believing that you're right because you've applied "science" to history and confirmed your preconceptions.

      It's not belief in God that's a problem, it's believing you're right in the face of all evidence. Atheists are not immune to the latter.

    2. Re:Talk about strecthing the definitions by m2943 · · Score: 1

      It's not belief in God that's a problem, it's believing you're right in the face of all evidence. Atheists are not immune to the latter.

      The difference is that atheism itself does not claim absolute truth about anything. Communism and Marxism either work or they don't, and that's an empirical question, which has been settled for most people. Some people may irrationally persist in it, but that's because they are irrational, not because atheism tells them to be irrational. Even the existence of god in atheism is not a matter of faith, it's a matter of absence of evidence and Occam's razor.

      But religion is different. Catholicism claims to be a universal truth, no matter how inconsistent and historically variable its beliefs are, and no matter how many rapes and genocides the church is responsible for. Religion intrinsically tells people to be irrational.

    3. Re:Talk about strecthing the definitions by Belacgod · · Score: 1
      Atheism in specific doesn't, but lots of atheists (Stalin, for example) do. Also, lots of religious people don't let their irrational beliefs about God bleed into their policy preferences, and that's just fine.

      The problem isn't people believing in God or the wheel of history or somesuch with zero evidence. The problem is people making real-world decisions that affect millions on the basis of this zero evidence. Atheists are no more immune than religious people to making important decisions based on no evidence.

    4. Re:Talk about strecthing the definitions by m2943 · · Score: 1

      Atheism in specific doesn't, but lots of atheists (Stalin, for example) do.

      Yes, and you're free to blame those atheists for their irrational behavior; you can't blame atheism itself for the irrationality of its members.

      The problem isn't people believing in God or the wheel of history or somesuch with zero evidence.

      That isn't "the" problem, but it is clearly one of many problems.

      The problem is people making real-world decisions that affect millions on the basis of this zero evidence. Atheists are no more immune than religious people to making important decisions based on no evidence.

      Quite to the contrary: atheists are considerably more "immune" to making important decisions based on no evidence because being an atheist does not intrinsically require you to make irrational decisions about anything, while being, say, a Catholic intrinsically requires you to make irrational decisions about some things.

    5. Re:Talk about strecthing the definitions by Belacgod · · Score: 1
      Quite to the contrary: atheists are considerably more "immune" to making important decisions based on no evidence because being an atheist does not intrinsically require you to make irrational decisions about anything, while being, say, a Catholic intrinsically requires you to make irrational decisions about some things.

      I disagree*, but that's a different discussion from the Stalin example. Even if you're right, Stalin's atheism didn't save him from irrationality, because he believed in marxism-leninism in the same manner that Catholics believe in God. *People in general will find justifications for their preferred course of action, rational if they exist, irrational if that's all there is. Atheists are not excepted, as it's a human tendency.

    6. Re:Talk about strecthing the definitions by m2943 · · Score: 1

      Even if you're right, Stalin's atheism didn't save him from irrationality

      Stalin himself got everything he wanted, so I don't see how he was irrational. The people who were irrational were his followers, and their irrational belief was in totalitarianism.

      because he believed in marxism-leninism in the same manner that Catholics believe in God

      You correctly observe that totalitarianism and religion are very much alike. Since we recognize that totalitarianism is evil, it therefore stands to reason that religion is also evil.

      People in general will find justifications for their preferred course of action, rational if they exist, irrational if that's all there is. Atheists are not excepted, as it's a human tendency.

      It is a human tendency. But a society of billions capable of launching nuclear missiles needs to overcome its demons. And we do that one step at a time, identifying and working towards ending one social ill at a time: feudalism, monarchy, totalitarianism, religion, etc.

      To be clear: I'm not arguing that religion should be banned. Religion is like abortion, drinking, smoking, and prostitution: in a free, democratic society, you can't realistically eliminate it by law, and you can't discriminate against people who engage in these acts as long as they don't hurt others. But we must not acquiesce to the immorality religion any more than to the immorality of smoking, abortion, or prostitution.

    7. Re:Talk about strecthing the definitions by Belacgod · · Score: 1
      Stalin himself got everything he wanted, so I don't see how he was irrational. The people who were irrational were his followers, and their irrational belief was in totalitarianism.

      Point. You attribute more cynical views to Stalin than I had, but I can totally get on board with the notion that he wasn't really trying to better the lives of his people.

      You correctly observe that totalitarianism and religion are very much alike. Since we recognize that totalitarianism is evil, it therefore stands to reason that religion is also evil.

      Does not follow! Totalitarianism and religion share some qualities, but not others. Religion is just fine until religious people try to make unbelievers follow their religious laws. That is to say, religion is just fine until it starts to resemble totalitarianism.

      Take your antireligious trolls elsewhere. You can get on your fine moral high hobbyhorse if you like, but if you actually want to accomplish anything you can't start by insulting 70% of the people you have to convince to follow you. You're preaching to the choir here, but if you talk like this to people who don't already agree with you it's no wonder nobody listens.

    8. Re:Talk about strecthing the definitions by m2943 · · Score: 1

      Does not follow!

      No, it does "not follow". That's why I said "it stands to reason".

      Religion is just fine until religious people try to make unbelievers follow their religious laws

      That is quite incorrect: many religions harm people even when they don't try to impose their religious beliefs on them.

      you can't start by insulting 70% of the people you have to convince to follow you [...] You're preaching to the choir here, but if you talk like this to people who don't already agree with you it's no wonder nobody listens.

      So, you think that by careful, polite dilly-dallying around theological issues, you are going to convince people? Get real.

      Most people who follow religions do so out of social conformance and to be part of a community. That will only change if people understand that a sizeable fraction of the population considers their choice immoral and that their choice excludes them from many communities.

      And one makes that clear differently in different contexts. In an on-line discussion forum, it's perfectly reasonable to state "I consider religion evil" and defend that statement. At a dinner party, one would express one's disapproval by rolling one's eyes, changing the subject, and crossing people who flaunt their religion off the list of future dinner guests.

  64. Congrats by Zashi · · Score: 1

    I congratulate you on referencing two of my favorite shows. You, sir, earn a gold-geek-star.

    --
    Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
  65. Shouldn't you be bounty hunting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comb your mullet.

  66. Woot bipolar-style moderation trends! :D by necro2607 · · Score: 1

    Hahaha I love how the moderation for this post has gone up and down so drastically. It started out at my usual 2 points, went up to +5 insightful for a short time, down to +1 insightful with a bunch of "flamebait" and "overrated", went back up to +4 insightful this morning, and now just got a bunch of "overrated", so it's back down to +1 insightful. I'm anxious to see what happens next! :D

  67. Without great looking Russian supermodels by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    This is just not as interesting as it should have been!

    Beautiful women killing monsters, it just doesn't get any better.

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  68. Re:Nigger attacks by Mincer+Lightbringer · · Score: 1

    Mushroom mushroom!