Slashdot Mirror


The World's Spookiest Weapons

DesScorp writes "Popular Science has a piece on some outrageous ideas for weapons; some came to fruition, and others didn't. And while some of the weapons (atom bombs, chemical weapons, bats with bombs strapped to them that seek out homes and buildings at night) are truly frightening, some of them are also kind of silly, such as the Gay Bomb, and the Frisbee bomb that was labeled the 'Modular Disc-Wing Urban Cruise Munition.'"

224 comments

  1. The best and the worst... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Best bomb to drop on California: The Nude Bomb
    Worst bomb to drop on DC: The Nude Bomb

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:The best and the worst... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Yeah man, I agree. The world needs to see more of my wang. =) Thanks, it really means a lot to me. It's not every day that someone encourages me to lose my pants.

    2. Re:The best and the worst... by LaskoVortex · · Score: 2, Funny

      Best place to drop the nude bomb: Boulder Colorado.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    3. Re:The best and the worst... by ACDChook · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm afraid that bomb got dropped 28 years ago. And it was a stinker. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081249/

    4. Re:The best and the worst... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      It's not every day that someone encourages me to lose my pants. So what you're actually saying is that as a basement-dwelling Slashdot troll, you typically don't drive members of the opposite sex mad with lust?

      This is a major surprise.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    5. Re:The best and the worst... by asuwish4 · · Score: 1

      The movie may have stunk but I still have fond memories of Don Adams driving his desk down the road...

      One of those moments that still makes me laugh when I think about it.. ;-)

    6. Re:The best and the worst... by arivanov · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Anywhere in the so called "Anglo-Saxon sphere of influence" will do. Rest of the world will not give a f***. Germans, french, etc all walk around wearing only a hat on holidays so I do not quite see them giving a damn about a few more nudes here or there.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    7. Re:The best and the worst... by orasio · · Score: 1

      Excuse me.
      I am working in Barbados, in the Caribbean.
      I see British and Canadian old people here at the beach.
      Old ladies wear small bikinis. Old guys wear thongs. Not a pleasant sight, but _they_ probably would not give a flying fuck either about being nude.

    8. Re:The best and the worst... by arivanov · · Score: 1

      I suggest you educate yourself by going to Formentera or the south end of Fuerteventura. The germans there wear hats, sandals and backpacks. ONLY hats, sandals and backpacks. I initially considered the sight of German pensioners waving their tits, todgers and testicles while playing volleyball or bawls not particularly pleasant. By now (it has been nearly 10+ years since our first holiday there and we go there at least once a year) I simply do not give a damn. They are part of the scenery.

      As far as the AngloSaxon vs the rest of the world all you need is to mentally compare the image of British pensioners playing Bawls and German pensioners playing Bawls. On one side you have manicured lawns, white suits, formal attire, etc. On the other you have hats on the beach. That is ONLY hats. NOTHING else.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  2. The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The truth is there is no such thing as a spooky or scary weapon. A non-naive look at the world shows that human beings really don't care about what happens to the rest of the world, as long as the effects aren't felt at home.

    We could annihilate 5 billion people on the planet, but the average person (at least in North America) would little more than flinch, so long as their own city or state is not affected.

    Or maybe I've just lost all faith in humanity. Either way, society already turns a blind eye to the atrocious acts of mankind. A little more torture and murder won't change the way those in power control the planet and its inhabitants.

    1. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some people I know won't stop talking about that earthquake in China. I disagree. They are like Debbie Downer on SNL, I'm having a conversation, and they bring up flooding or an earthquake.

    2. Re:The truth is... by Planesdragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The truth is there is no such thing as a spooky or scary weapon Actually, it's just the opposite. There's no such thing as a NON-spooky or scary weapon. If it's not a dangerous implement of death, it's not a weapon.
    3. Re:The truth is... by William+Robinson · · Score: 1

      The truth is there is no such thing as a spooky or scary weapon. A non-naive look at the world shows that human beings really don't care about what happens to the rest of the world, as long as the effects aren't felt at home.

      So true.

    4. Re:The truth is... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We could annihilate 5 billion people on the planet, but the average person (at least in North America) would little more than flinch, so long as their own city or state is not affected. I can't really speak for North America, but people travel more and for me at least, between friends and business connections, there aren't many places in the world where I wouldn't be very concerned if something bad happened. E.g., Burma hasn't affected me, but I have (had?) friends in China I can't get hold of since the quake. That's just on a personal level, however so much of our business world is interconnected now, that thinking you won't be affected if half the world disappeared is incredibly naive - just pick most any non-trial, non-handmade product or service, and follow the supply chain...
      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    5. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth is there is no such thing as a spooky or scary weapon. A non-naive look at the world shows that human beings really don't care about what happens to the rest of the world, as long as the effects aren't felt at home. Insolent fool. I shall prove you wrong when I unleashed my chest-grafted ghost cannon upon the world! Muahahahahahaha!
    6. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What about a lead pipe or a carpenter's hammer? These aren't inherently spooky or scary, they're just tools - but I sure wouldn't want someone to enthusiastically apply either to my skull.

      Can you imagine how much pain you could inflict with a standard dinner fork (provided the subject was sufficiently restrained)? Nobody would classify this as a weapon - and it certainly wouldn't inspire fear, until one had been used to pry your fingernails off.

      I guess it just goes to show, it's not the weapon you're wielding that counts, it's how you use it...

    7. Re:The truth is... by stjobe · · Score: 1, Troll

      A little more torture and murder won't change the way those in power control the planet and its inhabitants. Unless, of course, the "torture and murder" is done to "those in power"...
      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    8. Re:The truth is... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We could annihilate 5 billion people on the planet, but the average person (at least in North America) would little more than flinch, so long as their own city or state is not affected. Entirely possible -- we kill millions, and a billion is just another number. The radioactive fallout would probably get to them, though...

      But it doesn't prove your point:

      The truth is there is no such thing as a spooky or scary weapon. I'd say it depends on context. A large knife, dripping with blood, particularly when it's still in the hands of the person who last used it, is a very scary weapon.

      Given that just about any weapon can be scary in the right context, I think what you're proving is that nothing is scary when you aren't paying attention to it, no matter how scary it really is.
      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    9. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The truth is there is no such thing as a spooky or scary weapon. A non-naive look at the world shows that human beings really don't care about what happens to the rest of the world, as long as the effects aren't felt at home.

      We could annihilate 5 billion people on the planet, but the average person (at least in North America) would little more than flinch, so long as their own city or state is not affected.

      Well said. India has been target of trrist assaults for more than 25 years, including latest Jaypur blasts. And we have done very little to help them in past. We need to take our neck out of sand and start understanding problem they are facing. We need start paying attention to this global threat before it is too late.

    10. Re:The truth is... by 4D6963 · · Score: 0, Troll

      A non-naive look at the world shows that human beings really don't care about what happens to the rest of the world, as long as the effects aren't felt at home. We could annihilate 5 billion people on the planet, but the average person (at least in North America) would little more than flinch, so long as their own city or state is not affected. Right, which is why you have all these hippies going around trying to make you care about stuff that happens in countries you couldn't even find on a map.
      --
      You just got troll'd!
    11. Re:The truth is... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      We could annihilate 5 billion people on the planet
      It's in the works.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:The truth is... by nguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We could annihilate 5 billion people on the planet, but the average person (at least in North America) would little more than flinch, so long as their own city or state is not affected

      No, we couldn't, because the US has moved most manufacturing overseas and is completely dependent on Europe and China economically.

    13. Re:The truth is... by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      but the average person (at least in North America) would little more than flinch, so long as their own city or state is not affected.

      I suppose this is true. I think it's partially because of becoming desensitized and not allowing it to affect onself too much because of the flood of these messages. Numbers also are meaningless to many; if one would report 3000 people being killed, noone would react. If one would give 1 person a face (documentary, reportage, ...) people would feel affected and connected. (disgust, confusion, empathy, ... depending on what's being brought across.)

      This connection would fade over time though, as it's not related to one's own life. If someone in your family or environment dies, you're confronted with his or her absence on a regular base. The memory of some flickering screen is less strong and doesn't integrate or reconnect as strongly with your frame of reference as your own, direct experiences.

      Perhaps it's a good coping and survival mechanism, to be able t shrug it off. If I wouldn't be able to shrug of the news I hear every day, I'd be unable to live my life; I'd be saving puppies and bulls in Spain, protecting seals on the north pole, trying to end world hunger, giving Russian futureless boys perspective to lower the crime rates, start an organisation to help people with difficult personal problems, fight at the side of the innocent in Iraq, protest at the White house for more US citizens rights, would pound my fist on the table in the parlement, reform the police, reshape the educational system, take away the need for fugutives to emigrate, spend my life finding cures against AIDS and cancer, shelter all the homeless, and build rockets to fly to Mars. (because that would be cool)

      If I sum it up, it's almost like news is there to give you a feeling of helplessness, and accept the fact your influence in the world is limited and puny.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    14. Re:The truth is... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Lead is pretty scary.. get some in your water supply and you'll eventually turn into a dumb aggressive maniac.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    15. Re:The truth is... by maxume · · Score: 5, Informative

      Fourth paragraph from the bottom, $18 billion annually (for everyone on the planet) on cosmetics:

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0111_040112_consumerism_2.html

      Iraq, $12 billion a month:

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23551693/

      Hopefully you are just misinformed.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:The truth is... by somersault · · Score: 1

      How exactly is one bomb in India a 'global threat' unless it's a high yield atomic one? There are over a billion people in India, good luck finding and controlling/eradicating the crazy terrorist ones! :p In fact I really hope your whole "we need to start paying attention to this global threat before it is too late" is just meant to be some kind of ironic joke, because it's very sad if that's the way you think of every other country, as a "possible threat" rather than a possible ally. Both are true, but just because some idiots set off a bomb in their own country doesn't mean that the whole country will start attacking the US (I think I can safely say you are from the US).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    17. Re:The truth is... by jmv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Although some tools can be used as "weapons" as you're saying, there just aren't many non-lethal applications to H-bombs cruise missiles and chemical weapons.

    18. Re:The truth is... by somersault · · Score: 1

      It's sad that the AC is either not from the US just trying to bag on us, or is from the US and entirely ignorant about the current state of affairs across this planet. Just about everyone not part of the west wants to take it down. Oh, the irony!!! :s
      --
      which is totally what she said
    19. Re:The truth is... by ConanG · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Airport security probably wouldn't let you on a plane with a fork...

    20. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Just about everyone not part of the west wants to take it down. Yes, people don't like bullies, go figure.

      Wait until we send some big shit down the pipe and the world will sing a different tune, either "OH PLEASE SPARE US!" or "OMG WTF OUR CITIES ARE GONE!" depending on where you happen to be living. There, fixed that for you.
    21. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What about a lead pipe or a carpenter's hammer? These aren't inherently spooky or scary, they're just tools - but I sure wouldn't want someone to enthusiastically apply either to my skull.
      And some of the scariest horror movies ever made revolve around this: everyday tools, used as weapons, inspiring terror.
    22. Re:The truth is... by AnotherUsername · · Score: 1

      Right, which is why you have all these hippies going around trying to make you care about stuff that happens in countries you couldn't even find on a map. So basically what you are saying is, we should add more geography classes to our schools?
      --
      I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
    23. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That stupid ass comment about people not caring about anything if it doesn't affect their home... Get a grip dude. Dont talk about people in power and all that shit cause they were born into this world just like u. Instead of complaining, u make a difference or at least shut the fuck up about everyone else Mr. Know it all. U know so much, u should be in power. Dont live ur life pointing fingers, its pathetic. Unless you're Oprah, Bono, or somebody else sweet and generous, ur just blowing smoke. My personal opinion, weapons are just one more way people can kill people. I'm indifferent I guess. Weapons helped us soldiers maintain control over groups, but wouldn't have been needed if they didnt have weapons too.. I made alot of Iraqi friends in OIF 2. They're humans too, so maybe my impression might have an affect when theyre friend says let's blow up some troops. He'll say,"not them! Those are my buddies. I'm on theyre side."

    24. Re:The truth is... by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "Although some tools can be used as "weapons" as you're saying, there just aren't many non-lethal applications to H-bombs cruise missiles and chemical weapons."

      I dunno, those might actually be the few things that can help us rid ourselves of the damned Formosan Termites down here in New Orleans, etc. Just made me think of it, 'cause it is getting close to the time for them to start swarming again....every night for about a week, you see swarms of them up around the street lights, and if you house isn't air tight, if you have the lights on...they'll try to swarm in your house too. Lots of fun while cooking a late dinner...

      OH well, if there is a bug or other vermin out there, it grows bigger and better here than anywhere else in the US. I'll not even get into the giant cockroaches that will fly at you....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    25. Re:The truth is... by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, it's just the opposite. There's no such thing as a NON-spooky or scary weapon. If it's not a dangerous implement of death, it's not a weapon. Familiarity desensitizes us. I find our interstate highway system to be the sort of thing a 19th century futurist would dream up to warn us of the dangers of industrialization. It is unimaginable carnage, destruction, and waste. And yet we treat it as just another thing to deal with through the day. The idea of nuclear war has become something we've adapted to knowing of but not thinking about. Contemplating that even now, today, in 2008, one finger pushing the wrong button could send the warheads flying, could see the world swathed in radiation, we've successfully put such things completely out of our minds.

      And if we look at land warfare, the rules of war used to say that you weren't allowed to use shotguns on human beings but .50 cals were acceptable! We're not supposed to use laser weapons to blind soldiers because that's inhumane but we can use thermobaric weapons that suck their lungs out through their mouths! (I've never seen a picture of this but I've seen frogs that have been run over by cars, essentially puking up their entire innards through their mouths, so it seems like a real possibility.)

      I feel a very huge squicky difference between the thought of an Apache chopper firing a Hellfire into a target versus a Predator drone making the firing decision on its own. Hellfire missiles are simple robots designed to seek and destroy targets. But with the Apache, a human is pulling the trigger directly. For now, humans are doing the same with Predators but the Pentagon is working on making them fully autonomous vehicles so that they can make engagement decisions on their own when outside of direct control. Sentry robots are going to be given that same kind of authority. While there's not really much moral difference in directionless killing between an armed robot ready to shoot people with no oversight and land mines and ocean mines that are less complicated ways of spreading irresponsible and uncontrolled death and mayhem, the robot freaks me out more.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    26. Re:The truth is... by J_Omega · · Score: 1

      Numbers also are meaningless to many; if one would report 3000 people being killed, noone would react.

      Then explain the "reaction" of 9/11.

      Agreeing with the OP: What percentage of North Americans truly care about the x-mas tsunami, the Myanmar cyclone, or Chinese earthquake?

    27. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it just goes to show, it's not the weapon you're wielding that counts, it's how you use it... Maybe you could tell that to my wife...
    28. Re:The truth is... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      The truth is there is no such thing as a spooky or scary weapon. A non-naive look at the world shows that human beings really don't care about what happens to the rest of the world, as long as the effects aren't felt at home.

      We could annihilate 5 billion people on the planet, but the average person (at least in North America) would little more than flinch, so long as their own city or state is not affected.

      Or maybe I've just lost all faith in humanity. Either way, society already turns a blind eye to the atrocious acts of mankind. A little more torture and murder won't change the way those in power control the planet and its inhabitants. I cannot say I agree with you. I was in downtown Portland when the Iraq war protests were at their peek. I had never seen so many people out and about in that town, not even at the waterfront when festivals were taking place. I couldn't even drive home until after 9 because the streets were so thick with the protestors. From what I've heard, San Francisco was even worse. Lots of people cared.
      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    29. Re:The truth is... by dargaud · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I thought that being connected was the thing preventing WWIII or somesuch until I read something about WWI. Back then nobility and high bourgeoisie where highly intermarried all over Europe. But still they 'decided' on a war that everybody at the time thought would be a brief kind of reassessment where they didn't think they had much to lose. Unfortunately (?) it bankrupted most European countries, signed the death toll of royalty in Europe (except on some weird island) and gave rise to the US.

      Just look at the current situation in the US: the neocon start a war for the 'good' of 'merica and its net effect is that the US economy now belongs to China. Talk about being patriots !

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    30. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The articles that newspapers all over the country publish today will be filled with [military spending] numbers to the first decimal point; they will seem precise. Few of them will be accurate; many will be incomplete, some will be both. Worse, few of us will be able to tell what numbers are too high, which are too low, and which are so riddled with gimmicks to make them lose real meaning."

              â" Winslow T. Wheeler, What Do the Pentagonâ(TM)s Numbers Really Mean? The Chaos in Americaâ(TM)s Vast Security Budget, Center for Defense Information, February 4, 2008

    31. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      That explains why some plumbers go crazy and start jumping on turtles and mushrooms while trying to smash bricks with their heads.

    32. Re:The truth is... by wolf12886 · · Score: 1
      Depending on an individuals mindset, you could say that nothing is a weapon until its implemented as such.


      Under this interpretation the lead pipe and hammer would only be spooky after which it was clear that they'd be used as weapons, which I think is a pretty reasonable conclusion.


      Expanding this back to the original subject matter, devices that can reasonably be assumed will be used as weapons, such as guided bombs and whatnot could justifiably be called "creepy", while something like a hammer, or even a rifle purchased for recreation could not.

    33. Re:The truth is... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ust look at the current situation in the US: the neocon start a war for the 'good' of 'merica and its net effect is that the US economy now belongs to China. Talk about being patriots !

      That's not really correct. Much as I dislike the present Administration, the reality is that our government and our private sector sold out to China long before Bush & Co. took office. I agree, there's a substantial amount of high treason involved, but you can't lay this at our President's feet. Well, not all of it, anyway. Hell, Bill Clinton was partly responsible for what has become the largest transfer of scientific knowledge and technological capability from one nation to a hostile totalitarian state in the history of Mankind. Kinda makes you wonder whose side either of these two men is really on. Not ours, that's for sure.

      Even then, you have to go back farther than the previous Administration: this process really began back in the seventies. It's only accelerated to point of economic ruin for the United States within the past fifteen years or so. People don't fully understand the way China looks at the these things: they take a generational approach to foreign affairs. I don't know when the decision was made to take us out of the equation, but there's no doubt that once it was made they followed through with it. Look, the Russians tried the frontal approach: it didn't work, and their Empire eventually collapsed of its own weight, but China is not making that same mistake. They realized that behind the vaunted American military was a capable industrial engine, and that they'd never gain any traction over us until they removed our ability to create wealth and support our military.

      China's leaders may be evil and corrupt by our standards, but they most certainly aren't stupid, and are rapidly taking care of their only real obstacle to world domination, the United States, by using the greed and avarice of our elected and corporate leaders as a weapon. It's working, and probably working better they they ever expected.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    34. Re:The truth is... by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Or maybe I've just lost all faith in humanity. Either way, society already turns a blind eye to the atrocious acts of mankind. A little more torture and murder won't change the way those in power control the planet and its inhabitants.

      There are some pretty good arguments that we actually live in one of the least violent times in human history.

      The criminologist Manuel Eisner has assembled hundreds of homicide estimates from Western European localities that kept records at some point between 1200 and the mid-1990s. In every country he analyzed, murder rates declined steeply--for example, from 24 homicides per 100,000 Englishmen in the fourteenth century to 0.6 per 100,000 by the early 1960s.
      With the 24 hour News cycle and instant global communications, we now see and hear about bad things from all over the world. The earthquake in China would have only been a small blurb in a western paper 50 years ago and would have been almost unknown in the western world 100 years ago. Darfur wouldn't have been an issue to anyone outside of Africa 100 years ago. I would say that rather than turning a blind eye to atrocities, we are paying ever closer attention. The total numbers of atrocities may be going up, but the number per capita is going down, after we reach our global peak population (predicted for 2070) then the amount of global violence should decline as humans become ever more civilized and our populations slowly decline.
      --
      We are all just people.
    35. Re:The truth is... by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1
      Well... France's monarchy had gone long before, and Belgium and Netherlands still have one, as do Sweden, Norway and Spain. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchies_in_Europe ).

      But apart from that, spot on :p

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    36. Re:The truth is... by maxume · · Score: 1

      The specifics might be up in the air, but the spending is still many times th cosmetics statement:

      http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,161398,00.html

      (that's what they are asking for, not current spending, I'm sure current spending is within 50% of those figures)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    37. Re:The truth is... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      1 its was NEW YORK (oh and that five sided thing the DOD has)

      2 News At Eleven (and news at noon , 1 pm 2 pm 3 pm 4 pm 5pm 6 pm ... 11 pm)

      short version WE GOT PISSED and had great coverage

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    38. Re:The truth is... by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine how much pain you could inflict with a standard dinner fork (provided the subject was sufficiently restrained)?

      You have clearly underestimated the element of surprise. This is why I always keep a suspicious eye on my dinner guests. You just never know.

    39. Re:The truth is... by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      The idea of nuclear war has become something we've adapted to knowing of but not thinking about. Contemplating that even now, today, in 2008, one finger pushing the wrong button could send the warheads flying 1: Nuclear war still terrifies us. It terrified us after Hiroshima, and it terrifies us today. But we don't think about it too much.

      2: Actually, it's one finger pressing several buttons. And usually turning a key. And in most cases, selecting a target.
    40. Re:The truth is... by umghhh · · Score: 1

      "Your rifle is only a tool, it is a hard heart that kills" -Gunnery Sergeant Hartman

    41. Re:The truth is... by xlsior · · Score: 1

      I suppose this is true. I think it's partially because of becoming desensitized and not allowing it to affect onself too much because of the flood of these messages. Numbers also are meaningless to many; if one would report 3000 people being killed, noone would react. If one would give 1 person a face (documentary, reportage, ...) people would feel affected and connected. (disgust, confusion, empathy, ... depending on what's being brought across.)

      "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." -- Joseph Stalin

    42. Re:The truth is... by DesScorp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, we couldn't, because the US has moved most manufacturing overseas and is completely dependent on Europe and China economically. China is as dependent on us as we are of them... and I'd argue that we're still at the point where, if they want continued economic growth, they're more reliant on us than the opposite. Remember, China has to have someone to sell all that stuff to. If the American market disappears tomorrow, so does China's prosperity. They only have our balls in a vise if we refuse to squeeze theirs.

      Same thing with Europe... they're farther ahead in terms of infrastructure than China (well, Western Europe is, anyway), but the same thing applies. Europe needs American markets and dollars too. Look at all of the stuff Americans buy from Europeans. Airliners, petroleum (hello BP and Dutch Shell), automobiles, etc. I'd wager that Sweden would be less of a social-democratic paradise if Americans weren't putting significant money into their economy buying their Volvos, Saabs, and Ikea furniture. Germany would be hard hit if the BMW's and Benz's stopped rolling off the docks. Add to that the fact that US companies have factories in Europe and China, and European companies have factories in America and China, and that shows just how tightly integrated and interdependent we all are economically. Even China is now looking to build plants in America. Economic dependency isn't a one-way street.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    43. Re:The truth is... by phat_cartman · · Score: 1

      Can you get me a license to kill? Sure. Fire arms of bare hands? Which one does piano wire fall under?

    44. Re:The truth is... by ignavus · · Score: 1

      "thinking you won't be affected if half the world disappeared is incredibly naive"

      Yeah. Imagine if all the females disappeared!

      Wait. This is Slashdot. We *wouldn't* be affected if all the females disappeared.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    45. Re:The truth is... by nguy · · Score: 1


      Economic dependency isn't a one-way street.

      Of course not. Who said it was? I just pointed out that the US was highly dependent on the rest of the world, something that doesn't seem to have sunk in. Most Americans already assume that the rest of the world is dependent on the US.

      If the American market disappears tomorrow, so does China's prosperity

      Your analysis is flawed. China is selling us stuff at cut-rate prices. That means that they are foregoing prosperity in order to gain power by buying up US assets and real estate, and it's working. The trade imbalance with Europe has different causes and is correcting itself as the euro is rising against the dollar.

    46. Re:The truth is... by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      The average person in the US gives more personal money towards disaster relief than anywhere else. We are the most compassionate people on the planet.

    47. Re:The truth is... by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Ah the cowardly republican trying to lash out with his normal retoric, the nonsensical one.

      At least the most republicans behave normally

      Disclaimer: I'm dutch, so I'm neither a US democrat or republican.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    48. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might need to compare that amount with the average wealth of the person giving before you can make such a claim, not to disparage Americas efforts.. but the amount you can give is relative to the amount you earn.

    49. Re:The truth is... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised you haven't been modded as insightful yet!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    50. Re:The truth is... by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 1

      While the carpenter's hammer isn't inherently spooky, the thought of the application of it as a weapon is enough to make my stomach turn.

      The same could be said about nuclear weapons- nothing spooky about them, until you consider the potential devastation.

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
    51. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creating cheap crap for pennies is removing our ability to create wealth? A bigger problem is the amount of $$ that goes to purchase imported oil.

    52. Re:The truth is... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      A bigger problem is the amount of $$ that goes to purchase imported oil.

      An even bigger problem is the amount of $$ that line the pockets of Wall Street petroleum futures traders. They're the ones that are making out like criminals in all of this, mainly because that's exactly what many of them are. Sure, it would be nice to remove our dependence upon foreign oil production, but you can't actually blame high pump prices on that. It's people right here that are doing most of the profiteering.

      Creating cheap crap for pennies is removing our ability to create wealth?

      Yes. The production facilities and technological capability required to create that "cheap crap" is also needed to manufacture more important goods. I suppose it would be okay if we just imported non-critical items from China, but we don't. Our military cannot function without technology purchased abroad (Boeing, I understand, can't make avionics any more, they buy it from Japan.) We are importing so much that we've lost the ability to make it ourselves: you people just don't understand what is happening here. As an engineer who's been in industry for the better part of thirty years, I can tell you this: we're in trouble. Deep, deep trouble. We're giving up our essential security for cheap crap in the same way that some Native American tribes sold vast tracts of land for trinkets in pre-Colonial times. They didn't realize what they'd done, and neither do most of us.

      You cannot be a free nation if you are not simultaneously an independent nation, which means you must have the ability to take care of yourself. Sacrificing our independence on the altar of greed, and relying upon a foreign power (and a hostile foreign power at that) for our basic needs is stupidity of the highest order. China is not making that mistake, but most of the rest of the world is. The price we're eventually going to pay is going to be beyond belief, unless you believe that China will continue to provide for us forever, out of the goodness of its collective heart.

      Let me ask you this: when people talk about "creation of wealth", what do they mean? Does it mean printing more money? No, it means that something was manufactured from raw materials and sold for a profit. That's what made America great: hell, after World War II was over we alone produced and exported more than half of the world's manufactured goods. Over half, from one country. Then Japan, followed by China, targeted our weak points and went after them, decimating industry after key industry. Now, calling Japan an ally in this context is something of a misnomer, I think, they screwed us over good. They may live to regret that. Regardless, what Japan left, China is taking, and there's not so much left as there used to be.

      And before you bring up the ridiculous concept known as a "service economy", let me point out that that is semantically equivalent to "Third World Economy." Frankly, I don't want to live in the Third World, and the policies of our elected leaders and "Captains of Industry" are fucking making it happen.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  3. Frisbee improvement idea... by sznupi · · Score: 1

    sounds like something which could work with remote detonator and claymore mine-like innards.

    ok, ok, I'll stop now, geeks should supress such ideas ;)

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
    1. Re:Frisbee improvement idea... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that's how it worked -- or at least, it does carry explosives.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    2. Re:Frisbee improvement idea... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Well, I can't read TFA ATM (limited connection via mobile), but the idea behind claymore mine is more about "sinlge use big ass shotgun" than explosives per se.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  4. Sick by tsa · · Score: 1

    You must be quite sick in the head to come up with these things.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Sick by somersault · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whenever I used a frisby I tend to think how it would be cool to put knives around the edge and let them flick out from the centrifugal force. I am not an especially violent person (though I do enjoy martial arts movies and occasionally martial arts as well), I just think it would be an interesting weapon :p Frisbees are great fun on their own, and very intuitive to curve and direct once you have your throwing techniques down properly, so they'd probably make pretty good delivery systems for explosive and such in certain situations. You want to be careful about the wind if you're going to launch at a steep angle though, otherwise you may find that your frisbee is acting more like a boomerang :)

      --
      which is totally what she said
  5. Not very complete by paganizer · · Score: 4, Informative

    They missed a few. Nazi sound and compressed air weapons, the first "shoot around a corner" gun. The "Amerika Bomber" concept that Heinlein liked so much that he based a lot of his future history series around the concept.
    The american Gyrojet rocket pistol.

    --
    Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    1. Re:Not very complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have to say that the Amerika Bomber reminded me a bit of the Shagohod. Fiction and reality can have striking similarities.

    2. Re:Not very complete by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Also nanotechnology, and very toxic substances. Imagine if the 9/11 guys had managed to inject a large dose of ricin into the twin towers' ventilation system.

    3. Re:Not very complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imagine the horror! I'm not saying 9/11 wasn't tragic for the people involved, but you Americans did far more damage to yourselves afterwards out of fear than the terrorists could ever do. To put the dead toll into perspective, each half hour all over the world more children die of malnutrition, lack of medical care, disease. Imagine that.

    4. Re:Not very complete by somersault · · Score: 1

      I would have thought the point was more to take out the stock exchange and screw up America's economy, but I guess taking out people working in the towers would have been a bit more of a setback than just taking out the computers, as the computers have backups (I wonder if the terrorists even knew that!). Just killing thousands of people seems to be a bit of a pointless exercise in itself.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Not very complete by somersault · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd quite like to see George Bush fight a war on malnutrition, disease and lack of medical care rather than a war on 'terror'..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:Not very complete by grassy_knoll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, what you're saying is controlling access to food and medical care can be considered a weapon.

      Like in Somalia, where UNICEF is prevented from providing aid to some of the "conflict affected areas".

    7. Re:Not very complete by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I know it is fictional, but, I've always wanted to see the "gun" as described in the novel, Logan's Run. Not that pussy one in the movie, but the one from the book with the different charges...especiallly the 'homer' that would home in on body heat, and when it hit, would unravel your nervous systems. Remember, the homer never misses....

      :-)

      Damn...I gotta dig that book out again. SOOOO much better than the stupid movie....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Not very complete by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      LBJ started the War on Poverty back in 1964... We've spent trillions of dollars, and employed millions of "soldiers" (government employees) and by all measures it's been an abject failure.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re:Not very complete by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      You want to invade Somalia or something?

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    10. Re:Not very complete by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd quite like to see George Bush fight a war on malnutrition, disease and lack of medical care rather than a war on 'terror'.. As much as I appreciate the idealistic sentiments of what you're saying, I can't agree with how you dismissively put 'terror' in quotes. The collapse of the WTC towers and crashing of those planes was undoubtedly pretty damn terrifying to those trapped inside. A bomb exploding on a train, or bus, or at a nightclub is undoubtedly terrifying as well. These were all real events that happened to real people, and they were perpetrated deliberately by others with a political or religious agenda.

      I'm not saying I agree with everything that's happened since, but please don't belittle the actual issue. There *are*, in fact, a group of fanaticals that would love to kill both you and me, preferably by sawing off our heads on-camera. Should that dominate our lives and our politics? Of course not. But it also shouldn't be casually dismissed as irrelevant, simply because it hasn't happened again recently, or not to you or anyone close to you.
      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    11. Re:Not very complete by JamesTRexx · · Score: 1

      Just killing thousands of people seems to be a bit of a pointless exercise in itself.

      Unless there's more to this than meets the casual eye, see the link in my sig for the movie Zeitgeist. Rallying the support of people to start a war and make a profit might just be worth a "few" lives for some people.

      --
      home
    12. Re:Not very complete by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those are terrorist acts yes, but invading a country is no way to stop terrorism. Terrorists usually operate in small groups and don't really have idealistic ties to any country, but rather have ties to ideology, religion, or sometimes just money.

      America was doing nothing about all this until it happened to them too, and then they went waaaaay too overboard on upping their security policies. I don't want to make little of the lives that were lost on 9/11 and the proceeding days, it was tragic, but there really isn't a way of making sure that something like this will never happen again. There have been a few American terrorists (and just plain old homicidal maniacs) as well as those from other countries. Even with a heavy police state there will always be ways of causing problems, many that nobody ever really thinks about (like hijacking a plane and doing a suicide run). You are more likely to catch terrorists early if everyone is being carefully monitored, but what would you rather - live in America of the 90s, or live in a 1984 style "Big Brother is Watching You" dystopia?

      PS there have been a couple of terrorist attacks in the UK since September the 11th, one even in the place where I was born (Glasgow), and there was at least one in London. I usually do casually dismiss that kind of thing, you can't just live in fear your whole life. If someone close to me was hurt by terrorist I would be angry and sad as hell, but you really can't "fight" that. You don't know when the next lunatic, fanatic, psychopath or drunken idiot will snap and cause terror in someone's life.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    13. Re:Not very complete by somersault · · Score: 1

      Rallying the support of people to start a war and make a profit might just be worth a "few" lives for some people. Disgusting, but true.
      --
      which is totally what she said
    14. Re:Not very complete by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      "I'd quite like to see George Bush fight a war on malnutrition, disease and lack of medical care rather than a war on 'terror'.."

      Seeing how that would only ensure we never get rid of malnutrition, disease and lack of medical care AND increase the public debt even more, no, I certainly wouldn't.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    15. Re:Not very complete by wallywam1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm so sick of people saying crap like this. So what if we diverted those resources to other things? I mean, how much food, medicine, etc. could $800 billion really buy anyway?

    16. Re:Not very complete by FLEB · · Score: 1

      How about a compromise position: move the quotes to 'War'.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    17. Re:Not very complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd quite like to see George Bush fight the war on terror personally, on the front line, with no more armor and weapons than any other field soldier. Him and every member of his cabinet past and present. I'd *LOVE* to see Rumsfeld and Cheney on the streets of Ramallah and Baghdad. I'd love to see the look in their eyes as reason and perspective finally take hold. I'd love to see them suddenly realize their lives, and the lives of over 4000 U.S. soldiers and 700,000+ Iraqi civilians would have been better spent fighting against malnutrition, disease, and lack of medical care.

      http://views.tgrigsby.com

    18. Re:Not very complete by mpe · · Score: 1

      LBJ started the War on Poverty back in 1964... We've spent trillions of dollars, and employed millions of "soldiers" (government employees) and by all measures it's been an abject failure.

      By the measure of "pointless government exercise" it appears to have been highly sucessful.

    19. Re:Not very complete by mpe · · Score: 1

      I'd quite like to see George Bush fight a war on malnutrition, disease and lack of medical care rather than a war on 'terror'..

      Why, arn't these big enough problems now?

    20. Re:Not very complete by mpe · · Score: 1

      Those are terrorist acts yes, but invading a country is no way to stop terrorism. Terrorists usually operate in small groups and don't really have idealistic ties to any country, but rather have ties to ideology, religion, or sometimes just money.

      There are cases of international terrorists being funded (and otherwise supported) by national governments, but these tend to be governments large military budgets in the first place. e.g. US, UK, Russia, France, Israel, China, etc.
      Invading a country is, however, a good way to ensure that country has a well motivated militia. Yet militiamen are rarely motivated to "take the fight to the enemy", even when the invaders have travelled only a few hundred miles.

      America was doing nothing about all this until it happened to them too,

      The US had been doing plenty of things to upset a large proportion of the planet for decades. Indeed the date of the 9/11 attack was more indicative of South American involvement, a connection which would have been even stronger had it taken place 2 years later.

      and then they went waaaaay too overboard on upping their security policies.

      Except when things have been tested it still appears to be quite easy to smuggle weapons onto passenger aircraft. A lot of the "upping security" appears to be more for show and annoying passengers and aircrews...

      Even with a heavy police state there will always be ways of causing problems,

      In a police state the obvious thing for trouble makers to do is to join the police.

      many that nobody ever really thinks about (like hijacking a plane and doing a suicide run).

      Actually plenty of people had though about using airliners as improvised cruise missiles. The earliest example which comes to mind is "The Medusa Touch", a movie made in 1978. There's also the pilot of "The Lone Gunmen", which has a great many points in common with the actual happenings.

      You are more likely to catch terrorists early if everyone is being carefully monitored, but what would you rather - live in America of the 90s, or live in a 1984 style "Big Brother is Watching You" dystopia?

      Actually you may be less likely to catch any terrorists in such a situation because terrorists are very uncommon. Trying to watch everyone means that most of the time you are unlikely to be watching any terrorists at all.

      PS there have been a couple of terrorist attacks in the UK since September the 11th, one even in the place where I was born (Glasgow), and there was at least one in London.

      The press is highly selective in what they call "terrorist", e.g. BNP members Robert Cottage and David Jackson tend not to be called "terrorists", even though they were caught will a large amount of explosives and weapons. The mainstream media also appeared reluctant to call Miles Cooper a "terrorist. Though the judge at his trial had no such hesitation when he was found guilty.

    21. Re:Not very complete by mpe · · Score: 1

      I'd quite like to see George Bush fight the war on terror personally, on the front line, with no more armor and weapons than any other field soldier. Him and every member of his cabinet past and present.

      Just them? Why not send every war supporter in the US Govermnent with them...

      I'd *LOVE* to see Rumsfeld and Cheney on the streets of Ramallah and Baghdad. I'd love to see the look in their eyes as reason and perspective finally take hold. I'd love to see them suddenly realize their lives, and the lives of over 4000 U.S. soldiers and 700,000+ Iraqi civilians

      Ramallah isn't in Iraq...

      would have been better spent fighting against malnutrition, disease, and lack of medical care.

      Would you trust them to spend this money in a way which did actually make a positive contribution to anything?

    22. Re:Not very complete by somersault · · Score: 1

      I meant instead of a war on terror. The amount you guys spend on your military is insaaaane..!

      --
      which is totally what she said
  6. Worst webpage layout by MonkWB · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Worst webpage layout, ever.

    1. Re:Worst webpage layout by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      Worst webpage layout, ever. Uh. Why?
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    2. Re:Worst webpage layout by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Because it doesn't work in Konqueror, shows exactly one per page for 20 pages, and appears to work entirely on Javascript.

      And because it lacks a "print layout" -- clicking "print" actually tells the browser to attempt to print.

      I wouldn't call it the "worst ever" layout, though. That's an honor reserved for a few million MySpace pages.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    3. Re:Worst webpage layout by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      For me, it doesn't work in firefox, either - I can't get past the 2nd image in the gallery. This isn't the first popsci.com gallery that does that, either.

    4. Re:Worst webpage layout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst webpage layout, ever.
      >> Uh. Why?

      If you don't know why then your computer is probably part of a zombie botnet, since clearly you have totally open Javascript in your browser.
    5. Re:Worst webpage layout by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      then your computer is probably part of a zombie botnet, Doubt it.

      since clearly you have totally open Javascript in your browser. Yeah, you're right. I should use Lynx as my primary browser.
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  7. Not mentioned in this by Konster · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Bombarang was developed in the 1970's, and while technically a success, development on the project was canceled due to unforeseen consequences.

    1. Re:Not mentioned in this by JAlexoi · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It returned to the owner :)

    2. Re:Not mentioned in this by 32771 · · Score: 1

      > ...unforeseen consequences.

      and was tested at Black Mesa ?

      --
      Je me souviens.
  8. You mean Cruise munition isnt the Gay Bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    C'mon, you werent expecting one Tom Cruise/gay/phallic symbol joke?

    1. Re:You mean Cruise munition isnt the Gay Bomb? by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1
  9. They Missed Some by joelleo · · Score: 5, Funny

    21. The Slashdot - Unleashing hordes of un-/poorly-informed armchair scientists|lawyers|doctors|engineers|*, causing chaos and confusion with their variety of often conflicting and/or innacurate information, recipes, opinion, straw-men, and/or social advice.

    --
    "In the end, there is simply no weapon more devastating than the truth, delivered in just the right way." - tnk1
    1. Re:They Missed Some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making the assumption that people who post on /. are somehow qualified in any relevant field. By the quality of the posts it is clear that most of them have not made it past grade school. Just because /. is for nerds etc, doesn't mean those nerds know any more than your average Josephine....

  10. Pigeon Guided Bombs in World War II by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 4, Interesting
    My grandfather, who served in the Navy during WWII, told me that pigeons were trained to peck at images of ships on a screen. The trained pigeons were then used to guide bombs dropped on Japanese ships.

    The screens were covered with grids of fine wire. The pecking would cause a horizontal wire to touch a vertical wire, completing a circuit and providing the course correction to the bomb's electronics.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Pigeon Guided Bombs in World War II by fodi · · Score: 2, Funny

      My grandfather, who served in the Navy during WWII, told me that pigeons were trained to peck at images of ships on a screen... ...now, pull my finger. Hahaha!
    2. Re:Pigeon Guided Bombs in World War II by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I read that something similar was trialled, but never saw action. Presumably this is because it didn't work, rather than for humanitarian (or pigeonitarian) reasons.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Pigeon Guided Bombs in World War II by FinchWorld · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe they worked to some extent to in testing, though I don't think they were ever deployed. Though from it they learned they you could train them to tap when they see a certain colour, so they were (and maybe still are) used to find people in orange jackets lost at see or similar.

      --
      "I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
    4. Re:Pigeon Guided Bombs in World War II by RDW · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mentioned here, along with the cat bomb, anti-tank dog and exploding rat (no, really):

      http://www.oddee.com/item_91684.aspx

    5. Re:Pigeon Guided Bombs in World War II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From memory, that was something B.F. Skinner, the behavioral psychologist, was involved in. It was considered quite promising and probably would have seen service- or at least field trials- if WWII had gone on longer.

      I recall the reason that it was not followed up later was the development of electronic methods of self-guidance, such as radar and the later Walleye-type bombs, which were more reliable and consistent (and trustworthy- you would not like to be the homing pigeon fancier that had one of your flock decide to go home to your coop while it was driving a missile).

  11. Crowd control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe it's just me, but what I think is the spookiest is not the weapons as such but rather how many of these appear to be explicitely intended for "crowd control".

    Now of course, using non-deadly force to stop riots etc. is better than using deadly force. But at the same time, the fact that something isn't deadly - not intended to be, anyway - will also take away people's inhibitions to an extent and make them more likely to actually resort to it.

    We're seeing this with tasers already, for example. And in fact, tasers are a good example insofar as that while the manufacturer would like to position them as non-deadly, they in fact are quite so.

    1. Re:Crowd control? by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Do you have any idea of the paper work and investigations that get done everytime a cop pulls his taser? they don't ever do it unless the alternative is dangerous to them or the suspect. the other thing you people NEVER bring into the equation is how many lives/injuries tasers have PREVENTED. if you had any idea how dangerous it is to use pyshical force to restrain someone you'd realise tasers are far safer.

      yes tasers suck to get hit with just like pepper spray, but i'd take being hit with a taser over 6 cops piling on to me to pin me down any day.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Crowd control? by equex · · Score: 0

      they only do the paperwork if someone cathches them on cam,,,

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    3. Re:Crowd control? by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      bullcrap. my best mate is a cop and he dreads pulling his taser because it means staying back 3 hours after work filling out a report and taking statements.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Crowd control? by jmv · · Score: 1

      Do you have any idea of the paper work and investigations that get done everytime a cop pulls his taser? they don't ever do it unless the alternative is dangerous to them or the suspect.

      I say make that even simpler. Any cop who uses the Taser receives it afterwards. That would create the perfect balance. It would get used when really necessary and not otherwise. (before anyone complains, I know very well it's not implementable)

    5. Re:Crowd control? by somersault · · Score: 1

      he dreads pulling his taser because it means staying back 3 hours after work filling out a report and taking statements. So he basically avoids doing anything which would mean he has to do work? :p That's one very messed up system. I can understand that they should have to fill out some amount of paperwork, but if he's hesitating at all because taking action is going to mean paperwork, that seems pretty dangerous to me :/ Not blaming your friend here, more the people that have put the system into place. I've considered joining the police in the past but I couldn't be bothered with all that paperwork, not for how much cops get paid anyway!
      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:Crowd control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, like that kid at the John Kerry speech... he was *clearly* going to kill someone.

      No, I'm afraid I've seen videos of cops (and not just rent-a-cops) misusing tasers that it just doesn't cut it.

    7. Re:Crowd control? by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 1

      Geez, lay off. Here's a perfect example of a cop who doesn't like to taser people and you still try to rail him? Give me a break. Would you rather there weren't paperwork for such incidents? Can you think of a better way that doesn't waste more man-hours or instill less of a sense of responsibility?

      Sorry... I don't mean to rant. I just feel for these cops, sometimes. I've known plenty of truly decent ones.

    8. Re:Crowd control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ye suffering gods, have you never seen that damned "Don't tase me bro!" video on YouTube?! If the three/four cops holding that kid down actually needed the taser to "control" that poor stupid bastard - I'll eat the laptop that I'm typing this on - and then painfully shove the hard metal pointy bits up my own nonsunshineyland. Sadly, I've seem many more incidents of gratuitous use of these kinds of weapons than you would ever believe. Hell, there's many more floating around the 'net - just run a search.

      Police are actually supposed to be trained in the physical arts are some point, aren't they?

      I'm 120lbs soaking wet, and have arm-barred, wrist locked, or otherwise duckwalked many of drunken idiots out of clubs/casinos, etc. It's so easy, it's actually a disadvantage to me to be so slight of build because people are more willing to put up a fight and hurt themselves by pointless and idiotic struggling. That irritates the hell out of me. The other big (and sadly stereotypically dumb) guy on one of my teams just growls and people pay attention. If someone gets frisky enough, he typically decks the hell out of 'em far worse though, and is so gonna get fired and/or draw a lawsuit one of these days...

      I can take 'em 4/5 falls too - unless he can actually get a solid grip on me. Just goes to show - force matters - but intelligently applied force goes so much further. Relying on gadgets that are supposed to be non-lethal, but sometimes aren't, is just asking for trouble...

    9. Re:Crowd control? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Why is that spooky?

      Just don't be part of a crowd.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    10. Re:Crowd control? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Yep, my dad used to be a cop, and I know a couple and have immense respect for what they do. I was slightly kidding, as well as making a point that there usually is a bit too much paperwork. If someone died in an arrest then you'd definitely want an investigation into what went on, but if the cops are scared to use tasers or force to apprehend someone then that's limiting their effectiveness. I used to not want to be a policeman just because I wasn't sure I'd be able to handle myself in a violent situation (and no doubt there would be lots of them if I were a police constable on the streets of Scotland), then after I learned about all the paperwork you have to do as well as being in dangerous situations, it just really didn't seem worth it to me. I respect the people that risk their lives like that for the protection of others.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    11. Re:Crowd control? by sir+fer · · Score: 0

      Do you have any idea of the paper work and investigations that get done everytime a cop pulls his taser? they don't ever do it unless the alternative is dangerous to them or the suspect. yeah that guy they repeatedly tasered for asking John Kerry a few questions was REAL dangerous. Not to mention all the children under 10 that have been subjected to electric shocks for 'disobedience'.

      the other thing you people NEVER bring into the equation is how many lives/injuries tasers have PREVENTED. they never bring it into the equation because the sum-total is close to zero. Zero has little influence on any equation unless it is all multiplication or dividing by...

      if you had any idea how dangerous it is to use pyshical force to restrain someone you'd realise tasers are far safer. I have an idea having worked as crowd security on several occasions and having trained in multiple practical martial arts and I say you're wrong. So wrong in fact that you're not even close to being right. Oh yeah, a high voltage shock is WAAAAAAY less dangerous than a cop sitting on you applying handcuffs...not.

      yes tasers suck to get hit with just like pepper spray, but i'd take being hit with a taser over 6 cops piling on to me to pin me down any day. If you need 6 cops to pin you down then those cops are incompetent and should be fired or retrained, but I guess incompetence passes for the norm in the USA these days. I mean it did on 9/11 and in the administration so US citizens seem to take it for granted. 1 or 2 at most should be able to do the job unless you are Andre the Giant. From all the evidence on youtube, it is obvious to all except the legally blind that cops use tasers as an alternative to physically restraining people because it is the easy option.
      --
      Debian FTW ;o)
    12. Re:Crowd control? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      they don't ever do it unless the alternative is dangerous to them or the suspect is in a diabetic coma There
      fixed
      that
      for
      ya!
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    13. Re:Crowd control? by mpe · · Score: 1

      I say make that even simpler. Any cop who uses the Taser receives it afterwards.

      Presumably with the person using it on said cop being either the person they used it on or his/her next of kin...

  12. Bat bomb by Haoie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was just reading about this randomly on Wikipedia the other day. A US invention

    This sort of opposes the Japanese developed Balloon bomb.

    Of course both didn't exactly become conventional weaponary.

    --
    If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
  13. Heinlein, schmeinlein by Werrismys · · Score: 1

    Exactly where in Heinlein's Future History line do we see the Silbervogel?

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
  14. Hey by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 5, Funny

    The gay bomb was fabulous!

    --
    Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    1. Re:Hey by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I see you were a test subject...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Hey by mauthbaux · · Score: 1

      The gay bomb was fabulous! Pictures here: Cracked's Craption Contest
      --
      "Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
  15. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Without man, there would be no weapons.
    O RLY?

    How would you classify those things in a lion's mouth, those things on a bear's feet or that thing a scorpion carries around? They ain't musical instruments, that's for sure.
    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  16. Politically correct term for "Gay Bomb" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show Tune Appreciation Weapon. They felt STAW had a more military sound to it.

  17. Upkeep - Bouncing Bomb? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Would the Upkeep bouncing bomb from the Chastise mission during WWII fit on this list at all? Its certainly more 'spooky' than some others on that list (airborne laser, vehicle defence et al).

    Coincidentally, yesterday was the 65th anniversary of the missions, and there was a reenactment at the dam in the UK that the Royal Air Force No. 617 Squadron trained at. They were to later be called the Dambusters.

    Video footage here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7405514.stm

  18. It shows just how much the military fears gay sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even though many militaries of the past have been particularly successful because of it.

  19. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by frenchbedroom · · Score: 0

    those things in a lion's mouth = teeth
    those things on a bear's feet = claws
    that thing a scorpion carries around = I guess you mean its sting

    A weapon is a *tool* which can be used to hurt or kill. None of your examples are tools.

  20. Missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the N bomb?

  21. Heinlein quote... by Majin+Bubu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men.

    --
    Ander

    @=

    1. Re:Heinlein quote... by 4D6963 · · Score: 5, Funny

      There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous video games.

      There, fixed it for you.

      Sincerely,

      Jack Thompson

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:Heinlein quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men. Well, there are some very dangerous women as well... ... especially if they insist on talking to you about topics such as: "Does my ass look big in this?"
    3. Re:Heinlein quote... by Kyokushi · · Score: 1

      Why do I suddenly think, "Ballmer"?

    4. Re:Heinlein quote... by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not sure he ever had a good look at a chainsaw.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Heinlein quote... by weicco · · Score: 1

      But recent study showed that video games aren't as dangerous as thought to be. So I guess we are back to action movies and heavy metal then.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
  22. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    They're natural rather than artificial tools, but they're tools nonetheless. You are also a tool.

  23. Prior Art by DrYak · · Score: 1

    I think that the Predator can claim prior art on that one....

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  24. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by penguin+king · · Score: 1

    How is the parent a Troll and the reply (Child?) Insightful? Surely the parent is more Insightful, or at the very least a potential Conchords reference!

  25. When... by Sobieski · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...are we gonna get a newspost about weapons on slashdot that DOESN'T mention "the gay bomb"?

    --
    Particles, stuff that matters.
  26. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Weapon \Weap"on\ (w[e^]p"[u^]n; 277), n. [OE. wepen, AS.
              w[=ae]pen; akin to OS. w[=a]pan, OFries. w[=e]pin, w[=e]pen,
              D. wapen, G. waffe, OHG. waffan, w[=a]fan, Icel. v[=a]pn,
              Dan. vaaben, Sw. vapen, Goth. w[=e]pna, pl.; of uncertain
              origin. Cf. Wapentake.]
              [1913 Webster]
              1. An instrument of offensive of defensive combat; something
                    to fight with; anything used, or designed to be used, in
                    destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy,
    as a gun, a
                    sword, etc. Sounds very much like teeth, claws, or stings.
    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  27. They forgot "The Funniest Joke in the World" by BuGless · · Score: 5, Funny
  28. Reminds me of Half Life... by waztub · · Score: 1

    Anyone else think that "Airborne Laser" (pic 19) looks like some of the robots on Half Life 2?

  29. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by Yeef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but I get tired of the whole 'man is the ultimate evil' thing, especially since a lot of the people who believe that back it up with baseless information. Plenty of animals, like bears, kill each other (even their young) under the right circumstances. Animals war with one another (amongst their own species) just like us. In fact, Planet Earth has a segment that shows two tribes of gorillas fighting over territory. Likewise, plenty of different species will fight over things such as food or mates.

    Of course, a lot of these conflicts end with one party surrendering rather than death, but the same is true of humans. On Killing does a pretty good job of showing how humans have a natural aversion to killing members of their own species (even in times of war) just like any other animal. And plenty of animals other than humans have been known to use tools. I'm too lazy to find the article, but I remember reading, about a year ago, an account of an ape using a bone to test the depth of the water in a river. It's safe to say that they animal kingdom has the same capacity for 'evil' as man. We just happen to be the dominant species and are very self-centered so no one pays attention to what the other creatures of the Earth are up to.

    --
    I was once a horse.
  30. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by bvimo · · Score: 1

    Weapon
    1. An instrument of offensive of defensive combat; something to fight with; anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy, as a gun, a sword, etc. Are you suggesting that the lion, bear and scorpion were designed?
    --
    In either case, here at Microsoft, we feel standards are important. And we have fun, too. Doug Mahugh, Microsoft
  31. CIA sponsored LSD trips, meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    compared to a simple book about some god or prophet, i'd say the spookier mind control weapon is religion.

  32. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The worst weapon in existence on Earth is not man-made. The worst weapon in existence on Earth is man itself. I don't know about you but I, and every other person I know, was man(and woman)-made. I understand how this concept can be unfamilar to a slashdotter, though.
  33. The Rods from God by Soft+Cosmic+Rusk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I dont quite get it... They are supposed to be dropped from a sattelite and fall to earth with the power of a nuclear weapon... But if you drop them, won't they just remain in orbit? Or will a tiny push be enough to get them down to earth?

    1. Re:The Rods from God by the_other_chewey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But if you drop them, won't they just remain in orbit?

      Yes, absolutely. It is impossible to just "drop" something on earth from
      a stable orbit - remember: You are already constantly falling.


      Or will a tiny push be enough to get them down to earth?

      I'd expect them to be rocket propelled rods to a certain extent.
      Targetting will be a bitch though: You'd have to do a more or less controlled
      reentry (tip forward, or the earodynamic breaking would mess with your speed) on
      an arced trajectory, and very precisely hold on to your trajectory - even very
      minor errors will make the rod completely miss the target.

      The whole thing sounds interesting as an idea, but gets complicated very quickly as you
      start thinking about an implementation.

    2. Re:The Rods from God by Coraon · · Score: 1

      Personally I like this idea, though I would suggest prefer a smaller projectile. It would in theory anyway be like cutting your enemies heart out with a sledge hammer.

      --
      -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
    3. Re:The Rods from God by Ztras · · Score: 1

      All you need is a master computer on the moon, and the ability to launch large rocks... Reading through the list, it seems like many of the weapons have some connection to Heinlein. I see the correlation, but not sure of the causation.

    4. Re:The Rods from God by RNLockwood · · Score: 1

      Right! A rocket engine will be required to slow it down so the new, more elliptical, orbit intersects the earth at the target coordinates. Probably a steering rocket will be required as well. I guess that it will take quite a while before the munition impacts and quite a few of the satellite pairs will need to be deployed to ensure that they will be positioned to hit a target within several hours of the decision to fire. So this weapon will be good only against stationary targets.

      --
      Nate
    5. Re:The Rods from God by Soft+Cosmic+Rusk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The more I think of it, the weirder it gets. If those arrows were to have the energy of an A-bomb, the energy had to come from somewere, namely the rockets that brought them into orbit. With, say, a battery of 6 arrows, the rocket would have to have the energy of 6 atomic bombs! Isn't that a bit unrealistic?

    6. Re:The Rods from God by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      considering the hiroshima bomb had a few kilotons of yield, it is entirely feasible that the booster which takes it into orbit actually will have that much energy.

      There are exclusion zones many miles wide whenever something is launched from the cape, just to give you an idea of the kind of devastation you would be looking at if one of these boosters were to go up on the pad.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  34. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by Faylone · · Score: 1

    As lions make use of their teeth, scorpions make use of their tails, etc. I think they fall under "anything used"

  35. The Flying Crowbar by Quato · · Score: 0

    Where is The Flying Crowbar? I think it must be one of the most scary weapons ever. An unshielded nuclear reactor used to propel a unmanned flight to drop bombs and irradiate the USSR. Possibly one of the most frightening weapons ever attempted.

    http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html

  36. bomb dogs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  37. Weapons aren't bad or scary. by elucido · · Score: 0, Flamebait


    Stop worrying about the weapons and arm yourself.

    Crazy people are the ones who are dangerous.

  38. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by apt-get+moo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are you suggesting that the lion, bear and scorpion were designed? They taught that in school, so it must be true!
    --
    ...."Have you mooed today?"...
  39. miltary-grade stink bomb by jonadab · · Score: 1

    When they were describing the Worst Smell Ever (like vomit mixed with rotting flesh and burnt hair and everything nasty), I had a realization: I *know* that smell. It's that nasty powdered stuff the janitors always pour on vomit in elementary schools. Extremely foul. As a kid, I always thought vomit smelled like that. But as an adult I've been around sick people numerous times and you know what? Vomit doesn't actually smell that bad. I mean, it doesn't smell particularly *good*, but it's fresh-baked bread compared to that vomit-clean-up powder elementary schools use.

    The most *painful* smell I've encountered is industrial-grade PVC cement (the blue kind, not the clear kind). It's not really disgusting, certainly not nauseating, but it will give you a headache faster than nobody's business. Always use in a well-ventilated area. (By "well-ventilated area", I really mean outdoors. By "outdoors" I really mean a mountain-top, preferably on an especially windy day.) A good whiff of that stuff is about like having your hypothalamus caught in a hydrolic vice. Potent.

    Which gets me to thinking: what if you mixed the smells of PVC cement, ammonia, and the stuff elementary schools pour on vomit? What kind of area-denial weapon could you make with *that* stench?

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  40. What, no Neutron Bomb? by The+Real+Nem · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess Atomic Bomb kinda covers it, but still, hardly a respectable list.

    1. Re:What, no Neutron Bomb? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Nah. This is what you want, Neutron bomb is for pansies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb

  41. Frikkin Sharks with Frikkin Laser beams by Jafar00 · · Score: 1

    Why no mention of the frikkin sharks with frikkin laser beams attached to their heads?

    --
    RebateFX.com - Spread rebates for Forex traders
  42. Those WMD in Iraq by Koohoolinn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those WMDs that Iraq had were spooky, you couldn't even see them!

    --
    Deze sig is in 't Nederlands geschreven.
  43. spooky? by Dencrypt · · Score: 1

    I think the word "spooky" have to be reevaluated. I don't find them "spooky" at all. Many of the mentioned weapons aren't even functional, just ideas and submissions. Some are frightening, yes (like the atomic bomb) but most of them are just ridiculous and some are actually a little bit cool.

    So when is the puke lamp going to be sold in your nearest party-supply-store?

  44. The Spam Bomb by hyperz69 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Drop countless leaflets for Home Re-fi, Viagra, Penis Enlargement, Earn 1000$ a DAY AT HOME, You won a Free Gift Certificate, and help me get my Millions out of Nigeria. Then while all the soldiers are busy trying to sort thru real communications and your leaflets... attack amid the confusion. Even if it didn't work, at least the military would be better funded thru it's enemies ;)

  45. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by ettlz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The worst weapon in existence on Earth is man itself. Man is the source of every weapon ever created. Without man, there would be no weapons.

    Oh, what pitiful long-haired bullshit is this? Humans are not the be-all and end-all of violence in nature. Sure, we have the intellect to come up with very dangerous things. Sure, there are those dope-arsed enough to use these things. But as general violence in the animal kingdom goes, we're really quite the softies.

    Take dolphins, the poster children of New Age flakies, often put up as these supposedly peaceful, gentle, intelligent creatures that could teach us a thing or two about being in harmony with nature. Bollocks. Dolphins are psychos: murder, violence, gang rape including bestiality and that of their own young --- you name it --- are all staples of dolphin behaviour. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near one of these fuckers without someone standing at the ready with a charged harpoon. Where are the dolphin justice mechanisms? If they're so peaceful and moral, where are the dolphin courts and prisons?

    Ducks are just as bad. I was sitting by a pond the other day with about 20 or so ducks there. In the space of about half an hour or so, about six fights broke out, half of which were sexually motivated. In the same amount of time, over a hundred humans must've passed by --- a population in whom not one case of violence or sexual harassment broke out.

  46. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about that thing between a horses hind legs?
    Now THATS a weapon !

  47. what's so special about nuclear? by dwater · · Score: 1

    Lots of people seem to single out nuclear bombs but I wonder why. Is it because they make war so easy to "win"? Is this so much different to a conventional bomb of corresponding 'size'?

    I guess they aren't too much different to other weapons in the WMD category...

    --
    Max.
    1. Re:what's so special about nuclear? by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lots of people seem to single out nuclear bombs but I wonder why. Is it because they make war so easy to "win"? Is this so much different to a conventional bomb of corresponding 'size'?
      Fallout. Radiation sickness. Conventional bombs can create just as much devastation, but they either kill you outright or they don't. What people don't like about nuclear weapons is the idea that their effects remain as a silent killer for generations to come.

      In reality, they clearly aren't as bad as all that; Hiroshima certainly isn't a deadly wasteland today. But I'm talking about popular perception here, not scientific reality.
    2. Re:what's so special about nuclear? by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In addition, modern nukes are much cleaner than the dirty bombs that were dropped on Japan. Hydrogen bombs actually have almost no long term fallout. Unfortunately they never use straight hydrogen bombs, they are always part of the three stage "Trinity" Thermonuclear devices, which are quite dirty due to the third stage.

      What's scarry is of course, that the first stage of a "trinity" device is small enough to fit in a briefcase, and level a city block. But that has nothing to do with it being nuclear and everything to do with it being a tiny bomb that could disintigrate most of a city block. As I recall, it "burns" the nuclear fuel almost completely, and as a result has little to no harmfull fallout. It's barely even radioactive, since it's mostly all alpha emitters, might not even register. Don't want to inhale plutonium dust though, that can't be good for you.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  48. Only on slashdot by turing_m · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and Musashi got it all wrong then.

    Pesky Turks preventing your Dardanelles invasion? Needs more gay sex.
    Can't fight both the Russians and their winters? You guessed right: Not enough gay sex involved.
    Roadside bombs in Iraq continually blowing up your troops? Guess what? I've got a fever! And the only prescription...

    --
    If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    1. Re:Only on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      turing_m (1030530) wrote:

      I guess Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and Musashi got it all wrong then

      Pesky Turks preventing your Dardanelles invasion? Needs more gay sex.
      Can't fight both the Russians and their winters? You guessed right: Not enough gay sex involved.
      Roadside bombs in Iraq continually blowing up your troops? Guess what? I've got a fever! And the only prescription...

      Well, there was one notable counterexample...

      Can't decrypt those weird German Enigma messages?

      You might have heard of him :)

  49. No. 19 by Freeside1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    while scary, the airborne laser has only been used to fill a house with popcorn.

  50. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by AnotherUsername · · Score: 1

    Weapon 1. An instrument of offensive of defensive combat; something to fight with; anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy, as a gun, a sword, etc. Are you suggesting that the lion, bear and scorpion were designed? The bold faced word stops your suggestion that the grandparent was suggesting that the lion, bear, and scorpion were designed by anything.
    The Grandparent was referring to 'anything used in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy.'
    The 'or' allows for things natural as well as unnatural to be classified as weapons so long as their are used to destroy, defeat, or injure. The examples given, a gun and a sword, are unnatural, but the basis for being called a weapon does not merely rely on the fact that the method or tool used is man-made.
    --
    I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
  51. But... but... by whitespiral · · Score: 0

    But... the Microsoft bomb actually went off...

  52. Geez. This article is naive. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There are some real weapons which are far scarier.

    The Thermobarbaric bomb.

    Works the same way dynamite kills fish in a lake. Liquefies your organs. Nasty stuff.

    Also, they left out cluster bombs. --The munition which kills and terrorizes civilian populations long after the war is 'over'.

    They got the one about crowd control right, though. But the creepiest are the ones you use to screw up the nervous systems of people through the electro-magnetic sphere. (Even though, according to the cell phone companies and half of Slashdot, humans are not affected by non-ionizing EM. Whatever.)


    -FL

  53. I tell you what is really spooky(very insightful) by holywarrior21c · · Score: 1

    .

    .

  54. Re:It shows just how much the military fears gay s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well they're alienating a lot of people because of it. I guess that will further that trend by reinforcing it, though.

  55. Re:Geez. This article is naive. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The weapon that caused the most damage in Japan during World War II was the M-69 incendiary cluster bomb, which started hundreds of fires from a single bomb casing that spread out nearly 100 little incendiary devices. Given that Japan's cities at the time were mostly built of wood, that's why low-altitude incendiary bombing at night was so devestatingly effective against Japanese cities.

    I often wondered why Japan didn't improve fire safety regulations after the Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923, which a large fraction of the 143,000 dead was caused by uncontrolled fires AFTER the earthquake.

  56. F-Bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hate those fucking things.

  57. Re:It shows just how much the military fears gay s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Even though many militaries of the past have been particularly successful because of it.

    [citation needed]

    I'm not sure I see why gay sex makes them more effective any more than I can see why it would make them less.

  58. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by J_Omega · · Score: 1

    But what animals realize that they are mortal? Only one that I can think of.

    AFAIK, man is the only creature with morals and ethics. I've never seen anything that could be considered inherently evil that was not the product of man.

    Similarly, slight off topic: there are many beautiful things in this world, some created by man - but the only "ugly" things I see are created by man alone.

  59. Re:It shows just how much the military fears gay s by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

    This... is... Sparta! (Among others).

    --
    Happy people make bad consumers.
  60. On Digg last week... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dug down for dupe.

    1. Re:On Digg last week... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Buried" for dupe. You mean?

  61. No Sharks? by k2dbk · · Score: 1

    What, no sharks with frickin' laser beams?

  62. About the rods from the gods weapon. by davolfman · · Score: 1

    Being so far down the page just about no-one's going to read this, but I didn't see any technical branches up top.

    Some of these weapons I'm pretty sure never made it out of concept because they were impossible. For example the "rods from the gods" kinetic energy weapon makes no sense as to put something in orbit with the potential kinetic energy to be a WMD it's going to take multiple nuke's worth of energy just to lift it to that orbit. Any chump at NASA, or who's graduated a real physics class could have told them that.

    1. Re:About the rods from the gods weapon. by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      For example the "rods from the gods" kinetic energy weapon makes no sense as to put something in orbit with the potential kinetic energy to be a WMD it's going to take multiple nuke's worth of energy just to lift it to that orbit.

      Why is this a problem? And have you compared these to actual nukes? I can see where a non-radioactive weapon as powerful as a nuke, but doesn't require the upkeep would be *very* attractive.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    2. Re:About the rods from the gods weapon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example the "rods from the gods" kinetic energy weapon makes no sense as to put something in orbit with the potential kinetic energy to be a WMD it's going to take multiple nuke's worth of energy just to lift it to that orbit.

      So?

      Weapons systems don't need a positive energy return on energy invested, as long as enough non-wasted energy makes its way onto the target in a very short period of time.

      It probably took hundreds (thousands? millions?) of nukes' worth of electrical energy to enrich the uranium (and by even more spectacularly energy-inefficient processes, because nobody at the time was using reactors to generate electricity, to produce the plutonium) used in the nukes build the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      Think of how many megajoules you carry in your gas tank. It doesn't matter that 2/3 of it is turned into heat, as long as the explosions in the combustion chamber are fast enough to move the car. Better yet, think of what happens when you charge a fully-electric vehicle, be it a hacked Prius or a Tesla. It still doesn't matter that half of that energy (from the coal-fired generator, to the losses in the transmission lines, to the losses in the drivetrain), as long as you can burn through of those megajoules at a high enough wattage to move the car 60 miles over a duration of one hour, so you can get to that beach BBQ this afternoon and return to sleep in your own bed later tonight.

      Weapons are like that, except even less efficient. It doesn't matter that it cost you a terajoule of energy over a period of six months to build a bomb from scratch. What matters is that it can dump a gigajoule of energy into a target in a period of milliseconds. (The idea behind the Rods from God was that if something's moving fast enough, even the waste heat from friction wasn't really "wasted" :)

    3. Re:About the rods from the gods weapon. by davolfman · · Score: 1

      There's a law of diminishing returns on rockets though. The fuel, engine, and structure of the rocket have to be lifted as well so that it is not always possible to lift a large payload. Just look at how ridiculously massive the Saturn V was to get the spacecraft equivalent of a rubber dingy into an orbit to swing by the moon. At those rates and the kind of orbital speeds implied by having each of those rods hit with nuclear-scale energy, I'm guessing the only proposed spacecraft engines capable of lifting them into orbit are the ones literally powered by dropping nuclear bombs out the rear end and riding the blast.

    4. Re:About the rods from the gods weapon. by davolfman · · Score: 1

      Let me rephrase that. "multiple nukes worth on energy, released during the launch" in other words byebye Canaveral, and don't plant crops here for another thousand years.

  63. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
    But what animals realize that they are mortal? Only one that I can think of.

    Ever watch a dog pack, or cats fight? If the animal does not fear death, why would it stop fighting when losing a battle? Self-preservation. Which is inherently fear of death.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  64. Sneak some into the 'Ultimate Fighter' house... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm. A chemical that turns straight men temporarily gay. Quick! Get Johnny Hazzard to dress up as a Domino's guy and deliver a few 'gay pizzas' sprayed with it to the 'Ultimate Fighter' house in Las Vegas. Have Chi Chi LaRue, Doug Jeffries, and Dirk Yates waiting in the van with a few crates of condoms, plenty of lube, and lots of HD video cameras ready to storm the door and get all the action on tape! In an instant, UFC would go from "The Closest Thing To Softcore Gay Porn On Cable TV" to "The Real Thing" :-D

  65. The world's spookies weapons are by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 0

    irrationality and hate

  66. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ducks are just as bad. I was sitting by a pond the other day with about 20 or so ducks there. In the space of about half an hour or so, about six fights broke out, half of which were sexually motivated. In the same amount of time, over a hundred humans must've passed by --- a population in whom not one case of violence or sexual harassment broke out.

    Yeah, but you don't know the meaning of laughter until you read about someone on Fark who found out about ducks the hard way a couple of days ago.

  67. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by JamesTRexx · · Score: 1

    Except you don't see animals using other animals to kill their enemies while hiding in safety.

    --
    home
  68. Those are all swell, but... by Landshark17 · · Score: 1

    I still want my Gravity Gun

    --
    This sig is false.
  69. War against geeks by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Another example would be a chemical that made personnel very sensitive to sunlight

    OMG, I think they've been using this already for years! Now where the hell are my sunglasses..?

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  70. The (insert blank) bonb by AmonEzhno · · Score: 1

    The scariest bomb! Imagine: a bomb that fills in all the insert blanks in the area! Picture the confusion , the chaos, and the miscommunication! But in all seriousness why does every object somehow seem to be made into a bomb... Sounds like someone at the DoD has been hitting the reefer a little heavy.

  71. Gay Bomb??????? by Nonillion · · Score: 1

    WOW, what better way to threaten the Arab world. Arabs apparently have an extreme phobia of gays. We could threaten to "Gay Bomb" them if they don't plummet the price of Oil like they did back in the 80's. Nothing would creep me out more than knowing we made manly Arab men contract an uncontrollable urge to kiss, hug and but ram each other with no antidote in sight.

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  72. forks and teeth by XenonChloride · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine how much pain you could inflict with a standard dinner fork (provided the subject was sufficiently restrained)?

    Can you imagine a crowd of unrestrained test subjects turning forks, arbitrary objects in reach or just their teeth against themselves in uncontrolled fashion?

    The idea of an externally triggered mass outbreak of Lesch-Nyhan-type behaviour definitively is more spooky than a bunch of refurbished dolphins.

    Sweet dreams!

  73. Project X-Ray = "Retro" rocket. 700 years retro. by GenerationA · · Score: 1

    Interesting that one of the "high tech" weapons (Project X-Ray) is essentially a souped up version of Genghis Khan's strategy when he attacked Volohoi - except he probably didn't spend $2 million on research.... and it worked.

  74. Anything can be turn in to weapon by W1sdOm_tOOth · · Score: 1

    Anything can be turn in to weapon given a certain situation and intentions. Especially when we use already defined and very familiar definitions for the term "victim" or a "prey". The spookiest weapons are the ones that make us a victim the way that hasn't been defined yet!

    --
    If you're not confused, you're not paying attention
    1. Re:Anything can be turn in to weapon by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      I think you need to qualify that as any physical object.

      Hate is a thing, but you can hate and hate "at" someone all you like and nothing will happen to them.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  75. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by bar-agent · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but I get tired of the whole 'man is the ultimate evil' thing, especially since a lot of the people who believe that back it up with baseless information.

    You are now entering... the Scary Door.

    [Scientist mixes vials labeled with different animals.]

    Scientist: I have combined the DNA of the world's most evil animals to form the most evil creature of all!

    [Scientist pours mixture into cylindrical device. Steam hisses from the cylinder, door opens, a miniature dude steps out.]

    Miniature dude: Turns out it's man.

    [End credits]

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  76. The Scary Hammer... by ignavus · · Score: 1

    John was out in his workshop, putting some last touches on that birdhouse for Miss Hooper next door. He knelt on the floor and hammered a small nail into the roof of the birdhouse, and then laid the hammer down next to it and stood up.

    He turned back to his bench, and rummaged around, looking for some grey linoleum to cover the birdhouse roof. Suddenly he stopped. He thought he heard a scraping sound on the floor. He looked, but the only thing there was the hammer - where he had left it.

    He turned back to the bench, and kept poking around the stuff there. Another scrape. He turns back and looks. Was that hammer in the same place? He shrugged his shoulders, gave his head a quick shake, and went back to rummaging on the bench top.

    Scrape. This time, when he turned around, the hammer was definitely closer. He froze. Should he move? Should he pick it up? Should he run away? What if it attacked him - thoughts raced thought his panicked brain.

    The he saw the piece of faint string attached to the hammer and his little brother hiding under the bench, with a big grin on his face. "Had you there for a while, didn't I?"

    (OK, so it has plot holes. Sue me.)

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
  77. Precedents in fiction and reality by theolein · · Score: 1

    Stephen King (under the pseudonym Richard Bachman) wrote a book called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Running_Man]The Running Man[/url] (totally warped into an Arnold Schwarzenegger action movie), which ends with the protagonist flying a highjacked plane into a tower block. And, although they don't specifially deal with suicide highjackings, many, many works of fiction, often in Hollywood, such as the Die-Hard series, portray terrorism related plots, often in such detail it's a wonder that terrorists don't study and copy them in even more detail.

    The movie [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siege]The Siege[/url] while very fictional and feel good in the end, gives a very good portrayal of the situation after a devastating terrorist attack and the consequences of national paranoia.

    In reality, the highjacking of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969]Air France Flight 8969[/url] in 1994, was an attempted suicide highjacking (They wanted to fly into the Eiffel Tower).

    The precedents for 9/11/2001 were surely there, all right (no one seemed to remember the WTC bombings in 1993). No one seemed to take much notice up until then, and then, when it finally did happen, everyone went on a patriotic nutcase rave that ended up in 2 bloody and prolonged wars, far more dead than the actual terrorist attacks themselves, and, in a fit of panic, they gave away their constitutional rights to a bunch of people who abused the situation at every possible turn.

    1. Re:Precedents in fiction and reality by somersault · · Score: 1

      many, many works of fiction, often in Hollywood, such as the Die-Hard series, portray terrorism related plots, often in such detail it's a wonder that terrorists don't study and copy them in even more detail. Obviously the terrorists are too scared to copy those plots because Bruce Willis would be in just the wrong place at the wrong time to kick their ass ;) You've made a lot of good points, I guess I should have said it wasn't something that naturally occurs to me rather than "other people" as there are quite a lot of other people.
      --
      which is totally what she said
  78. Whoops, now with real links... by theolein · · Score: 1

    Stephen King (under the pseudonym Richard Bachman) wrote a book called The Running Man (totally warped into an Arnold Schwarzenegger action movie), which ends with the protagonist flying a highjacked plane into a tower block. And, although they don't specifially deal with suicide highjackings, many, many works of fiction, often in Hollywood, such as the Die-Hard series, portray terrorism related plots, often in such detail it's a wonder that terrorists don't study and copy them in even more detail.

    The movie The Siege while very fictional and feel good in the end, gives a very good portrayal of the situation after a devastating terrorist attack and the consequences of national paranoia.

    In reality, the highjacking of Air France Flight 8969 in 1994, was an attempted suicide highjacking (They wanted to fly into the Eiffel Tower).

    The precedents for 9/11/2001 were surely there, all right (no one seemed to remember the WTC bombings in 1993). No one seemed to take much notice up until then, and then, when it finally did happen, everyone went on a patriotic nutcase rave that ended up in 2 bloody and prolonged wars, far more dead than the actual terrorist attacks themselves, and, in a fit of panic, they gave away their constitutional rights to a bunch of people who abused the situation at every possible turn.
  79. I think you're a bit overconfident by theolein · · Score: 1

    I think that your idea that China and Europe are dependent on the sale of their products to the US is true to a certain extent, but, both the Chinese and the Europeans are working very hard on building other markets in Asia, South America and Africa.

    China especially spends ridiculous sums on infrastructure projects in Africa and Latin America, all with no strings attached, in order to get a foot in the door economically.

    The European conservative economic policies have had a bonus to them in that the Euro is well on its way to becoming the world's standard trading currency, due to the Dollar's continual fall and the huge American deficit causing investors to look elsewhere. The Dollar being the international trading currency had major benefits for the US.

    Witness the current high risk debt crisis. It affected Europe far less than the US (or the UK, which liberalised its economic laws to allow such practices) due to the conservative lending laws there.

    All is not lost, though, I think the US, given a stable and pragmatic government (and no, I don't know who that would be), could recoup its losses within a decade if truly aimed to do so.

  80. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

    Depending on the species, ducks can live anywhere from 10-30 years. If we say that humans live to be about 75, then that is approximately 1/7 - 2/5 of a human's life span. So 6 fights per 20 ducks per half an hour. That's 30 fights per hundred ducks per half an hour. 100 humans passed by in half an hour, but their life span is different. 100 humans, in order to match the ducks, need to have 30 fights every 3.5 - 5 hours. So it could be that you just saw 100 humans taking a peaceful lunch break in the park in between fights...

    --
    I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
  81. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by Raenex · · Score: 1

    Your duck stories intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  82. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by gknoy · · Score: 1

    Where are the dolphin justice mechanisms? If they're so peaceful and moral, where are the dolphin courts and prisons?

    Prisons and courts do not create a peaceful and moral society. If anything, they're an indicator that said society is imperfectly peaceful or moral, as otherwise they wouldn't need them.
  83. Re:They missed the worst weapon of all. by ettlz · · Score: 1

    On reflection, I didn't word it very well, the basic implication being that dolphin society seems to deem violent behaviour acceptable.