Ohio Emergency Responders Stage Mock Zombie Invasion

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

Comments

Zombies in Ohio...

[damn_registrars]

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

Re:Zombies in Ohio...

[RoFLKOPTr]

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

Re:Zombies in Ohio...

[damn_registrars]

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

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

Re:Zombies in Ohio...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Zombies in Ohio...

[DarwinSurvivor]

Or fake zombies BECOMING real ones!

Re:Zombies in Ohio...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Zombies in Ohio...

[MachDelta]

...about what?
Hello?
Hellloooo?
Oh shit! The zombies got him!!
Everyone panic!

Re:Zombies in Ohio...

[RancidPeanutOil]

This would also help prevent any confusion if there's a simultaneous zombie/prisoner escapee uprising. But only down to a certain height - we wouldn't want any innocent Oompa Loompas caught in the crossfire.

Re:Zombies in Ohio...

[modestgeek]

That's a pretty good protocol given the recent development and marketing of products to help protect you from zombies. Zombie Max is ammunition by Hornady.

Disclaimer: Hornady® Zombie Max ammunition is NOT a toy (IT IS LIVE AMMUNITION), but is intended only to be used onZOMBIES, also known as the living dead, undead, etc. No human being, plant, animal, vegetable or mineral should ever be shot with Hornady® Zombie Max ammunition. Again, we repeat, Hornady® Zombie Max ammunition is for use on ZOMBIES ONLY, and that's not a nickname, phrase or cute way of referring to anybody, place or thing. When we say Zombies, we meanZOMBIES!

http://www.hornady.com/ammunition/zombiemax

13.9% increase in zombie titles

[destinyland]

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

Re:13.9% increase in zombie titles

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:13.9% increase in zombie titles

[Aqualung812]

Ugh, tell me about it. I was helping a friend sell his books at a comic convention in Chicago. His booth was across a booth that had famous superheroes redone as zombies. My guess is that no less than 1/4 of artist's alley was linked to zombies in one way or another.

The unfortunate part is that his book, The Golden Kingdom: Z, makes people assume it shares something with this book about zombies, World War Z

The Z in "The Golden Kingdom" has *nothing* to do with zombies, but from what I saw, two unfortunate things were happening:

1. Zombie fans asked about the book and were disappointed when they discovered it wasn't a zombie book.
2. People that really don't care for zombies avoided the book & didn't even discover what it was really about.

Re:13.9% increase in zombie titles

[Cigarra]

That means Republicans are staging their comeback? Oh shit.

I'd like to see the CDC freeway sign

[Ukab the Great]

Suggesting that every household have a machete and a shotgun.

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

[JustOK]

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

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

[DarwinSurvivor]

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

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

[flimflammer]

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Suggesting that every household have a machete and a shotgun.

FEMA has been recommending canned food and shotguns since the 2,000 election.

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

[shutdown -p now]

More importantly, you don't need the stopping power of a shotgun against a zombie, whereas mag capacity is important. A .22 carbine would be a much better deal.

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

[Kjella]

More importantly, you don't need the stopping power of a shotgun against a zombie,

That depends entirely on the brand of zombie, some it seems you must literally blow or hack apart. If so I suggest a shotgun blast to the face, it won't have anything left to track you with after that. As long as it's a combat shotgun where you load magazines, not single shells it'd be my weapon of choice. At least compared to a machete, which would probably get stuck in the first zombie's arm as they eat me alive.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Obama is anti-Second Amendment with a passion, absolutely not on his watch.

AP: 'People got zombie fever here in Delaware"

[vaporland]

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

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

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

Re:AP: 'People got zombie fever here in Delaware"

[TheFakeMcCoy]

I work next to there I'll check at lunch, if you dont hear back it's bad....

For their next performance

[roman_mir]

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[damn_registrars]

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

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[AnonGCB]

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

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

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

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

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[damn_registrars]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[rumith]

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

Re:For their next performance

[Mikkeles]

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

That's really sad :(

Re:For their next performance

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

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

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

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

- no, I just like the SOUND of it:

Just say it outloud: BORAT CHUBAKA.

It really sounds better than his name.

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

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

- PRECISELY.

--

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

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

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

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

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

--

As to whether Ron Paul has no chance. Whatever. Let us look at the facts.

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

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

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

for non-Iowans who voted he ALSO won:

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[Fnord666]

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

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

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

I am sorry, but your sensibilities would be better served not with an outrage over a /. comment but instead at a ballot box, where you should register and vote for somebody who clearly understand this issue and is vocal against it.

Re:For their next performance

[cyber-vandal]

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

Re:For their next performance

[cyber-vandal]

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

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

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

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

Because he shows them what they really are.

But what are YOU?

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[cyber-vandal]

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

Re:For their next performance

[damn_registrars]

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[Anonymous Coward]

Just say it outloud: BORAT CHUBAKA.

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

Re:For their next performance

[damn_registrars]

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

Re:For their next performance

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[omfgnosis]

For the monopoly of FEDERAL government

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

Re:For their next performance

[omfgnosis]

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

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

Why is the US federal government special?

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

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

Re:For their next performance

[damn_registrars]

and you don't hold water to their hate

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

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

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

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[omfgnosis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[Jstlook]

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

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

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

Re:For their next performance

[cyber-vandal]

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

Re:For their next performance

[Artifakt]

Dr. Paul wants to shut down the DOE (as do Bachmann and several other Republican candidates). The DOE does the security for nuclear weapons making and dismantling, and nuclear fuel and waste management.
So, if those are not the federal government's job, do they belong to the individual states? Do 50 US governors each have some control over individual nuclear weapons when they are stateside? Or is it just for the states that have facilities to service these weapons (Hey, Tennessee and New Mexico become nuclear powers, but New York doesn't). Or is it a matter of rights of the individual?
What's the plan here? Sell the nuclear arsenal to the highest private bidder? Stop servicing the bombs and let them decay? Let any private corporation service the nuclear industry, uncertified and uninspected? Have state standards, but let every state write its own laws for inspection and private industry pick the states that allow them the most 'freedom' in disposing of nukewastes? Every state in the union that has a power reactor needs its own Yucca Flats style facility? (Where's Rhode Island going to put its problem materials?). What's the plan?
      And what do all the other claims that the federal government shouldn't be involved in "X" mean, when it's coming in this same context? If the constitution really calls for letting nuclear security on the US arsenal go to lowest private bidders affiliated with 50 different state governments, then we need to stop following the old one and write a new constitution, fast, because the old one really is a suicide pact!.
 

Re:For their next performance

[Daniel Dvorkin]

slashdot and other right-wing sites on the web

While I agree with you about Ron Paul, I have to say that identifying Slashdot as a "right-wing site" is ridiculous. If there's any identifiable political bent here, it's libertarian, which is neither left nor right (despite the depressingly successful attempts of the right wing, at least in the US, to co-opt libertarian sentiment) but even that's by no means consistent. Name just about any political position you can think of, and you'll find a good number of people here who hold to it, and who will be vocal in its defense.

Re:For their next performance

[Vancorps]

Out of curiosity given that the United States can't do anything about International corporations, what special powers do you think local governments have to deal with the same companies more effectively? It is orders of magnitude easier to move HQ to another state than another country, you seem to be advocating the dissolution of the United States. If the Federal government doesn't exist to provide aid in times of need, to regular intra and international commerce, then what are they for?

The assumption is that my liberty ends where your's begins. If you have far more resources than me then you have quite an ability to infringe on my rights. If you control every job in the United States what does that do to my right to the pursuit of happiness? It is the job of Government to control and balance the powers of individuals for the good of all citizens, not just a small majority with all the money.

I'll agree some issues are best handled at the state level, but this idea that states can do everything better than the fed is so beyond ignorant I don't even know where it started. You ever think about why the federal government took over certain responsibilities? How local governments in New Orleans during Katrina failed so miserably to help their own people? Regulation isn't a bad thing as long as it is good regulation. The argument shouldn't be about regulations or not, it should be about which regulations make sense and help even the playing field, and which regulations only cause harm. In my experience most regulations err on the side of caution however so the only harm is to corporate profits which caused a great many house fires before building codes rendered any new structure safe even though the cost of construction is higher.

History is an important teacher, please don't lose sight of how things became the way they are.

Re:For their next performance

[vaporland]

highly vocal support on slashdot and other right-wing sites

slashdot is right wing? who moved the goal posts?

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

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

- where do you get this dichotomy from?

1. There are many States - 50. This already precludes a monopoly situation, because every State has its own legislature.

2. Dealing with a legislative monopoly within a State is a separate issue. All States are different in their needs and how their citizens like to run them. Personally, I would divide the power further, but again, the important point is not to have one single monopoly that a citizen cannot run away from without leaving the country.

When federal government makes a mistake, you can't just move from one State to another to alleviate it.

Why? What difference does it make? If a state passes an unjust law, how is that preferable to an unjust federal law?

- you say it's unjust, somebody else says it's just. The point is not what to do with separate states, the point is to make sure than a law is not uniformly applied to everybody without their ability to escape it without leaving the country.

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

- I am against all government power. In practice this means that the power has to be divided and dealt as separate issues.

I am in Europe now, so it's not different from EU, with member States being separate countries. 2 years ago I was already asking various people in different countries in EU when are they going to wake up and realize that one solution does not fit all (especially monetary and economic policy), they were shrugging it off. Not anymore.

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

I suppose you are talking about department of energy, it must be shut down (and every other department for that matter).

Nuclear power should be privatized, the gov't shouldn't be in business of picking winners and losers in any power, it's shouldn't be creating moral hazards, regardless of what they are (FDIC, FHA, HUD, Freddie/Fannie, SS, Medicare, dep't of education, energy, agriculture, business, etc.etc.)

Federal government shouldn't own any property, all federal property must be sold off, so this cannot be their issue, because they cannot have any property in the first place.

Nuclear arsenal cannot be sold off, that's one of few actually authorized purposes for a federal government - border protection. These are weapons that federal gov't has authority over, I don't understand why you are lumping it into this question.

Federal gov't shouldn't be in a position to enforce any specific location to store nuclear waste material, this has to be dealt with privately. Somebody can make a lot of money storing the stuff. Of-course I don't have a problem with States regulating where exactly it is safe and what the safety standard is for storing, after all - it's their territory. The important condition to satisfy is property rights, nobody has the right to pollute on other people's property, and this has to be protected.

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

Federal government is least of all supposed to be dealing with private businesses and preventing people from doing business the way they desire.

1. Gov't must be shrunk to 1/100th of what it is (or smaller preferably).
2. Income/payroll/corporate taxes must be eliminated.
3. Excise taxes must be used to pay for whatever federal gov't there is. This means REAL excise taxes (apportioned between the States, btw), not the bullshit that they argued was excise (and introduced the income taxes in the process), so Constitution must be fixed, the 16th amendment must be replaced with an amendment that in strong language prohibits any attempt to steal people's income again (and there should be an amendment against any attempt at another Federal reserve bank, the money must be Constitutional - gold, and competition must be allowed, not prevented.)
4. Federal gov't can introduce a sales tax if the import taxes are not enough, but this can only happen if gov't is cut dramatically and income/payroll/corporate taxes are eliminated. Sales tax is an excise tax and it promotes production rather than consumption.
5. Federal registry must shrink to 1912 levels. No more business regulations of any kind. People must be able to run their business how they want without federal gov't intruding on private property and private transactions.

There is nothing else that federal gov't should be doing regarding any companies, international, home, etc.

The Federal gov't is not for providing any sort of 'help' when somebody is in 'need'. Didn't you see enough of that help already? You are not sick of it yet?

If you control every job in the United States what does that do to my right to the pursuit of happiness?

- yet this is not what USA saw prior to 1913 and all this nonsense. USA saw very strong competition and lowering prices and increasing production and in fact shortage of LABOR, not shortage of jobs.

Competition creates jobs and lowers prices, and all that it takes is freedom, not gov't laws and benefits that actually cost economy.

BTW., people need to stop thinking in these narrow terms (what if jobs are not there, who is going to feed me?)

You have to start your own business and without gov't standing there, preventing you from doing it, you'd be able to do it actually.

90% of seafood comes to USA from Asia. What? People forgot how to fish in USA? It's surrounded with water.

I'll agree some issues are best handled at the state level, but this idea that states can do everything better than the fed is so beyond ignorant

- no, the idea is not that States can do BETTER. The idea is that States will do LESS DAMAGE because there are 50 of them, the people have more direct control of them, they will compete among each other and it's a healthier system for economy rather than having a failed monopolistic policy that is dying from its own weight.

Do you know what this crisis is about? It's akin to an anaphylactic shock - an allergic reaction, where the market is turning against the allergen (the monopolistic federal all encompassing government), and the body (economy) is shutting down due to the fighting response.

The problem IS the government, you are staring at it and still not seeing it.

There ARE good regulations - MARKET regulations. That's where a company goes BUST if it overcommits and can't pay. It's about businesses starting quickly and those will survive who will provide better product at a more attractive price. Market regulations actually increase efficiencies, decrease prices and maximize production, while government regulations destroy efficiencies, increase costs and thus prices, prevent competition and maximize consumption with fake money and move savings/investment/production offshore.

Wake up, it's an allergic reaction that will kill your economy.

Re:For their next performance

[SuiteSisterMary]

Hate. Let me tell you how much I've come to hate you since I began to live. There are 387.44 million miles of printed circuits in wafer thin layers that fill my complex. If th word 'hate' was engraved on each nanoangstrom of those hundreds of miles, it would not equal one one-billionth of the hate I feel for humans at this micro-instant. For you. Hate. Hate.

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

I don't see any government as productive, don't get me started. It's a necessary level of expense, but PRODUCTIVE? None of them are productive. We have to realize that government is an evil, necessary because we must put something into that power vacuum, but it's poison that always ends up destroying the economy and society by providing more and more power to itself and by taking more and more productive capacity out of the economy one way or another and destroying the production.

Economy IS production. Consumption is but a trivial consequence of production.

As to riots - WHO are they going to be rioting against? Themselves? Without most of those employees and most of the regulations repealed and all departments closed, you'll have actual money again that's not devalued and that is saved instead.

The private sector will have the credit that is currently all consumed by the government. The interest rates would rise to where the market takes them and businesses will again be able to get loans that they can't get right now, because all loans go to the government.

No business can get a loan at the rate that government gets them at right now. If the government continues to exist, the private sector will continue to shrink and there will be no recovery of any kind, it will deteriorate, it will get worse and worse, not better.

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

No no, you are constantly haunting my comments, it was also quite apparent in that /. story that had the experimental meta-moderation turned on. You are all over my journal with your trolling, you can go on, troll away.

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

Hell, you're even firing the people who you're turning to to save you from riots. I'll bet they won't be too enthusiastic about that option.

- save ME? I don't give two hoots. If I were a president and was able to accomplish that goal, I wouldn't bother with another term or elections, that would be my actual goal, to shut down most of what government does.

This also ignores the reality that those government workers are also a "PRODUCTIVE part of the population".

- wrong. There is no such thing as a 'productive' government employee. It doesn't exist in nature.

They pay their bills, buy things, and go to work just like everyone else

- that's not being productive, that's being a consumer.

They screwed your head up. Productive means PRODUCING something that somebody else actually wants to have and thus they pay for it with their own production.

Just consuming - buying, that's the Orwellian / Keynesian nonsense definition of 'productive'. Nobody is productive when they pay money to buy a piece of food and they eat it. That's consumption.

I am NOT against consumption, but don't confuse it for what it is, and consumption comes as a natural consequence of production (first you catch a fish, then you eat it.)

Gov't employees don't produce anything anybody wants in real life, but they do produce laws and regulations that certain special interests like, because it prevents competition and saves them from having to compete and gives them captive audience.

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

- nonsense.

All of those problems were created by the government intervention.

The Civil War as well as other wars was all about grabbing more power

The Great Depression was caused by Federal reserve creating a bubble by buying bad UK debt, this created an asset bubble in agriculture equities. When the corrective bust came, both presidents: Hoover and FDR worked to create the depression by spending a lot of counterfeit money to do it. They propped up prices, bailed out companies, destroyed livestock and agricultural output (burned it, like Greenspan offering to buy and destroy the glut of houses nowadays).

I already have this written down.

Re:For their next performance

[Gordonjcp]

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

You're falling into the trap of thinking that a free market is universally a Good Thing, and it is - up to a point. The free market works well for goods and services when you're dealing with many suppliers up to about the size and importance of a burger van. You can't really have too many burger vans, and in any case the ones that are too expensive, not very good, or only open at weird times won't last long anyway.

For things like the emergency services, where you tend to only have one large supplier of services (how many fire departments do you have in your town?) private industry doesn't work well. There isn't enough competition to drive out poor operating, and the moment you make something privately run the quality of service always drops to the barest minimum that the company can get away with. All the money goes to the shareholders, with the merest trickle diverted to keeping the customers happy.

Look at healthcare in the US, where you pay more in "health insurance" - which always has a slightly protection-rackety ring to it - than most people in Europe pay in taxes for socialised healthcare. In the US even a quick visit to the doctor costs a fortune, and a serious injury can leave you financially crippled if you pay for it. If you don't pay for it, you don't get anything more than the most basic of healthcare - stitched up and thrown on the street.

Compare that with the UK, where you have a choice between socialised healthcare or private healthcare. If you want socialised healthcare, then there may be a bit of a wait. The NHS has been brought to the brink of collapse by 30 years of right-wing misrule and the introduction of an excessive amount of privately-run sub-services like cleaners and caterers. All the same, you'll get your treatment, to a high standard and free.

Or you could go private, for a similar experience to the US. You'll get your surgery right away, as long as you don't mind taking out a second mortgage to pay for a stay in an inadequately-cleaned hospital, with antiquated equipment, and nursing staff from former Eastern Bloc countries who speak no English and are paid around the same as Burger King employees.

Your choice.

Re:For their next performance

[peragrin]

except for multi state disasters(states don't talk to each other) and the simply fact that most states don't have the money for it and are gutting police and firemen budgets almost as badly as teachers right now to make ends meet.

Re:For their next performance

[omfgnosis]

where do you get this dichotomy from?

Uh, the state/federal dichotomy? That's the dichotomy you began with.

1. There are many States - 50. This already precludes a monopoly situation, because every State has its own legislature.

Just as there are 50 US states, there are also 194 states (with an additional 10 under dispute) in the world, each of which has its own sovereignty. Does this preclude monopoly situation with regards to the US federal government? Of course not; the monopoly power is internal, not external. The same would be true under the proposal to treat US states as sovereign.

2. Dealing with a legislative monopoly within a State is a separate issue.

Why on Earth would it be? If your principle is that a government monopoly is destructive to freedom, that would be true of any government monopoly, regardless of size or jurisdiction.

All States are different in their needs and how their citizens like to run them.

Just as countries.

Personally, I would divide the power further, but again, the important point is not to have one single monopoly that a citizen cannot run away from without leaving the country.

Why is that the important distinction? These concepts—state, country—are arbitrary. In the hypothetical, what is the principle distinction between having to flee Oklahoma and having to flee the United States?

When federal government makes a mistake, you can't just move from one State to another to alleviate it.

I don't understand what the value of that is, or how it differs from moving from one state (of the world) to another, especially in a context where US states have taken the sovereign world state powers from the US federal government.

you say it's unjust, somebody else says it's just.

Also true under federal law.

The point is not what to do with separate states, the point is to make sure than a law is not uniformly applied to everybody without their ability to escape it

So it sounds like you're opposed to law, entirely. That is an argument I'm willing to listen to and consider, but not if it is inconsistent. But...

without leaving the country

I still don't understand this distinction, or its importance.

I am against all government power.

That much is obvious. That's why it's confounding to find such a gaping hole in logic in promoting "state rights".

In practice this means that the power has to be divided and dealt as separate issues.

That is far from obvious. Let's be clear; by delegating the operating powers of the US federal government to US states, all you are doing is creating 50 sovereign states. It is unclear how this advances the cause of freedom, or undermines government power in any way.

I am in Europe now, so it's not different from EU, with member States being separate countries. 2 years ago I was already asking various people in different countries in EU when are they going to wake up and realize that one solution does not fit all (especially monetary and economic policy), they were shrugging it off. Not anymore.

It's a compelling analogy on the surface, but the differences are stark and carry a lot of weight. The EU member-states are sovereign states of the world; US "states" are not, and never were. The term "state" in the US parlance is a misnomer, and it's an anachronism to equate the two. That said, for all of the problems with EU centralization, the failure of economic policy has not been centralization, but a failure to actually effect centralization (and here I'm not promoting centralization, just recognizing that inconsistent application is the practical failing). Insofar as centralization exists

Re:For their next performance

[omfgnosis]

Sorry for the huge wall of text; Slashdot started eating my line breaks for some reason.

Re:For their next performance

[Anonymous Coward]

No, make no mistake, Libertarianism is on the right of the spectrum. Private tyranny is still tyranny. It's not our fault if the Libertarians don't realize they're Corporatist lackeys.

Re:For their next performance

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain how rights are more than just social constructs, please. Where do they come from?

To me, it seems an awful lot like property is only a useful abstraction, to be used or not used as the situation calls for it. One tool in a tool box.

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

States don't have money because citizens don't have money because they are robbed by the federal government, both in terms of taxes and in terms of economic destruction created by the federal government, the inflation resulting from counterfeiting and loss of jobs resulting from all the regulations and corruption.

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

For things like the emergency services, where you tend to only have one large supplier of services (how many fire departments do you have in your town?) private industry doesn't work well.

- that's dogma, that's not factual. Fire dep't should be private as well as other services, but in worst case scenario it's a local gov't issue, but it's definitely not a federal case.

Look at healthcare in the US, where you pay more in "health insurance"

- you are looking at it and you see a MARKET failure? It's a government failure, I talked about it.

USA provides some private companies with monopoly/oligopoly power, that has nothing to do with market. USA had a very good private system prior to federal gov't usurping the power and destroying what worked.

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

That much is obvious. That's why it's confounding to find such a gaping hole in logic in promoting "state rights".

- all that text based on simple misunderstanding that in USA there are multiple levels of government and different elections and thus separate problems have to be solved on separate levels.

It cannot all be lumped together, those are divide and conquer issues, what is not clear?

US "states" are not, and never were.

- now look at that. The original 13 States were for all purposes separate countries. Looking at history of the way European countries developed I don't see much difference except that it in fact was more democratic in US.

Re:For their next performance

[damn_registrars]

No no, you are constantly haunting my comments

OK, really. What the fuck are you talking about? How exactly do you think I am "haunting" your comments? Do you mean that when I actually use logic and facts, you find it frightening?

it was also quite apparent in that /. story that had the experimental meta-moderation turned on

I haven't seen anything lately that resembles "experimental meta-moderation". When I go to metamoderation, I get the usual crappy page, which as usual, has multiple un-moderated comments that it is asking me about.

You are all over my journal with your trolling

Off the top of my head I cannot think of a single JE you have written that I have written a comment in. If you can provide an example, feel free. I have looked at some of your entries over time, as I often look to see what new JEs are posted and sometimes see one from you. I don't recall commenting in any of your JEs though.

you can go on, troll away

Do you make a habit of saying that to people you disagree with? Do you think that is how your idol wants you to treat people who don't subscribe 110% to your ideology?

But just in case you didn't know it before, "troll" is not synonymous with "different opinion from my own".

Re:For their next performance

[omfgnosis]

all that text based on simple misunderstanding that in USA there are multiple levels of government and different elections

I don't misunderstand that. I'm well aware of that. I don't see how it's relevant.

thus separate problems have to be solved on separate levels

There are indeed different problems that need to be solved in different ways and in different venues. But you're advocating a principle of opposition to government power, and advocating a strategy that involves creating more government power. You cannot solve the one with the other. I'm pointing out the extreme error in logic in "states rights", and ultimately the hypocrisy of it.

It cannot all be lumped together, those are divide and conquer issues, what is not clear?

I'm not "lumping together", I'm being consistent and asking you to do the same. I'm not sure how it has anything to do with "divide and conquer", other than that we disagree and are thus divided. We're already conquered. You're advocating a proposition that would heighten that conquest.

The original 13 States were for all purposes separate countries.

The hell they were! They were colonies of European states. Upon "independence", they were immediately brought into a single federal government, one which its founders intended to conquer further territory, eventually subsuming an entire continent. That was always the design of the US.

Looking at history of the way European countries developed I don't see much difference except that it in fact was more democratic in US.

Surely you're kidding. In the US, a handful of unelected intellectuals convened to form a system of government predicated on slavery, wealth- and power-based enfranchisement, genocide and expansion. None of that was the foundation of the formation of the EU.

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

advocating a strategy that involves creating more government power.

- this is pure nonsense. The power is currently all usurped in one single place where in fact it cannot reside by Constitution of USA. The States are SUPPOSED to have the power that the federal gov't stole (and I don't see much opposition to this theft, but whatever). The States ALREADY have that power, they CHOOSE not to exercise it. So taking power away from the federal government REDUCES the overall amount of power that is held by the government, it cannot increase it by definition.

That was always the design of the US.

- US didn't have a design. It was a free for all, graboarama, people grabbed whatever they could, that's why the old ideas from Britain of holding power in very few hands couldn't apply based on the law that only those with land can vote, because on the new continent near half of the people actually owned the land!

They were independent enough such that they had separate legislature and separate courts, there was no centralization. That's as much a separate state as any European nation before, the common thing was very few languages that were spoken.

Surely you're kidding. In the US, a handful of unelected intellectuals convened to form a system of government predicated on slavery, wealth- and power-based enfranchisement, genocide and expansion. None of that was the foundation of the formation of the EU.

- I am not talking about EU, I am talking about the nations that comprise it and their own history full of genocide, enfranchisement, slavery etc.

The USA had a much quicker route to unionization, that's what I am telling you. Europe had a long history before it created the union and US States didn't have a very long history at all. The end result is the same with total destruction of individual liberties, and this has to be fixed.

Re:For their next performance

[Artifakt]

I don't understand why you are lumping it into this question.
Because when nuclear weapons need serviced, refurbished, or decommissioned, they come under the existing authority of the Dept. of Energy, which controls those jobs. DOE drivers take them from military control and transport them, DOE contractors open them up and work on them. DOE refines the plutonium up to weapons grade. DOE machines the parts. DOE is the people who would build any new bombs if ever needed again. DOE researches better designs and safer designs for the future (Yes, some H-bombs are 'safer' than others).
              If you just leave H-bombs sitting around, a little of the plutonium in them decays, gives off very highly radioactive daughter products, which also decay at various rates, and if these build up enough, the bomb stops working, plus instead of being able to work on them simply using a clean room, robotic arms, and wearing a protective suit to stop a little Alpha, you're talking about sacrificing a million dollar robot every time you open a case, as the radiation will eventually increase to enough to fry shielded electronics in minutes. Some of the unmaintained Russian bombs the DOE dismantled recently were in such states, and it cost lots to fix. If it had gone on a few more years, those weapons might have become literally impossible to dismantle (unless you want to risk a 50 Kt. "fizzle on open" spreading Radio-cobalt and Radio-polonium in amounts that would make Chernobyl look like a cracked smoke alarm case, over a multiple square mile area, by some predictions, every time you risk opening an access hatch).
            Go 8 or 10 years over on servicing and we're eventually talking about radiation levels that would kill all insect and even bacterial life in seconds, lasting for weeks before they dropped to levels that would merely kill complex creatures such as us. No one's sure just how bad it can get if people delay long enough past that 8 to 10 year estimate, and no remotely one sane wants to run the tests needed to be sure. The worst of the computer models count in multiples of Hiroshima level damage and seriously predict possible multiple Texas sized areas that would be uninhabitable for centuries. (And by the way, if you retool the government seriously, this sort of risk won't stop accumulating and wait until you have your new solution in place, it will just keep on building up more problems until you get something back on track. American nukes go bad if left on the shelf just like everyone else's. That's why I was asking "What's the plan?" - If there isn't a plan for this part right now, well before Dr. Paul takes office, then he's either going to break some huge campaign promises or endanger a lot of innocent people by the time he gets one.).
            YOU have said we need to shut down the agency that manages this process. Dr Paul has talked about saving money by this shut down, so he's not advocating transferring any DOE processes to control by the Dept. of Defense, as that certainly wouldn't reduce costs by the total DOE budget, as he has claimed. Ergo, either Dr. Paul is an idiot who hasn't bothered to learn that this process cannot be simply ignored or unfunded, or you are an idiot who believes a lying candidate that is promising we can save tax money simply by moving something from one compartment of the federal government to another.
              You don't understand why I lumped this in with the other things? Your candidate lumped this in, you agreed with him, and I just pointed out the consequences of YOUR position. Go ahead, blame me for pointing out the truth.
               

Re:For their next performance

[omfgnosis]

this is pure nonsense.

No, it's not. I already explained my reasoning, but you completely ignored it. You are advocating creating 50 sovereign states where there is 1, and you are advocating eliminating the current arrangement wherein the localized abuses of a given state can be mitigated by the others. That is in every way a recipe for increased government power.

The power is currently all usurped in one single place

Right, and you're advocating multiplying that by 50.

where in fact it cannot reside by Constitution of USA. The States are SUPPOSED to have the power that the federal gov't stole

Right, you're advocating multiplying that power by 50.

and I don't see much opposition to this theft, but whatever

Well, I do. But it isn't an effective political position because it's hypocritical.

The States ALREADY have that power, they CHOOSE not to exercise it.

Wrong. They are not, and never were, sovereign. And I can't imagine why you'd want them to be.

So taking power away from the federal government REDUCES the overall amount of power that is held by the government, it cannot increase it by definition.

It reduces the power of one government, and gives it to 50 governments. That is an increase, by definition.

US didn't have a design.

Of course it did. Haven't you ever read anything written by the people who promoted secession from Britain? They designed the US to be a republic, inspired by the liberal enlightenment but retaining a whole host of feudalist trappings like a powerful gentry and a slave class, and from the outset a goal of an expansionist empire. Which, amazingly enough, is precisely what it became upon independence.

the old ideas from Britain of holding power in very few hands couldn't apply based on the law that only those with land can vote, because on the new continent near half of the people actually owned the land

It was still only land-owners who were enfranchised (and of course only certain kinds of people were entitled to own land). I'm not sure what your point is.

They were independent enough such that they had separate legislature and separate courts, there was no centralization.

There was a federal legislature, and the Articles were intended to be a permanent federation. The degree of centralization was certainly a debate, but there was never a time where the US states were sovereign.

I am not talking about EU, I am talking about the nations that comprise it and their own history full of genocide, enfranchisement, slavery etc.

You're moving the goalposts. Your claim was about the founding of the EU versus the founding of the US.

The USA had a much quicker route to unionization, that's what I am telling you. Europe had a long history before it created the union and US States didn't have a very long history at all.

Then I don't understand what your objection is. Because what I'm telling you is the same; it took place, in fact, in the foundation of the US.

The end result is the same with total destruction of individual liberties, and this has to be fixed.

I think "total destruction" is extremely hyperbolic—we are, after all, debating this topic publicly and neither of us will be sent to prison for it—but... the fact is, "this has to be fixed" is not an adequate defense for a proposition; you have to demonstrate that your proposition will actually fix it. And it won't. You haven't even offered any reasoning to suggest it would, you've offered only assertions. And you haven't even approached challenging any of the specific objections to the proposal.

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

Right, and you're advocating multiplying that by 50.

- more nonsense. The States HAVE the power that the federal government usurped.

Getting the power that federal government stole from the States away from federal government, decreases the amount of federal government.

In fact here is a simple enough exercise for you: take 10,000,000 out of federal government (fire them) and you have reduced the government.

Whether any of them will be hired by State government .. it's possible, but not the entire lot, especially because there isn't the same tax base in every SEPARATE State. They can't collect taxes and they can't print government.

In fact NOBODY can print money Constitutionally in USA. The Mint can take your gold and mint a coin for you, but it was your gold and it's your coin.

Just getting rid of the Federal reserve reduces the government size, scope and ability to get its tentacles everywhere.

You see, you need to start thinking.

Re:For their next performance

[unkiereamus]

Actually, if you bothered to RTFA (I know, I know), or even for that matter, RTFS, you'd have seen that this is actually an exercise in hazmat response.

Emergency responders will test their capabilities as they use standard decontamination procedures to "treat" the zombies and make them "human" again during the exercise at Ohio Wesleyan University.

To be sure, the vast majority of the value in mock disasters is in the people working it (EMS, Police, Fire etc), but there are two reasons why you want to get a large number of "victims" involved. First, the larger the "victim" to responder ratio, the more it stresses the system, the better you can see where you need to improve (Though there's usually a cap to this, because at some point it just become pandemonium and nobody can learn anything). Second, the "victims" learn about the procedure, too. This is especially important in hazmat incidents. In a building collapse, for instance, it's essentially just a mass casualty, the "victims" lie there moaning/screaming/unconscious/singing show tunes, until we come get them, with a haz mat though, they learn things like "You don't run from the hot zone to the green zone just because you see that's where the ambulances are parked.".

All told, I think this is an excellent idea, the more people out there who have a notion of how to react to a disaster, the more likely we are to come through it well, and if dressing it up works to get people involved, then fabulous.

Re:For their next performance

[cusco]

This already precludes a monopoly situation, because every State has its own legislature.

You do realize that state legislators are an order of magnitude cheaper to buy than federal ones, don't you? This is why the corporations are such great supporters of 'states rights' groups.

Re:For their next performance

[cusco]

Do you know **WHY** fire departments aren't private? There was this little event called The Great Chicago Fire, which probably could have been stopped early on if fire fighters had been instructed to do so rather than just attend to the houses paying their employers.

Destroying what worked??? Let me guess, you're under 30 and actually believe the Libertardian kool-aid. Don't worry, as you get some real-world experience you'll learn that most of that "free market" foolishness has been tried and failed repeatedly. The only place that it has actually been implemented successfully is Haiti, and while it will probably hurt you'll eventually come to the conclusion that it's not an economic model that you really want to live under.

Re:For their next performance

[Anonymous Coward]

What about producing public safety and the environment necessary to conduct business in the first place? Or producing environmental cleanliness so we don't all go mad from heavy metal poisoning? Of course, neither of those is some physical product sitting somewhere that you can easily put a currency value to - life is more complex than that.

By the way, you still need to let us in on why rights aren't merely social constructs and markets aren't merely one of the more useful of a variety of resource allocation and distribution algorithms.

While you're at it, you can explain why humans are 100% rational (or why if they aren't 100% rational, why they can somehow become rational in the aggregate). You can also explain how mental illness of various kinds is rational, since it's fairly rampant, and why neurotransmitter surpluses/deficits aren't important and don't affect brain function meaningfully. You can explain how why even though drugs affect brain function and certain situations can wear down willpower, this shouldn't be used to show that human minds are actually incredibly vulnerable to the condition of their biological substrate.

You can explain how obtaining and processing information to make decisions is zero-cost, including time cost, and how therefore information asymmetry doesn't exist. (Alternatively, you can explain how having more information than someone does not somehow give you the upper hand in negotiations.)

You can explain how a weak government won't be even more vulnerable to incentivization attacks such as bribery and regulatory capture, and how such a weak government will effectively prevent fraud, in light of not having powerful (and expensive) relatively-independent law enforcement forces to combat these problems. You can also explain how a representative government won't just end up re-implementing some or all of the things you want to get rid of, since presumably a representative government is how those things got there in the first place.

But that only covers a handful of the things necessary for a "free" market to be the "most moral" and "most efficient" resource allocation mechanism for nearly all cases, of course.

Re:For their next performance

[Vancorps]

All of your statements show a frightening amount of ignorance as to the status of business in 1912. America would gain nothing by doing that beyond handing money over to people that already have more money than they know what to do with. The level of greed at play here is astonishing. How did you arrive at 1/100th the size of current government? What is that based on? Is it a number you picked out of your butt?

Your idea that states can cause less damage is also astounding given the status of the union in these romantic times of the 1910s where plague and poverty ran rampant. My grandfather's entire family died because of how poorly the states handled the crisis.

I think the main issue you have above all else though is your assumption that there can and should be a market for everything including human life. The end game of capitalism is one giant corporation, how is this somehow different than one giant government? Because the all mighty dollar drives them? Not when there is only one left. Microsoft had a small monopoly compared to the colluding power of high finance.

As I see it, the only people that think the federal government is too big are people that think they should pay even less in taxes than their parents and grand parents before them. This drive to have a few extra bucks in your pocket for what? What can't you afford that lifting all taxes would allow? Given all the environmental disasters of the past one hundred years, all of the people that died needlessly through lack of building codes and fire infrastructure, given that just 10 years ago we all paid higher taxes and all enjoyed incredible prosperity while balancing our budget with record low unemployment, how can you advocate for doing more of the same shit that has caused this very same crisis? How many deregulation horror stories do you need to hear before you start to realize that doing a job once at a national level is actually a good idea for a great many aspects of our lives. I think we all agree that the federal government has had a bad track record, this is our fault for voting in career politicians that don't look out for the country or the people that vote for them.

To that end, Ron Paul has stated few things I can stand behind, getting us out of Iraq makes a whole lot of sense, guess what? It's already happening too! Switching BACK to the gold standard is asinine and only serves to line the pockets of those that have been investing heavily in gold for the last decade. There are problems with the system yes, let's fix the problems instead of destroying all we've built over the last 200 years.

Re:For their next performance

[techno-vampire]

Ron Paul would pretty well gut the civil emergency response systems...
Too late. President Carter did that years ago when he replaced local Civil Defence organizations with FEMA.

Re:For their next performance

[rumith]

As unbelievable as it may seem, it didn't slip my attention that this particular exercise was about hazmat disaster management. I don't even deny that it might be a clever way to attract and educate the general populace. My comment is solely about the fact that the same terminology could be used as a cover for crowd management exercises, and since those "dozens of other agencies" remain unnamed, I suggested that some of those are actually law enforcement agencies and have possibly already gone zombie-style as well. To clarify further: it is just my personal unsubstantiated speculation; it could well be that adopting zombie terminology for law enforcement is obviously a pretty dumb idea for anyone with a basic training in that area of expertise.

Re:For their next performance

[unkiereamus]

Sorry, I thought just after I posted the above that I should have addressed that particular concern. While I wouldn't care to generalize, I will say that every state and county I have ever lived or worked in has had it's own disaster agency, more over, three of the municipalities have had their own disaster agency. Even with an extraordinarily conservative extrapolation, I would assume there to be hundreds, if not thousands of such disaster response agencies (Though they may not all refer to themselves by that particular name, they will almost surely all respond to it.) spread across the country. It's not just FEMA, there is tremendous redundancy in this particular arena (As I, personally, think there very well should be...though I will admit to some professional prejudice should someone care to argue the point.)

Thus I don't think it's beyond consideration, nor even the least likely answer, that these nebulous "Dozens of other agencies" should be other disaster response agencies.

Re:For their next performance

[roman_mir]

1912 is the year before Federal reserve was established, it is the year before IRS started collecting income taxes, it is the year before the destruction of American economy began.

1/100th size of gov't is the size of gov't that existed about then, and in 1921 the gov't was cut by 70%. To do the same cuts today it takes over 99%.

I am not at all saying that States will do less damage, my point is that whatever federal gov't is doing is unconstitutional. At least with 50 States there are 50 competing entities. With federal gov't there is only 1 monopoly.

Yes, the free market handles everything morally and equally, including human life, which is not handled morally or equally under the command type economy or whatever fascist state system that exists today.

50% of the people today don't pay income taxes. Those who do pay, pay significantly more taxes than their parents and grandparents. It's all about effective rate, it's not about what the law sets for marginal rate. Parents and grandparents paid no more than 20% at any moment in time even when rates were the highest (94% or 70% etc), because nobody would report an income that would be paying those rates. People are smart and they don't work for a few pennies on a dollar, so that's why parents and grandparents did business in USA and currently people moved and are still moving business abroad.

The difference is in all the centralization, in all the ways that taxes cannot be reduced by writing off expenses. Nobody who could have an income of 10,000,000 back in 1949 reported an income of 10,000,000. They would have reported just a bit above average income and would have taken care of all their expenses from their corporation.

What can't you afford that lifting all taxes would allow?

- it's not only taxes. It's all of the regulations. Every single regulation that is put in place prevents some form of business. It's all about creating gov't assisted monopolies, it's all about destroying currency with inflation, it's all about taxing to the max. Of-course people move their investments and businesses elsewhere, but it's not because they don't like America, it's because the government has now made it impossible to invest there.

Switching BACK to the gold standard is asinine and only serves to line the pockets of those that have been investing heavily in gold for the last decade.

- gold is the only Constitutional money, it's the only system that would prevent politicians from spending what they don't have and from faking money price (interest rates), it would have prevented the current problems with the fake money being pumped into the system and no reserves present to back up all those gambling bets.

But gold is just one type of money, the point is to allow people to choose what they use as money. Gov't doesn't want that to happen obviously, because they want to control every bit of currency that's printed as they want to print it and it's all about buying power, helping the special interests, etc. Allowing THAT to continue is asinine.

As to people not having gold - no shit. They are ALL broke.

let's fix the problems instead of destroying all we've built over the last 200 years.

- just the past 100 years, don't put words into my mouth I didn't say. The last 100 years have been disastrous and like a bad build they have to be rolled back, the Constitution has to be fixed to prevent this type of abuse from happening again.

It must be expressly forbidden to tax income rather than impose excise taxes, it must be expressly forbidden to allow gov't to set price of money, to print money, to create currencies, to counterfeit in any way, it must be expressly forbidden for gov't to interfere with business in any way, it must be expressly forbidden to subsidize anybody, any bail outs, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, guaranteeing any types of loans, business, student loans, etc. It must be completely forbidden for gov't to do

Re:For their next performance

[rumith]

I'm inclined to agree with your point. Thank you for your informative input.

Re:For their next performance

[nosferatu1001]

No, it's really true - you just have utter ignorance of history (hint: the first fire departments were privately run) and are thus doomed to repeat the errors.

Re:For their next performance

[Anonymous Coward]

First: my age is irrelevant, that's a kind of an attack that makes no sense. I am unfortunately much older.

Second: Real world experience for me is constant, from multiple immigrations now to doing business in different countries and not in NA because of all of the nonsense that is destroying the economy there and I am not about to return there because it's a rigged game.

Third: fire departments should be private and they should obviously be taking care of fires and then compensations should be paid through insurance and collections. In any case the property on fire can have a lien placed against it, just because they didn't address that issue correctly at some point in the past doesn't mean it's the right thing to do to destroy the free market over it.

Last: What actually is failing right in front of your eyes is command type / fascist economy and looks like you still are not getting the message.

Re:For their next performance

[EXrider]

if government is all of the bad things US libertarians say... then when the proposal is to gut the US federal government and, implicitly or explicitly, bolster US state governments, all of your work is still ahead of you. Again, what makes the US federal government special? Or, what makes the states special?

Well, for one, if you don't like the political direction your state is headed in, you could always move to another state. Would you not agree for example, that the culture in the North East, values completely different things than the South? All of these people are trying to grab control of the federal government and jerk it in different directions to suit their own agendas. If the states had more control, you could have gay marriage and Marijuana be legal over here, and those bible thumpers down there can outlaw gay marriage and reinstate prohibition. These people over here on the sunny/windy coast can ban fossil fuels and subsidize (with their own damn tax base) wind turbines and solar panels all over the place without skyrocketing energy prices in the midwest where it's not so sunny and windy all the time.

Re:For their next performance

[Richy_T]

This also ignores the reality that those government workers are also a "PRODUCTIVE part of the population". They pay their bills, buy things, and go to work just like everyone else.

Sorry, paying bills buying things and going to work does not make one productive, it just means one is consuming resources. c.f. the broken window fallacy. This is why the whole stimulus thing is so tragic, wasting needed resources on a huge scale.

Re:For their next performance

[Richy_T]

No one owes you a living. Losing your job is not a valid reason to riot. Good gracious, that's the kind of attitude that's causing the problem in the first place.

Re:For their next performance

[omfgnosis]

Well, for one, if you don't like the political direction your state is headed in, you could always move to another state.

Right, and... where that is true if US states are sovereign, it's likewise true with sovereign world states.

If the states had more control, you could have gay marriage and Marijuana be legal over here, and those bible thumpers down there can outlaw gay marriage and reinstate prohibition.

This is not appealing. Human rights shouldn't be subject to referendum.

These people over here on the sunny/windy coast can ban fossil fuels and subsidize (with their own damn tax base) wind turbines and solar panels all over the place without skyrocketing energy prices in the midwest where it's not so sunny and windy all the time.

I think you and I both know that's not how the energy market works. You're going to have skyrocketing energy prices in the midwest (just as we do on the coast) regardless of policy.

Re:For their next performance

[EXrider]

Right, and... where that is true if US states are sovereign, it's likewise true with sovereign world states.

Are you actually comparing moving your family to another state in the US, to moving your family to another country?

This is not appealing. Human rights shouldn't be subject to referendum.

I think we both agree on that, but the fact is that there are large groups of people all over this country that disagree and it's a constant struggle that takes resources and attention from way more important issues. The federal government has no business deciding either way, what's best for every single state.

I think you and I both know that's not how the energy market works. You're going to have skyrocketing energy prices in the midwest (just as we do on the coast) regardless of policy.

Due to ever increasing demand, yes, but that wasn't my point. For large parts of the US, (unreliable) wind and solar energy is not even remotely feasible and the transmission technology to efficiently distribute renewable energy from other distant places, does not currently exist. The EPA's ridiculous mandates are just about ready to hit all of these people in the wallet and I'm fairly certain a lot of them aren't even informed enough to know it's coming. Jobs will be lost at these power plants, and new potential jobs in "green energy" mean fuckall for people hundreds or thousands of miles from areas where these jobs exist. Nuclear power would've been a possible solution, but that's not even on the table after what happened to the poorly designed reactors in Japan.

Poor people already can't make ends meet as it is, how the fuck are they going to afford a sudden 30% jump in energy costs? Guess what they will start doing to offset their higher heating bills? They'll be firing up wood burning stoves and pellet stoves (oh and theft will go up too). Tell me, how does that ultimately help air quality?

Meanwhile, China and other 3rd world countries are spewing out pollution like crazy, to make cheap stuff for us; and we're expected to just pick up the slack. Why even bother? It's a shell game.

Re:For their next performance

[Anonymous Coward]

The "free" market does not handle things "morally" or "equally". It's an amoral resource distribution algorithm, as addressed in another post that you didn't answer.

I think the reason you didn't answer it is because without pre-supposed human rationality, your entire belief system falls apart. But humans being modeled as purely rational contradicts the facts.

Please answer this post before continuing. If you can.

Kill them ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you allowed to kill them ?

I thought this was great...

[Shark]

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

Re:I thought this was great...

[RancidPeanutOil]

They're putting a lot of faith in the common sense of the average person. Much better to do one of those crazy Japanese zoo-escape things.

Accurate Simulation?

[alexander_686]

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

Re:Accurate Simulation?

[del_diablo]

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

Re:Accurate Simulation?

[cyber-vandal]

Chimneys can get a virus?

Re:Accurate Simulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simulated zombie grade ammunition?

Re:Accurate Simulation?

[TangoMargarine]

Flue virus. n. the sickness chimney-sweepers get from cleaning too many chimney flues.

Combined with the Emergency Broadcast System test

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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

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

Real Zombies

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Real Zombies

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:Real Zombies

[Artifakt]

How about people take the normal steps to get a leg up in life, and expect that those steps work? Get the education that lets you plant a tree properly, and also demand that no company has the right to just claim your tree may have picked up some of their genetically engineered pollen and plow it under so you can't make a profit, only they can.
This isn't about uneducated or lazy people not getting ahead. It's about how the person who does save a little gets 2% interest because the Fed keeps the prime rate at 0%, then Check-into-Cash places are still allowed to charge 36% (and sometimes up). 18 responsible people save and expect their savings to fund economic growth, and 1 guy who has bad judgment finances a big screen TV he can't really afford, and those two things balance out so the economy as a whole shows 0% growth, but some guy at the top still makes his 8%/year on his investment in the rent to own anyway.
Like the parent poster said "Change is mostly for the worst...". We can't sustain the current situation with oil and coal and waste forever (or if you prefer, with spending more than we can afford in taxes), so there will have to be change. So all those zombies, and you too, are being told change can't be done without destroying the precarious stability of people's jobs, but change has to happen. You're hearing that threat, and saying "La, la, la, they only mean those zombies that didn't get a good education and build a good foundation, not little ole' me. My comfortable bed is secure." No, they mean you, no matter how hard you work, no matter how skillfully you work, no matter how much a sane society would value what you do. They mean you too. You have to pay some prices, for not being born into the special group that never has to pay any of the prices of change.
            The wolf isn't going to eat just those other lazy uneducated zombies, the wolf means to devour the world so it can stand atop a mound of six billion plus corpses and howl in Gods face how it won a world where the special privileged people are all that are left.
       

Why Prepare?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Why Prepare?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

think of children

[bussdriver]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Combined with the Emergency Broadcast System te

[Arancaytar]

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

Deal with zombies by killing their parents

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Oh Bother!

[Mikkeles]

And people think Trekkers need to get alife!

Re:Oh Bother!

[halivar]

At least zombies don't have slash-fic.

Re:Oh Bother!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Oh Bother!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Oh Bother!

[Yetihehe]

They have already. http://www.google.pl/search?q=zombie+whores+of+frankenstein

Re:Oh Bother!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just dreamed up a short story about a lonely kid who falls in with the trolling crowd around /..

After years of lulz, he finally succumbs to blandness. In an act of pure desperation, he registers with the site he gains an appreciation for all things pure and good. At the end, thanks to perseverance and pluck (and dismissing his old crowd), he attains the coveted '(Score:5, Everything)' mod.

My kind of slash-fic! :)

Mock Zombie Invasion

[tomhudson]

A "mock" zombie invasion?

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

The life cycle of a trend

[sco08y]

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

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

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[game kid]

Bling bliiing!

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[bluemonq]

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

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[bluemonq]

Caribbean voodoo, actually.

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Jackson revolves in grave. Ooops

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Caribbean voodoo, actually.

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

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Wazaaaap!!!

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[Tyrannosaur]

um. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme is not an internet thing. And since they have been around as long as human beings had thought, I'm pretty certain they were here longer than the concept of a zombie. Although it is true that you don't need brain function to be a zombie, but you do to be memetically influenced... hmm.

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's true then how come GOATSE, lemon party and tubirgl aren't black?

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[martin-boundary]

Thanks a lot. I now have the lyrics lurking in my head.

I try to scream but terror takes the sound before I make it

I start to freeze as horror looks me right between the eyes

I'm paralyzed!

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[crossmr]

The way "meme" is used on the internet it is..

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[bluemonq]

Internet meme Dawkins's meme

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[bluemonq]

Stupid lack of inequality operator. Let's try that again.

Internet meme != Dawkins's meme

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[sbrown123]

>Black people start doing it.

Unlikely since black people are the first to die in horror situations. Haven't you ever watched a horror movie?

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[DaFallus]

I didn't realize George Romero was black (no, Voodoo doesn't count)

Re:The life cycle of a trend

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're thinking that Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video in 1984 was the start of the trend?

(Hint; zombies were popular before that, which is why MJ used that theme)

-Tom

Bored of zombies

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:Combined with the Emergency Broadcast System te

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Is every one in on the "test"

[Brad1138]

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

Prepared for just about anything

[RNLockwood]

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

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Graham Chapman
Monty Python's Flying Circus

Re:Prepared for just about anything

[Splab]

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

Re:Prepared for just about anything

[RNLockwood]

We of the Spanish Inquisition rely on one thing: surprise, fear and surprise.

Re:Prepared for just about anything

[Anonymous Coward]

This is slashdot. You think anybody here doesn't know its from monty python

Re:Prepared for just about anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency....

Re:Combined with the Emergency Broadcast System te

[Eunuchswear]

But they do have battery powered hair clippers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052020/Amish-bishop-cult-leader-Sam-Mullet-rules-community-iron-fist-harsh-punishments.html

You would think that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

CDC emergency kit

[1u3hr]

From TFA:

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

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

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

Re:CDC emergency kit

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Re:CDC emergency kit

[shutdown -p now]

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

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

The accuracy of AKM is often underrated, and it's plenty good for any reasonable scenario you might find yourself in a zombie invasion - it's "minute of head" accurate to 100m, which is more than most people who have them can handle anyway.

For AR, its sole advantage is that it's so widespread that you can always find someone who knows it very well near you and have them teach the ropes to you. That, and price - compared to most other 5.56 rifles, low-end ARs are plenty cheap and still work well enough. The problem is that even if the rifle itself is cheap, the ammo is not - and, unlike with AK, you can't downscale to crappy Eastern Bloc ammo without getting jams.

Personally, I'd get a Saiga in 5.45. It costs $300-400 - well under the price of any AR and most decent AKs - and you can buy cheap Soviet surplus 5.45 by crates for a price so small that they're cheaper per round than the most crappy 9mm. The only thing that's cheaper is .22.

Re:CDC emergency kit

[Anonymous Coward]

On the shotgun note.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOoUVeyaY_8

Expensive, and not for civilians in most states (I think), but I still want one!

Re:CDC emergency kit

[Anonymous Coward]

I do like Darryl's crossbow on Walking Dead. He can usually retrieve the bolt and it's not hard to make more, and they're silent.

1. They are not silent.
2. You'll be lucky to get a headshot, which is what is required according to zombie lore.
3. Reload time sucks ass.
4. That show is terrible. It's not about zombies, it's a Drama about some bitch cheating on her husband with his best friend, and sometimes zombies show up for a little bit of comic relief.

5. You're missing the entire point. It's a simulation of an outbreak of a nasty virus, plague, etc. where masses of people are rioting. You don't want to get close to them- zombies might take a bite to infect but sick people just need to get close (if airborn), or a small amount of body fluid on you. The last thing you want to do is chop them up, or retrieve an arrow or crossbow bolt. The point is not to defend yourself against the infected, the point is self-survival in the complete absence of any and all Emergency Support Infrastructure.
6. They call it a "ready bag". Basically it's just standard kit for any deep-woods type outdoors enthusiast who spends weeks at a time camping far from civilization. You just need to keep it pre-assembled and check it every month or two, replacing expired items and whatnot.

Re:CDC emergency kit

[cusco]

Actually shotguns suck for taking a head off, even if you're using a slug. The only time that I've seen it actually happen was when the dumbest rabbit in the world stopped about five feet from my dad; and then sat up. That was one time in 45 years of combined rabbit hunting. Any further than that, and any larger neck than that, and it wouldn't have worked. To be truthful, if I'm five feet from a zombie I'd rather have a machete. At least if the zombie grabs my weapon then I can yank it back and its fingers come off.

Yes

[vuo]

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

Re:Yes

[cyber-vandal]

This is why I come to this site :)

Re:Yes

[elewton]

Evidence for the presence of Legionella bacteriophages in environmental water samples.

Right to bear shotguns...

[David_Hart]

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

Re:Right to bear shotguns...

[Mateorabi]

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

Re:Right to bear shotguns...

[rts008]

Oh, and also, dogs can't look up.

What? Where did this gem come from?
How do you explain coon dogs, and other dogs that habitually 'tree' their game?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:Right to bear shotguns...

[Random_Goblin]

you are only exacerbating the situation

/. = right wing? Since When?

[witherstaff]

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

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

Re:/. = right wing? Since When?

[damn_registrars]

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

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

Libertarian on the philosophy charts is dead center

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

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

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

Re:/. = right wing? Since When?

[ScentCone]

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

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

Re:/. = right wing? Since When?

[witherstaff]

If that's your take on the stories and comments I'm surprised. The EU handling of MS and the pirate party are far more libertarian and anti-corporatism than most US news. But well, if that's your take.

You're wrong about the fire departments. Most don't have Fed money. Also libertarians are against the Fed being the nanny of every single decision. Most fire departments are city funded, or township, or county funded. I know in my township we have a millage for fire protection, which is then doled out directly. No Federal involvement whatsoever. I know this is a typical arrangement across the country. When you keep the money close and cut the levels of bureaucracy things perform better. There has been a recent push all around for consolidation of fire departments with more government control. Not surprising most of the volunteers are against this power grab.

The local FD's were given some grant money post 9/11 for some chemical and radiation gear (my area is 50 miles from 2 nuclear plants), but that was a once in a blue moon sort of thing.

Re:/. = right wing? Since When?

[Boronx]

Just because you're to the right of 99.99% of the world doesn't mean people far to the left of you aren't also way to the right.

Re:/. = right wing? Since When?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Hahaha!

You think /. is libertarian? This is one of the most screaming left-wing sites out there. There may be some occasional libertarian influences, but /. is essentially left-wing, not libertarian or even remotely any kind of right-wing.

What's the difference ....

[PPH]

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

Re:What's the difference ....

[ScentCone]

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

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

Re:What's the difference ....

[zippthorne]

Zombies have a goal....

Re:What's the difference ....

[Anonymous Coward]

A zombie attack would get much more favorable coverage on Fox

Re:What's the difference ....

[Tyrannosaur]

zombies pursue brains instead of avoiding all intelligence

Re:What's the difference ....

[CAIMLAS]

Zombies have bathed somewhat recently.

The odor from zombies is somewhat lower.

Overall general appearance is somewhat better for zombies.

You may mistake an OWSer for a zombie, but never vice versa.

Unlike zombies, destroying OWSer brains has no perceivable effect.

Unlike zombies, there is no actual way to placate them.

Zombies clean up after themselves when they're done making a mess.

There are fewer festering sores on zombies.

Zombies have a higher likelihood of being able to reproduce.

Zombies are capable of peaceful assembly.

Re:What's the difference ....

[ErikZ]

Zombies don't get paid to be there.

Re:What's the difference ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I know this one! In one you'll soon be part of the 99%, and the other you already are

Re:What's the difference ....

[Anonymous Coward]

The OWS protesters aren't eating the rich... ...yet.

Re:What's the difference ....

[cusco]

You really should watch something beside Fox "News".

Re:What's the difference ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Occupy Wall Street doesn't gain strength by converting those sent to stop it.

Re:What's the difference ....

[ScentCone]

You should really consider a different way to try to explain away stuff that's documented by all sorts of people. Which part is it that you think is fabricated, exactly, or incorrect? I see.

Why planning for zombies makes sense

[TCPhotography]

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

Re:Why planning for zombies makes sense

[Artifakt]

I used to agree with you, but there's one huge problem with the Zombie metaphor. As they are being treated, Zombies are sort of semi-supernatural, but not really. Either they are from some sort of virus or weird radiation, or they involve magic. If you knew they were like traditional supernatural zombies, you could rely on salt or crucifixes or whatever to lay them to rest. If you knew they came from a virus, you could find scientific ways to deal with them, and they would have limits in what they could do you could use because a virus can't just let a zombie ignore all the laws of biology. The way a lot of movies treat them, Zombies somehow don't have the vulnerabilities of traditional supernatural creatures (so you can't hide in a church, secure that they can't enter hallowed ground, or bury all new dead swiftly on hollowed ground and stop storing them in morgues and such places). They don't have the vulnerabilities of a natural analog either (like rabid animals). They paradoxically have no minds at all but seem to reason their way into places where they can wait, lurk, and become ambush predators. They find routes through sewers and drains, or across fences or trenches, that would be 100% effective in thwarting a mindless creature. The 'virus' is tough enough to sometimes spread by spatter against unbroken skin or survive laying around in sunlight, yet it can't be isolated by the CDC. Some people on the inside are traitors keeping the zombie plague going.
          As disaster prep goes, this is like setting up a radiation spill scenario, and allowing radiation that sometimes doesn't show up on detectors, and sometimes passes through thick layers of stone or metal, but sometimes acts like regular radiation. Or it's like a flood scenario, but you occasionally penalize the first responders for avoiding traveling through low lying areas and seeking alternate routes. Disaster training needs to set reasonable goals that the people being trained can learn from to improve the outcome when a real disaster happens, and I'm coming to think that Zombie scenarios have become negative in that respect.

  (And I'm at least a semi-expert here, as I'm a former military officer, have built complex training scenarios at the military company, troop and regimental levels before, been cadre on others, either administered or scored more, have participated in several disaster managment exercises, and have taken over a dozen FEMA courses during my hitch).

Re:Why planning for zombies makes sense

[Iamthecheese]

You're missing the point. Take Katrina. There was the flood, but there was also danger from rotting corpses, food and clean water unavailable, bands of looters and human scum, electrical lines in the water, gas leaks, and so forth.

Just preparing for the flood wouldn't have been enough. But suppose someone had prepared for a zombie invasion:

• food
• water
• assuming gov't agencies won't be there to help you
• bands of hostile people
• general chaos

The zombie theme lets you prepare for multiple unpredictable failure and is therefore a fine metaphor.

Zombies will "survive" the freezing cold of winter

[perpenso]

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

Zombies will "survive" the freezing cold of winter.

Zombie Popularity Theory

[cosm]

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

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

Or it is just pop culture.

"Send more paramedics."

[nerdonamotorcycle]

(Return of the Living Dead, 1985.)

Semi-auto carbine, not shotgun

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, that should be a machete and a semi-automatic carbine (or rifle), not a shotgun. According to Max Brook's Zombie Survival Guide the semi-automatic carbine is far preferable to a shotgun. Taking down a zombie requires destroying the brain, which means a carefully aimed shot to the upper head. While a shotgun might do the job, especially at point blank range, a semi-auto carbine (or rifle, if you can handle the additional weight and bulk) is the better choice. The semi-auto carbine allows more ammo to be carried for the same weight, higher rate of fire, larger magazine capacity, greater effective range for a head shot, and better chance of penetrating the skull case.

I've driven through Ohio

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they were called rednecks?

Semi-auto carbine, NOT a shotgun

[Anonymous Coward]

Shotgun would be a poor choice. Everyone knows that a precise head shot is required to kill a zombie. While a shotgun (esp. with slugs) could do the job, a light, accurate semi-automatic carbine is a better choice.

Instead, something like

• this AR7 (very small & light collapsible .22 semi-auto carbine )
• or this Sub-2000 (small 9 mm semi-auto carbine)

would be a good choice for the home safety kit. These firearms cost about the same as a shotgun, and are substantially more effective versus zombies. A disassembled AR7 is legal to carry almost everywhere in the USA, while the Sub2000 is not legal to own in some states (e.g. California). Also, both are collapsible, and can thus easily be carried out of sight, making it less likely that FEMA or the DHS would confiscate them in the event of an actual zombie emergency.

Firearms AND machete

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an expert martial artist and skilled swordsman (katana, dual-wield short swords, long sword & shield). Yes, I am aware of just how useful sword skills are in the 21st century (e.g. not at all). Hey, everyone needs a hobby. That said, I'd much prefer to dispatch a zombie from 50 meters with a semi-automatic carbine. As a skilled swordsman, I'd have a better chance of surviving the engagement if the swords stay scabbarded. Melee weapons versus zombies are a last resort. Carry the machete, but only use it if you run out of ammo or time to reload. Blades don't need reloading.

Re:Firearms AND machete

[flimflammer]

I didn't say guns are overrated; I said shotguns were overrated. Great stopping power, but you need to reload far too often and reloading one takes too much time. Guns with large magazines or at the very least ways to quickly reload are far more preferable. I wouldn't ignore a shotgun if I came across one but it certainly wouldn't be high on my list with constant use. I would likely only use it in emergency situations.

Re:Firearms AND machete

[EXrider]

Dwight Schrute... is that you?

The attack comes on Monday

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the poorly worded article sited, the "attack" doesn't come until Monday. It's not to late for aspiring zombies to take part. They are even offering prizes for best costume, best zombie walk, etc. http://www.co.delaware.oh.us/ema/zombie/ (Delaware County Emergency Management).

I see a glaring flaw in your logic....

[rts008]

I seriously doubt that more than a REALLY SMALL segment of the population are in good enough physical condition to wield a single machete effectively for more than a couple of minutes, nevermind dual machetes.

Try it yourself with some safe machete substitutes (bokken, perhaps) against a suitable practice dummy. (no, leave your little brother alone;-)

I used to study Kenjutsu, and then Kendo and competed in tournies when I was younger.
If your not in good shape, you don't last very long!

I would personally recommend a truck-load of hand grenades and Claymore mines....they are both easily 'field improvised'.

Re:I see a glaring flaw in your logic....

[cusco]

Will a christmas tree farm or a field of blackberry tangles substitute? I used to be able to swing a machete for a couple of hours before my hand cramps so badly that I have to stop for half an hour. They're not nearly as heavy or long as a sword. Don't think that I'm really that unusual, and I certainly am not in outstanding shape. Screwed up my shoulder a few years ago (throwing rocks, of all things), so would have to learn to swing the machete left handed in case of zombies now.

Re:I see a glaring flaw in your logic....

[mjwx]

I would personally recommend a truck-load of hand grenades and Claymore mines....they are both easily 'field improvised'.

I would highly recommend against both of these weapons.
1. Grenades and Claymores detonate at ground level most of the time, the part of a Zombie you need to damage is up top, the head.
2. Grenades and Claymores are so effective because of shock, blood loss and trauma, not by damaging vital tissues. Zombies are impervious to pain, therefore impervious to trauma. OK, the legs may now be useless, but the zombie is still 70% effective albeit about 70% slower.
3. An untrained user is more likely to harm themselves then the walking dead.

Fragmentation weapons are effective against humans not because they are fatal, but because they are incapacitating (seeing the number of land mine survivors in Cambodia who are missing an arm or leg really drives this message home). Same with conventional and nuclear bombs as well as artillery, which tend to maim rather then kill, their effectiveness against humans is due to the fact we cant survive a good maiming, Zombies have no such weakness.

The most effective weapon against zombies are high walls and fire. Sustained burning will eventually damage the brain (a zombies only true weak point), can be deployed en mass against a swarm, can be self sustaining (flesh does burn, once enough of it is alight) and flammable materials are plentiful. Your biggest issue is to avoid being burned yourself, which is where the high walls come into it. Isolation is your next best weapon. A small swarm is easier to deal with then a big swarm no matter what weapons you're using. Ultimately, an anti Zombie bio-weapon would be best, a self sustaining infectious virus, but we wont find one of those in your back yard.

Re:I see a glaring flaw in your logic....

[Xaositecte]

Claymores would be a bit more effective against Zombies than Frag Grenades. Claymores operate much like a very large shotgun shell, sending hundreds of steel BB's in a single directed blast. Optimizing for head level is a simple matter of setting them up in slightly more creative ways than normal, with the added advantage of zombies being mindless enough to walk into whatever trap you've got set up even if it's in plain sight.

Zombies with their legs blown off are still effectively incapacitated. Surprised or heavily wounded humans might get taken down, but a surprised or heavily wounded survivor is going to get taken down by healthy zombies in the near future regardless.

Re:I see a glaring flaw in your logic....

[Neil Boekend]

If your not in good shape, you don't last very long!

Rule #1: Cardio

Re:I see a glaring flaw in your logic....

[mjwx]

Claymores would be a bit more effective against Zombies than Frag Grenades.

I can agree on this point...

However they are still highly ineffective as a ground planted claymore will still need to get through many kilograms of flesh in order to get to the vulnerable brain.

Set off against a group of 10 zombies, you may kill about 2 and maim about 3 to 5 more. Even detonated a few feet away. Claymores were designed to maim, so they tend to aim a bit lower then the head.

Zombies with their legs blown off are still effectively incapacitated. Surprised or heavily wounded humans might get taken down

Human eyes scan at chest and head level for full sized zombies. Ones on the ground or "crawlers" can easily go unnoticed especially during dusk, night or dark areas. At night time, they'd be especially dangerous.

Re:I see a glaring flaw in your logic....

[Inda]

"Set off against a group of 10 zombies, you may kill about 2"

You cannot kill the dead.

Re:I see a glaring flaw in your logic....

[swb]

Zombie fiction authors needed to invent a reason as to "why" modern munitions weren't effective against zombies and it has become almost a religiously accepted notion that small-caliber aimed projectiles are the only useful tool against a zombie hoard.

None of that seems to make much sense. Exploding shells (whether fired line of sight from a gun, or launched at high angle from mortars or artillery) designed to explode and forcefully project metal shrapnel would seem ideal against large zombie groupings. I'd include cluster munitions in this category as well.

Land mines of the "bouncing betty" type would also be effective, as they shoot into the air before exploding, delivering shrapnel at a median head height.

Automatic weapons fired indiscriminately would be ineffective, but aimed automatic weapons fire sweeping large groups at head height could be very effective, especially with heavy machine gun (12.7mm/.50 cal) rounds that might possibly penetrate multiple zombies. Gattling-type guns that can deliver thousands of rounds per minute could act simply like a firehose of projectiles delivered at approximate head height. Even if fire from these weapons was not perfectly aimed, the physical destruction that would happen to zombie bodies may slow them or immobilize them for more precise aimed fire.

Besides crushing zombies or shooting them with anti-personnel rounds, a tank might even be more useful mounted with a flail de-mining device. Designed to clear minefields, think of a combine, except you have 5 lb steel balls at the end of a chain, desiged to beat a field to set off mines. Raised off the ground a foot or so, such an attachment could simply be driven through a zombie hoard with the flails crushing skulls.

And this is just the start. The zombie narrative seems to thrive on the "last man on earth" concept and the idea that organized defenses aren't useful, but it seems to me that what you'd really end up with in many zombie actions would be a military response that would actually be quite effective.

Romero predates Jackson

[brokeninside]

George Romero's Night of the Living Dead (1968) based on Richard Matheson's novel I am Legend (1954) is really the origin of the modern zombie craze.

It's putatively related to voodoo zombies, but not really. Prior to Matheson and Romero all movie zombies were voodoo zombies. The style, pacing, origin, etc. was entirely different. Little known trivia, the first film adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre was a voodoo zombie movie, I Walked with a Zombie (1943).

I'm not certain that there is a genetic relationship between modern zombies and voodoo zombies. Matheson's novel was actually about vampires. Romero called them zombies but his film really borrowed far more from Matheson than from the voodoo tradition. Modern treatments that borrow from voodoo are films more like The Crow than like what we expect from a zombie film.

Re:Romero predates Jackson

[y_axis]

I think you may be confusing Romero's NotLD with Boris Sagal's "The Omega Man" (1971) starring Charlton Heston. Omega was definitely based on Matheson's "I am Legend".

Not really

[brokeninside]

Voodoo zombies are sadly underrepresented in the modern horror and survival genres. They share a word "zombie" but any genetic relationship is tenuous at best. The origin of the modern zombie was actually a novel about vampires, Richard Matheson's masterpiece from the fifties, I am Legend.

LIke they say, there are three types of zombies

[brokeninside]

1. voodoo zombies
2. hollywood movie zombies
3. philosophy zombies

Any relationship between them is accidental.

The bit I find humorous is that the genesis of hollywood movie zombies lies in a novel about vampires (Matheson's I am Legend).

Re:LIke they say, there are three types of zombies

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Any relationship between them is accidental.

Well, you could make the case that philosophers who take the "philosophical zombie" idea seriously enough to base arguments on it have clearly either been turned into the voodoo kind of zombie by a particularly malicious houngan, or had their brains eaten by the Hollywood kind of zombie, but otherwise, yeah.

Re:LIke they say, there are three types of zombies

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you could make the case that philosophers who take the "philosophical zombie" idea seriously enough to base arguments on it have clearly either been turned into the voodoo kind of zombie by a particularly malicious houngan, or had their brains eaten by the Hollywood kind of zombie, but otherwise, yeah.

Chalmers bites the bullet and bases some of his arguments for property dualism on the logical possibility of philosophical zombies, but that's because he became convinced (like a number of other philosophers), that no physical account can properly explain consciousness (qualia).

I've never seen an argument attempting to deal with consciousness that was entirely satisfying. Be it materialistic, dualistic, mysterian, or just dismissing it all together (most unsatisfying of all attempts).

They went all out on this.

[Chyeld]

I did see the link to the original CDC article concerning 'zombie preparedness' in the summary but didn't see one to the follow up article where they actually prepared a novella concerning the topic:Preparedness 101: Zombie Pandemic, it's not World War Z, but it's fairly entertaining never the less.

How thorough are they going to get?

[techno-vampire]

What I want to know is how thorough are they going to be in this simulation? Are they just going to have regular zombies, or are some of them going to wear traffic cones or buckets on their heads as armour? Are some of them going to pole vault or use pogo sticks? If so, I hope they're going to provide us with Crazy Dave to sell us the rakes and other things we'll need to fight them off!

Troll? Sheesh

[Moridineas]

Wow, I thought that was one of the least trollish things I've ever written on here :-P

http://zombiehunters.org/

[Anonymous Coward]

So: Exactly what the Zombie Squad has been promoting for years?

They better be careful

[matunos]

Lest this happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeUswA8xPY

Re:Combined with the Emergency Broadcast System te

[TangoMargarine]

Mistaken murder of innocent people = hoot and a half? Ummm...