Ohio Emergency Responders Stage Mock Zombie Invasion 219
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.'"
Zombies in Ohio... (Score:2)
Re:Zombies in Ohio... (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...about what?
Hello?
Hellloooo?
Oh shit! The zombies got him!!
Everyone panic!
13.9% increase in zombie titles (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [amazon.com], makes people assume it shares something with this book about zombies, World War Z [amazon.com]
The Z in "The Golden Kingdom" has *nothing* to do with zombies, but from what I saw, two unfortunate t
Troll? Sheesh (Score:2)
Wow, I thought that was one of the least trollish things I've ever written on here :-P
I'd like to see the CDC freeway sign (Score:5, Funny)
Suggesting that every household have a machete and a shotgun.
Re:I'd like to see the CDC freeway sign (Score:4, Informative)
Never happen. For many families in these tough economic times, it's usually a choice between the two. The CDC knows this.
Re: (Score:2)
I see a glaring flaw in your logic.... (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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. Surprise
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If your not in good shape, you don't last very long!
Rule #1: Cardio [zombielandrules.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Semi-auto carbine, not shotgun (Score:2, Informative)
AP: 'People got zombie fever here in Delaware" (Score:2)
Damn - we're too late - it's already started.
How far is this zombie fever outbreak from the Monroeville Mall [deadohio.com] in Pennsylvania where George Romero filmed "Dawn Of The Dead"?
If someone has 'zombie fever', go for the double-tap.
For their next performance (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:For their next performance (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
/. = right wing? Since When? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 w
Re: (Score:2)
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 directl
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 vo
Re: (Score:2)
Too late. President Carter did that years ago when he replaced local Civil Defence organizations with FEMA.
Re: (Score:2)
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 Kaz
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 al
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 consisten
Re: (Score:2)
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 becaus
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:For their next performance (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
'There is nothing better that anybody else either proposes or would do ....'
That's really sad :(
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [facebook.com] for somebody who clearly understand this issue and is vocal against it. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought this was great... (Score:2)
... until I started factoring in the potential for volunteer head wounds (to put it mildly).
Accurate Simulation? (Score:2)
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?
think of children (Score:2)
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 goin
Re: (Score:2)
Chimneys can get a virus?
Yes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I come to this site :)
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence for the presence of Legionella bacteriophages in environmental water samples. [nih.gov]
Combined with the Emergency Broadcast System test (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That kind of panic really depends on people not having internet and cellphones...
Oh Bother! (Score:4, Funny)
And people think Trekkers need to get alife!
Re: (Score:2)
At least zombies don't have slash-fic.
Re: (Score:2)
They have already. http://www.google.pl/search?q=zombie+whores+of+frankenstein [google.pl]
Mock Zombie Invasion (Score:3)
A "mock" zombie invasion?
That's what they want you to think ...
The life cycle of a trend (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Bling bliiing! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The way "meme" is used on the internet it is..
Re: (Score:2)
Internet meme Dawkins's meme
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid lack of inequality operator. Let's try that again.
Internet meme != Dawkins's meme
Re: (Score:3)
Caribbean voodoo, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Caribbean voodoo, actually.
The modern conception of zombies has practically nothing in common with the voodoo version.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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!
Is every one in on the "test" (Score:2)
Prepared for just about anything (Score:3)
"'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: (Score:2)
Actually they notified you thirty days in advance, so basically everyone expected the Spanish Inquisition.
Re: (Score:2)
We of the Spanish Inquisition rely on one thing: surprise, fear and surprise.
CDC emergency kit (Score:2)
First of all, you should have an emergency kit in your house
Re: (Score:2)
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
Right to bear shotguns... (Score:2)
Does this mean that emergency kits will now come with shotguns and shells?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
What's the difference .... (Score:2)
Zombies will "survive" the freezing cold of winter (Score:3)
What's the difference between a zombie attack and Occupy Wall Street?
Zombies will "survive" the freezing cold of winter.
Re: (Score:3)
Zombies have a goal....
Re: (Score:2)
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 pea
Re: (Score:2)
Zombies don't get paid to be there.
Zombie Popularity Theory (Score:2)
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
They went all out on this. (Score:2)
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 [cdc.gov], it's not World War Z, but it's fairly entertaining never the less.
How thorough are they going to get? (Score:2)
They better be careful (Score:2)
Lest this happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeUswA8xPY [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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:
The zombie theme lets you prepare for multiple unpredictable failure and i