455 replies to this topic

[taikara]

I often scan the headlines for events that are bizarre, ridiculous, and/or just dumb.

Just thought I'd share my favorites of the day:

First,

Survivor's Very Non-PC Ratings Bid

I think someone is definitely looking to get sued.

But this is my favorite:

Interesting logic...

My favorite quote from that last one:

"If we’re not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation. (Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."

Seriously... what are these people thinking when they open their mouths?

Feel free to comment or share your own, I made this topic because I decided there was no point in starting a new mini-topic for every single one I find (there's just too many dumb things occuring in the world for that).

[DeathDude]

Yeah the survivor thing methinks they are running out of ideas, cause really that's just asking for controversy, granted with all the attention it is getting, may in fact have the opposite affect and get people to tune in.

The second article yeah honestly that's a bit scary, what are they thinking when they propose some of these ideas, just imagine going to celebrate a win by your favourite team and because of whatever happening, let's just say a mini sort of celebration, but with nothing serious going on, no rioting and such, how would you determine if it would be alright to use such a thing, craziness.

[Frodo]

This fish had a harmless cyst, so they removed the cyst and one eye.  The poor fish was probably perfectly happy before losing it's eye.  Poor thing.  


http://news.bbc.co.u...and/5337358.stm

[Juni Ori]

Tai, admitted, especially your quote of the second one is actually quite disturbing logic, but why do people always pick possibly a little poorly chosen words and start blaming people? Actually crowd control can be determined a little differently than keeping eye on celebrating mass, however that's crowd control too. But seriously it's somewhat obvious that what he meant was testing it to riots, or other such difficulties. At least hopefully...

I'm sure that the Survivor thing is only calculated irritant to get even more people 1) aware of the program, 2) get racists interested and 3) most importantly, get free advertisement, when media handles the issue. Business. Only business. At least hopefully...

[Tom Henrik]

So you would be perfectly okay with being fired at with experimental military weapons, that will at one time be used in a war-scenario?

Especially when considering that the reason they are testing the weapons on you, is to see if you die. And if you die, you'd be perfectly happy to know that "Good thing they killed me... in my own country... in peace time. Now they have seen the flaw of the weapon, and can avoid killing people in a war. Because it would be devastating for us if the press found out that we had killed an enemy soldier in war. I mean... what would the world think of us? Good thing they tried it out on civilians first. This is a big step in the right direction. I am happy to have served my country."

Sorry, but I still think that this entire idea is the worst I have ever encountered. I think that even a dictator would go "Uhm... wtf?" at that one.

[Juni Ori]

To comment your last line, Tom, think about the dictators in past...

Anyways, you got me totally wrong. I should've quoted, but this is the part I was criticizing:

Quote

Let us pick this one apart.

First, “crowd-control’’ situations vary greatly. There are protests marches against government policies, there are celebrations of football wins gone out of hand, there are pro-this rallies and anti-that rallies, sometimes being held at the same time.

And it goes on. Point being, most likely he meant those violent ones. I don't find any reason to start blaming people when they choose a bit poorly their words... And above is excellent example.

If you want to ask me, which would I prefer: to test it on population, or to test it on battlefield to enemy, I'd choose the latter any time. But I kind of understand that some people think that way. They're too worried about foreign relations and have became a little blind to the bigger picture. Or they haven't thought the matter all the way. Most likely that guy has realized too late how people began to think about him...

Quick edit: And I'm pretty sure you've encountered worse ideas...

[Qbix]

http://forums.vugame...e...39&tstart=0

It seems that they use DOSBox for it.

As I didn't know this was happening I was/am totally amazed.

[A. J. Raffles]

Juni Ori, on Sep 15 2006, 10:34 AM, said:

To comment your last line, Tom, think about the dictators in past...

Anyways, you got me totally wrong. I should've quoted, but this is the part I was criticizing:

Quote

Let us pick this one apart.

First, “crowd-control’’ situations vary greatly. There are protests marches against government policies, there are celebrations of football wins gone out of hand, there are pro-this rallies and anti-that rallies, sometimes being held at the same time.

And it goes on. Point being, most likely he meant those violent ones. I don't find any reason to start blaming people when they choose a bit poorly their words... And above is excellent example.

Well, but even if we are talking about violent mobs here, surely that can't justify using the people who form that violent mob as guineapigs for what's essentially weapon testing without their consent?

[Tulac]

Qbix, on Sep 15 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

http://forums.vugame...e...39&tstart=0

It seems that they use DOSBox for it.

As I didn't know this was happening I was/am totally amazed.

Don't they have to ask for permission, or something?

[Juni Ori]

A. J. Raffles, on Sep 15 2006, 02:28 PM, said:

Well, but even if we are talking about violent mobs here, surely that can't justify using the people who form that violent mob as guineapigs for what's essentially weapon testing without their consent?

Well, that depends. As I said earlier (in that part you didn't quote ), I wouldn't do so. But there's billions of people on this planet, I bet many would find that justified. Morale, good and evil, right and wrong, they're only our own imagination...

[DeathDude]

Still the fact they are contemplating such an idea really is just a bit scary. I mean who would give such a clearance to use such a device, could the mayor of a city? Or would it have to be someone higher up? Or regulate it through the police too, besides there is no clear way they are defining what would constitute such a danger, if they go through with it and do decide to use it, think there will be big consequences especially if it's used wrongly.

[A. J. Raffles]

Juni Ori, on Sep 15 2006, 01:10 PM, said:

A. J. Raffles, on Sep 15 2006, 02:28 PM, said:

Well, but even if we are talking about violent mobs here, surely that can't justify using the people who form that violent mob as guineapigs for what's essentially weapon testing without their consent?

Well, that depends. As I said earlier (in that part you didn't quote ), I wouldn't do so. But there's billions of people on this planet, I bet many would find that justified. Morale, good and evil, right and wrong, they're only our own imagination...

I did read that part, but I still don't understand the reasoning. Justified through what exactly? This isn't so much about morals or good and evil as about fair play: whichever way you look at it, experimenting on your own people without at least informing them of what you're about to do, telling them about the potential risks and giving them a chance to opt out if they're not willing to take those risks is just unsporting.

Anyway, before this turns into another one of those "political" discussions, here's another bit of WTF-news, which is slightly less controversial, I suppose.
link

[DeathDude]

Yeah I always wonder how such things sell so high, I mean spend that much money on something like that or even things of similar nature, guess cause it's from a celebrity I suppose,

[Juni Ori]

A. J. Raffles, on Sep 15 2006, 04:28 PM, said:

I did read that part, but I still don't understand the reasoning. Justified through what exactly? This isn't so much about morals or good and evil as about fair play: whichever way you look at it, experimenting on your own people without at least informing them of what you're about to do, telling them about the potential risks and giving them a chance to opt out if they're not willing to take those risks is just unsporting.

Anyway, before this turns into another one of those "political" discussions, here's another bit of WTF-news, which is slightly less controversial, I suppose.
link

No doubt you read. I said you didn't quote! Anyways. How many times people have justified their actions in the name of common good? Actions such as we define atrocities? The answer is many. And they don't have to be atrocities at all! Most of Finns justified the Continuation War, even though it meant that some people, unwilling though not resisting to go to war, were forced to join the ranks. Hope you get it, I'm leaving this here. But I didn't foresee "political" discussion, I foresaw philosophic discussion. Which both are of course off-topic.

I can't understand the weak-minded worshippers (of anything actually)...

[A. J. Raffles]

My favourite university ranking.