×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

2009 Darwin Award Winners Announced

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the dumber-and-dumberest dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 208

Greg Lindahl writes "From the woman who jumped in a swollen creek to rescue her drowning moped, to the man who hopped over the divider at the edge of the highway to take a leak, and plunged 65 feet to his death, 2009 was a year both exceptional and unexceptional for Darwin Award-worthy behavior!"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30645962)

I'd have thought it would take a lot longer than three days to read all the urban myths in the spam folder...

and upgraded a server, people will rtfa (1)

Xiph (723935) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646122)

In fact, they should've anticipated the increased traffic,
I think i'll have to submit their website for next year...

I wish I'd get that far ... mirror anyone ? (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646132)

Perhaps a meta-darwin award for hosting a famous website on a single "green solar powered" (see lmi.net, their hoster) hoster.

At the moment, you see, they're using 1.2 kw for not showing us that site. You'd almost think they're working for the government ...

Coral Cache link to avoid /.ing Darwin Awards (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646150)

While slightly humorous (1, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30645980)

It's a little distasteful to insult the dead. I may get -1 flamed for this, but am I the only one who feels this way?

Re:While slightly humorous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646000)

Definitely, not just you!

Re:While slightly humorous (5, Insightful)

d34dluk3 (1659991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646008)

If they died honorably rescuing people or something, yeah. Jumping in a creek after a freaking moped, not so much.

Re:While slightly humorous (0)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646240)

That was the presumed motive. The dead person didn't say that.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646300)

They didnt have time to say it.

They were thinking it though.

Re:While slightly humorous (3, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647022)

Read the article though and regardless of it, they were an idiot. She went into the creek on the moped, the officer PULLED HER OUT with a rope, interviewed her, and when he went to the car for a second she bolted and jumped back into the creek.

Don't matter what she was jumping in for, she was an idiot.

Re:While slightly humorous (3, Insightful)

dschmit1 (1353767) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646016)

It is not the dead that are being insulted, it is the manner in which they decided to become so.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647032)

It's not the dead who are being insulted, it's the living people who later became dead.

Re:While slightly humorous (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646030)

No, this is just another sign of how selfish and hateful the "rational and scientific" crowd is. Respect for the dead is something only rel

Re:While slightly humorous (4, Funny)

Explodicle (818405) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646112)

No, this is just another sign of how selfish and hateful the "rational and scientific" crowd is. Respect for the dead is something only rel

Ha! Died while posting!

My cock, your mouth (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646036)

fag!

Re:While slightly humorous (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646040)

They are dead, they don't care.

Re:While slightly humorous (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646052)

They're all random people no one knows, and frankly, people don't feel a lot for people they don't know. I think it's more stupid when people go "oh no, 50 people died on other side of the world - let's pretend we're sad" and then completely ignoring how many people die every die, and how many people die in wars and such. I can bet you don't really feel sad for the iraqi insurgents, do you? If you feel sad for a random person, you should feel sad for another random person too.

And black humor is old thing.

Re:While slightly humorous (2, Interesting)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646348)

Thats because theyre not in our Monkeysphere. [cracked.com]

I do feel sad for the Iraqi insurgents. (0, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646446)

I hope they can be better nourished so that they can be bigger and easier targets.

Re:While slightly humorous (2, Insightful)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646062)

It's a little distasteful to insult the dead. I may get -1 flamed for this, but am I the only one who feels this way?

It is impossible to insult the dead, although it's possible to offend their living friends and relatives...

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646436)

It is not impossible to insult the dead. You could insult the dead by making them undead.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646556)

your definition of not impossible intrigues me.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647052)

You gonna sign up for his news letter?

Re:While slightly humorous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646484)

they got over the dead of a friend or relative, they can handle a joke

Re:While slightly humorous (2, Insightful)

sproingie (1690772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646082)

For me it's not so much the mockery as the snarky self-righteousness mixed with credulity. There's a big list of folks who I'd like to keep from propagating their kind of stupidity, and the people who click "forward" on every "Darwin Award" announcement are way up there on it.

Slashdot editors: Take Darwin's picture off this. He deserves better.

Re:While slightly humorous (3, Insightful)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646172)

For me it's not so much the mockery as the snarky self-righteousness mixed with credulity. There's a big list of folks who I'd like to keep from propagating their kind of stupidity, and the people who click "forward" on every "Darwin Award" announcement are way up there on it.

Meh. People have different senses of humor. There's nothing wrong with not sharing someone else's sense of humor. There's arguably something wrong with wishing them dead because their sense of humor differs from yours...

Re:While slightly humorous (-1, Redundant)

ryanvm (247662) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646098)

Agreed.

Re:While slightly humorous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646190)

I may get -1 flamed for this, but...

Anyone who says this automatically deserves it.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646456)

I may get -1 flamed for this, but I agree. Monkeedude's just asking for it.

Never apologize in advance. There's always time to apologize afterwords.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

hkz (1266066) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646208)

Forget about the dead; that chipper, gloating tone that those little "tales" always have, is an insult to the living. It rubs me the wrong way and is the main reason why the Darwin Awards annoy me.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646286)

Not everyone who is a candidate ends up dead - just unable to procreate.

When the site is up again - check for "Milk The Balls".

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

dirk (87083) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646330)

I never understood the "don't speak ill of the dead" idea. Yes, you should never stand around and cheer people's deaths, but if they were stupid, why should I not say so just because they are dead? Imagine you heard about someone who almost drowned trying to save their moped from a flooded creek. Most people's first reaction would be "what a moron". Why should that change just because the person died? Did they become smarter in death?

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646438)

Because it's not funny when someone dies. And when someone is dead they cannot defend their case to insults.

Hypothetically speaking, The lady who drowned trying to save her moped - it could have been all she had. Maybe she didn't have any other transportation, and thus she wouldn't have been able to get to work on time. Then she'd lose her job, lose her money, and wouldn't be able to feed her children.

The point is - yes, people do stupid things. People Die doing stupid things. Stupid things are funny, but its alot less funny when people die. And when you go around mocking the people who died doing something stupid, often times you are too busy laughing to know the whole story.

Re:While slightly humorous (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646772)

Right. The lady in question was driving a moped because she had a prior DUI. She ran a police roadblock into a flooded street and ended up going over an embankment into a flooded creek. The police rescued her. She then jumped BACK into the creek.

Yes indeed, could have happened to any one of us.

But yes, things are less funny when people die because, you know, we've got so few people and it's so hard to make new ones.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646828)

Because it's not funny when someone dies. And when someone is dead they cannot defend their case to insults.

Some things just aren't defensible. Like trying to tear apart an abandoned warehouse to steal scrap metal, starting with the supports. Or cutting your head off with a chainsaw.

Re:While slightly humorous (5, Insightful)

winwar (114053) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646836)

"And when you go around mocking the people who died doing something stupid, often times you are too busy laughing to know the whole story."

And how would knowing the whole story make her actions any less stupid? Her actions led to her death. Mocking her actions is a good thing-it might encourage others not to do similar things.

I'd like to think I would never do anything as stupid as that but if I do, I fully expect to be mocked for it. Because I'd deserve it.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646332)

Why is it distasteful to insult the dead?

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646478)

They don't have the chance to defend their logic and reasoning for doing so.

Are you going to say that you have never in your life done something that is stupid, but seemed like a good idea at the time?

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646600)

This isn't a court of law where we're resurrecting them and killing them again. These are merely jokes. I don't have anything against random people on the internet laughing at my stupid mistakes, and I, being living, still have a reputation to uphold.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646754)

Are you saying that you can't laugh at others' stupidity just because you yourself have been stupid?

Even if she were alive, she almost certainly would not come around to a random message board and defend herself.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646870)

I'm saying that when someone singles me out and says "You are so dumb you deserve to die" I'd like to be able to ask why they think so and inform them of exactly why I took the course of action I did.

It's not insulting that they report a funny or odd death. It happens, and its worth a chuckle. It's insulting that they tagline Darwinism (The toughest or most adaptive survive) to it.

It puts an air of arrogance that they themselves are obviously smarter than everyone who has died unnaturally simply because they themselves are still alive.

Re:While slightly humorous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646760)

Indeed I have and I deserved to be mocked. Even if I had died.

Re:While slightly humorous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646370)

They make it a point of not including anyone on the list who died because of anything other than what your average person would stop and think "now wait, how could this go wrong" if not twice but at least once. But in all fairness think of how smart the average person is. Then think that half of them are dumber.

Re:While slightly humorous (4, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646574)

I understand the sentiments, but think for a second what is actually going on. The Darwin awards are publicizing fatal accidents that should not have really occurred, and they are doing so in a not so stupid way. They could have "The stupid awards for people who offed themselves in the stupidest manner possible and left there friends and family grieving as asking why things like this happen", but they don't. They have an award for people who off themselves in unexpected ways, and the hope is that since the genes were not transferred, these things never to have to happen again. In fact, by spreading the meme that stupid accidents are preventable, what they may actually be doing to saving another family from having to grieve over a family member that chooses physical possessions over life.

I do take this kind of seriously. When I was 10 and in school, one of my classmates, in fact her entire family, died instantly when they drove off an over pass or a freeway. I was brought to school over this overpass everyday. At that time there was very little traffic. To this day i wonder what the parents were thinking about, or doing, instead of driving, that was worth the life of their children. It may be disrespectful to the dead, and I admit I cannot know the circumstances around the incident, but I do certainly hold those parents in low regard.

I can't help but feel these cautionary tales are a good public service. They remind us that the world is dangerous, and the miracle is that we humans have a brain that we can use to survive. Unless we don't.

Mod Up Please (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646804)

Parent article makes a really good point - thanks!

Re:While slightly humorous (2, Insightful)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646592)

All sorts of people find all sorts of things distasteful. It doesn't make anybody wrong or right. There's no reason to get judgmental over something so trivial as humor. I think our ability to sit back and chuckle at life rather than get offended is a tremendously useful trait.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646658)

But did you think of how many lives (or genitals) this award has saved? There are some out there who might consider using their plugged-in laptop while in the bathtub, or stick their johnson down a garburator. Such people, lacking the ability to think through the consequences of these ideas, at least have the benefit of other people's experiences to draw on.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646744)

Publicizing a stupid death is not what upsets me, but rather the concept behind "Darwin Awards".

Basically what they are saying is that the person was so stupid that they did not deserve to survive or reproduce.

They are of the opinion that these people deserved to die.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646982)

My post wasn't serious. The number of possible bone-headed acts is likely too vast to list, much less remember. There's no substitute for a little mental firepower.

But let's face it - the Darwin Awards are funny in the same way as South Park is. It's the perverseness of it, perhaps a reaction to the stifling and hypocritical political correctness found in segments of our society (e.g., the modern university).

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647130)

You don't get it....

"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." Mel Brooks [quotedb.com]

Re:While slightly humorous (2, Interesting)

DarKnyht (671407) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647182)

No basically what they are saying is that whatever genetic or environmental conditioning that person had that led them to make the poor choices that led to their death has died with them, and thus hopefully has not been passed on to a future generation. Thus it ensures that the strongest and fittest of our species survive and reproduce.

It sort of falls along the lines of why does our society really needs labels such as "Do not use on roof" on a snow blower, "Caution moves when in use" on a scooter, or "Not for personal hygiene" on a flush-able toilet brush. If someone is too retarded to realize these things on their own why do we protect them?

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647202)

They are of the opinion that these people deserved to die.

      Deserved? Why, do you believe in "fate" and "destiny"? If so, then why argue because clearly these people died because it was meant to be.

      I have news for you, everyone WILL die. Including you. So we all "deserve" to die.

      The site is merely a statement of fact. These people died unnecessarily by their own carelessness. The tongue in cheek part is that, if a tendency for such carelessness was hereditary, those genes won't be passed on. That's it. You don't need to be overly dramatic. If such things offend you, then don't read them.

Re:While slightly humorous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646872)

Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall down an open manhole cover and die.

Mel Brooks [npcentral.net]

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

Gerafix (1028986) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647076)

Why deify the dead? Just because they died doesn't mean they were good people.

Re:While slightly humorous (2, Insightful)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647122)

We're not insulting them; we're honoring them for removing their genes from the gene pool before they could replicate.

Re:While slightly humorous (1)

dummondwhu (225225) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647270)

There are plenty of dead who deserve to be insulted. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong. So, I'm not sure where the idea of being dead elevates one above being spoken ill of by the living. It's just a matter of deciding where to draw the line between respecting a dead individual or not. Your line may vary, but there is certainly nothing inherently distasteful about insulting the dead.

Future winner (3, Funny)

Dartz-IRL (1640117) | more than 4 years ago | (#30645998)

I have, on more than one occasion, been referred to as a future award winner. Given how epically my attempt at a 3-phase mains-powered coilgun failed... I feel they may be right.

At least I'll win something in my life. Even if it takes my life to win it.

Re:Future winner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646022)

Just make sure it doesn't take someone else's life too.

You won't win it *inside* your lifetime (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646470)

At least I'll win something in my life. Even if it takes my life to win it.

Actually, by the award criteria, you won't win a Darwin award in your life but rather just off the far end of it.

(Or, given your dispositions, it might actually be the near end :P)

Re:You won't win it *inside* your lifetime (1)

winwar (114053) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646602)

"...you won't win a Darwin award in your life but rather just off the far end of it."

Not true. If you lose the ability to procreate before(?) having done so and live you are eligible.

But you are required to do it in an unusual way. Methods that become common are retired from eligibility.

Re:You won't win it *inside* your lifetime (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646762)

Blowing your balls off with a railgun qualifies as unusual in my book.

Re:You won't win it *inside* your lifetime (0, Offtopic)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647084)

Why rated (Score:0)? I thought that was relevant, insightful and humorous.

Re:Future winner (1)

tool462 (677306) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647194)

Since you just need to remove yourself from the gene pool, you don't have to lose your life. You could just horribly maim your genitals!

Weak. (4, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646012)

These are Darwin award worthy?

First off, the rigor. Minor complaint, but it'd be neat if they linked to a police report, or a newspaper article on these incidents.

Second off, the stupid. These are by far not the stupidest deaths I've read about last year. the DAs are getting weak.

Re:Weak. (1)

linuxgurugamer (917289) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646074)

I agree. I was expecting to read some outrageously funny/sad endings, but these were all.....blah

I don't insult the dead, but sometimes, the manner in which they die can be sadly amusing.

Re:Weak. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646156)

Your request is magically granted:
Every story has a link to the original
submission at the bottom.

Re:Weak. (1)

belkode (901385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646160)

Actually, this is what the DAs are all about. What you see is that the incredibly stupid have already removed themselves from the gene pool. So these are really only astoundingly stupid deaths. You can plot these on a graph, probably, with the degree of stupidity on the y axis, and time on the x-axis. It will take more time for events to be logged as the stupidity of the participants necessarily decreases. The more stupid you are, the more quickly you act. The lameness of these new deaths is an expected result, if you ask me.

Re:Weak. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646278)

You failed to take into account that stupid people are a renewable resource (and a growth market).

Re:Weak. (4, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646848)

You failed to take into account that stupid people are a renewable resource (and a growth market).

Also, depending on the Darwin Award in question, a biofuel, an industrial lubricant, or a tasty new snack.

Re:Weak. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646428)

They are not "awards." They are the candidates, and the people who run the website do require proof such as a police report.

Oh my god! (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646054)

They've slashdotted the Darwin Awards! Anybody have a mirror?

Re:Oh my god! (1)

navygeek (1044768) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646220)

I guess the site proved 'survival of the fittest' without even trying. Couldn't survive /., won't be able to make it 'in the real world'.

Re:Oh my god! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646492)

They've slashdotted the Darwin Awards! Anybody have a mirror?

You Bastards!

I have mixed feelings about this (4, Insightful)

yog (19073) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646056)

We're all just one failed experiment or innocent mistake away from being on the Darwin Awards list.

Sure, that guy who jumped over the barrier to relieve himself should have been more careful. But does that mean we need to celebrate his death?

That priest with the balloons--OK, he should have bailed earlier, or figured out his GPS in advance of his trip. Clearly he made some mistakes. But he was trying to do something for a charitable cause.

Lots of smart people make dumb mistakes; we're all only human. An old saying "There but for grace of God go I" seems to apply in many of these situations.

That DUI woman who drowned in the creek--she's a pathetic sort of person, obviously lacking in common sense. But not knowing the full story (the author speculated and extrapolated an awful lot in this case) I hesitate to condemn her as deserving of the Darwin awards.

All in all it was a mediocre set of awards this year. I've seen better.

Re:I have mixed feelings about this (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646550)

> There but for grace of God go I"

Well, that and about 50 IQ points...

(Also, you've chosen a somewhat ironic choice of phrase to defend a Darwin Award candidate.)

Re:I have mixed feelings about this (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646686)

I once got a shock during enclosure maintenance when I touched a secondary supply that wasn't powered off. It was a minor shock, but that's partly because I was wearing insulated boots and had the other hand in my pocket. (i.e. there was no path to ground.)

The kicker is that I had a voltage tester in my pocket but I didn't bother to pull it out that one time.

Re:I have mixed feelings about this (1)

winwar (114053) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646704)

"We're all just one failed experiment or innocent mistake away from being on the Darwin Awards list."

Not really. Garden variety stupidity is not supposed to be eligible (killing oneself with a loaded weapon, for instance).

But a drunk driver who drowns after jumping into a flooded creek trying to save their moped. That is a much higher WTF.

Re:I have mixed feelings about this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646906)

OK, folks, stop the ululations. You observe Halloween, don't you? Dealing with our own moribundity in a mocking and offensive manner is a tradition. When the living reduce people to their spectacular death, they do so as a reflection on their own carnality. It's nothing personal and certainly not intended to diminish any noble intentions the award winners may have had. It's just a way of reminding ourselves that we're all gonna go some day.

Re:I have mixed feelings about this (1)

hondo77 (324058) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647274)

Sure, that guy who jumped over the barrier to relieve himself should have been more careful. But does that mean we need to celebrate his death?

Yes. Yes it does.

Next!

Slashdotted (3, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646064)

We killed the site. Can they get a Darwin Award for that?

Re:Slashdotted (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646110)

My thoughts exactly. Darwinawards.com offers simple HTML and images. That's all, no fancy graphics, interactive multimedia or web 2.0 style forums to ring up traffic. Nevertheless, the site has self-destructed due to an 'unprecedented' (most would call it 'obvious') surge in traffic following the announcement of the 2009 winners.

Thank you, darwinawards.com, for removing yourself from the internet pool.

Re:Slashdotted (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646258)

No... in their eyes, that's not stupidity on their part, it's success. ;)

Re:Slashdotted (3, Informative)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646266)

I'll sum it up for you.

A 50 year old female goes out on her moped during flash flood, gets drunk, tries to drive home and gets washed into creek. Cop saves her, but she jumps back in to save moped. Dies.

20-something male has to pee and gets out of car. Jumps over side embankment, only to find out that he's on an overpass elevated 65 feet above the ground. Falls. Dies.

Two bank robbers use way to much dynamite in attempt to rob an ATM. Take out entire building. Die.

Priest does a "Lawn-chair Larry" for charity. Winds change and blow him towards water. Doesn't parachute over dry land even though this is the situation for which he has the chute. When over the water, calls for help. Can't figure out how to use the GPS he brought along. Disappears. Dies.
Is found later.

Overall, pretty weak. Two of them do not belong as they contain members of our species that were likely not going to reproduce anyway. (priest and 50 year old woman)

Re:Slashdotted (4, Insightful)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646684)

Priest does a "Lawn-chair Larry" for charity.

You mean "for the church." I'm not sure many would consider raising money to open chapels for truck drivers "charity" (I know I don't).

The site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646124)

Darwinawards.com appears to be the first Darwin award winner of 2010.

These are pretty lame and that means something (1)

sjonke (457707) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646148)

It obviously means that people are getting smarter. But they are dying anyway.

Re:These are pretty lame and that means something (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646254)

Or the truly stupid have gone extinct circa 2008.

Re:These are pretty lame and that means something (3, Funny)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646532)

Last time I checked, Congress still has 535 members.

Re:These are pretty lame and that means something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30647132)

Or the truly stupid have gone extinct circa 2008.

They used up all their stupid in voting for 0bama.

How's that withdrawal from Iraq going? And I hear the Gitmo will be closed any decade now.

Re:These are pretty lame and that means something (1)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646312)

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers...

Weak (1)

aarenz (1009365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646188)

I think that the number of fake listings has overwhelmed anyone trying to make up such a list and therefore there is nothing useful in getting this award. I am not sure this is even the group that started this stuff up. Maybe just someone that wants some ad click revenue to pay for their annual christmas debt.

BTW, good job on taking their servers down slashdotters.

Re:Weak (1)

tonyfugere (930903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646346)

Maybe just someone that wants some ad click revenue to pay for their annual christmas debt.

whois info points to Wendy Northcutt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Northcutt [wikipedia.org]

Re:Weak (1)

aarenz (1009365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646554)

So just teasers to get us to buy her books!!

Why do we do this? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646270)

Instead of posting a link on slashdot, causing the site to go down, why not indirectly link to it, or perhaps link to the Google cache?

Re:Why do we do this? (1)

Web Goddess (133348) | more than 4 years ago | (#30646902)

Hey we're good now, come on over.

It's a fun challenge to keep up with a slashdotting.
This is the first year I've been able to tweak the settings
to hold my own.

ServerLimit 512
MaxClients 512
MaxRequestsPerChild 50000

I've been told the website design is so dinosaur it's practically 2002. Kids today.

Creationists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30646310)

would like to point out that there should be an equal time given to an alternative explanation as to why these people died^H^H^H^H had been recalled by the creator due to obvious malfunction....

Notorious history of the "Darwin Awards" (2, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647062)

Didn't these "Darwin Awards" start as as email spams that mostly consisted of urban legends?

Shouldn't Obama be on the Darwin awards list? (1)

rcamans (252182) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647112)

Shouldn't Obama be on the list? I mean, he did jump in front of a "bus" a few times.

Funny as it may be... (3, Insightful)

xlotlu (1395639) | more than 4 years ago | (#30647184)

There's two sides to every story. Watch this piece of reporting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PbFeIxrilI [youtube.com] -- Don't you start feeling for that guy? Don't you hope he gets rescued? Well, it's the same priest that got the Darwin Award, so how is this possible? Moments ago you were amused by his idiocy...

Of course the video comes packaged in church marketing, so it's supposed to make you feel like that. But would you still call him an idiot? Or rather a stupid but noble man?

I for one would call him naive. Naive for the cause he chose, naive thinking he'll be alright after getting drifted away, naive not bailing out when he had the opportunity. And that got him killed, but he didn't give up because he thought his cause was just.

Maybe we should take pride in such naivety, instead of branding it as utter idiocy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?