Put yer nerd goggles on
It's early enough in the morning, I'm betting very few of you are too drunk to understand this, unless you're still recovering from last night.
Thesurvival probability of immobile targets annihilated by a population ofrandom walkers on inhomogeneous discrete structures, such as disordered solids,glasses, fractals, polymer networks, and gels, is analytically investigated. Itis shown that, while it cannot in general be relatedto the number of distinct visited points as in thecase of homogeneous lattices, in the case of bounded coordinationnumbers its asymptotic behavior at large times can still beexpressed in terms of the spectral dimension and itsexact analytical expression is given. The results show that theasymptotic survival probability is site-independent of recurrent structures (2), whileon transient structures (>2) it can strongly depend on thetarget position, and such dependence is explicitly calculated.
If you are too drunk, here's a simpler explanation.
Posted by: eddiebear at September 29, 2009 09:09 AM (wnU1W)
2
I just finished reading World War Z. And now I can't help but scope out buildings for their defensive value against potential zombie attack. Cause I'm in South Carolina, not much chance of a hard freeze down here giving me a season to set up good defenses.
Posted by: MikeD at September 29, 2009 09:10 AM (FkL60)
3
This is stupid. It assumes zombie movements are completely random, which is not the case. A zombie, upon locating a source of living flesh, will attempt to get to it relentlessly. Zombies also have a tendency to follow one-another. So, once you have a zombie that spots you, you will end up with a metric shit-ton of zombies trying to eat your brains.
The key is to kill any zombies that have spotted you. If that is not feasible, the next best solution is to get the fuck out of dodge and set up a compound with the other survivors away from any of the old population centers. This minimizes the risk of random zombie encounters.
Posted by: Jeff M at September 29, 2009 09:36 AM (8P3+x)
Yes, but Alex, the major disadvantage of edge weapons is that it allows - no, requires - the attacker to be within biting distance before you can off it. It also requires no defensive bulwarks be between you and the zombie hoard.
I feel very confident in saying that edge weapons should be a last resort in any real zombie attack. I think flame throwers would be my first choice, because I just can't get over how fucking awesome it would be to see the undead fuckers burning like crispy critters.
Posted by: Goober at October 01, 2009 05:59 PM (Pzz/u)
7
Exactly. Swords are a last resort. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to spend gun money on a sword, you need a last resort item and my 1911 only has a 7 round mag.
Posted by: Veeshir at October 01, 2009 06:02 PM (CcuGP)
But I think this was totally a planted troll-like question. I mean, I might ask something like that just to watch all the reprobates of the game-playing society crawl out of the woodwork and to voice their relativistic amorality. Not sure if that even makes sense, bu it sure seems like there were more than a few people commenting that said something to the effect of, "It depends on the 7-yr-old."
No wonder some of my middle school students are so messed up. Actually, the wonders cease once I talk to their parents for the first time and get an idea of the kid's boundaries, or lack thereof.
Posted by: observer at September 28, 2009 01:40 AM (zYLQM)
6Man, I need to get that wireless adapter for my XBOX so I can lay waste to 7 year olds in Left 4 Dead.
Or you could play me. I suck on an epic level.
Posted by: alexthechick at September 28, 2009 08:11 AM (SHHaV)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at September 23, 2009 09:45 PM (Mi2wf)
2
I'm not entirely sure what I'm looking at here. Is it a picture of someone who is angry because an explosion left him with no eyebrows? Because I think I would be pretty pissed off if that happened to me.
Posted by: Jeff M at September 23, 2009 10:06 PM (8P3+x)
More training aids For the upcoming zombie apocalypse, of course. No, alex, there are no clowns there. At least not on that page. I'm thinking that clown pictures might make a good training aid, though.
1
Eh, we didn't need alexthechick comments for a week or so anyway.
Posted by: Veeshir at September 17, 2009 09:48 AM (zXUuJ)
2
*cries and cries* I haven't done anything that anyone can prove in the last few minutes or so to deserve that!
I demand Robogeisha to make it up to me.
Posted by: alexthechick at September 17, 2009 10:04 AM (SHHaV)
3
I've been keeping an eye out for new stills, but there haven't been any in a while. I thought I had found someplace to buy the movie posters from, but it turned out all they were selling were 11x17 size.
Posted by: Alice H at September 17, 2009 10:38 AM (qJHYy)
Zombie Girl: The Movie
Just in case you were one of the ten people who saw Pathogen, the documentary about its making is screening in Ottawa, Overland Park, and New York City this weekend.
1
Romero's biggest problem has ALWAYS been that he insists on making political points in his films, and does so in the most ham-fisted way possible, and it becomes an annoying distraction.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at September 11, 2009 01:24 AM (Ouvpv)
I have to admit, from what I've read I'm all fer it.
Imagine you're sitting in the audience watching this, one guy says,"Let's kill all the zombies before they eat our brains!" while Mac guy smugly tells us, "No, we can save them!".
I'm with the guy who wants to pop a cap in their heads and I bet a lot of normal people will be too.
This might make them realize that such thinking happens in real life and maybe they'll rethink their stand vis-a-vis dead jihadis.
As for the your question, I assume you're talking about George Lucas.
He was never visionary, he cobbled together a cheesy story line from some cartoons he watched that Saturday morning, stole his costumes from ancient Japan and anime and paid some guys to do the special effects.
He did put out a great movie, but he then spent 5 movies raping it and pissing on it.
And part of the reason they sucked was because he did so many stupid things in the first one. Look at what happened with his throwaway reference to the "Clone Wars", it gave us the crappiest movie in the series.
The only thing he did right in the last 5 movies was putting Carrie Fisher in that gold bikini/chains outfit.
He wasn't a visionary, he was lucky and he had no idea how to recreate that luck.
That's why we have 4 foot tall teddy-bears with sticks and rocks beating technologically advanced Storm Troopers who could take out America in about 4 minutes. That's why we have Jedi Knights, the smartest, bestest, coolest warriors ever to use a light saber, using tactics that soccer hooligans would be embarassed to use.
I liked the first one a lot, but all the rest have been teh suck.
Posted by: Veeshir at September 11, 2009 09:57 AM (zXUuJ)
Romero's biggest problem has ALWAYS been that he insists on making political points in his films, and does so in the most ham-fisted way possible, and it becomes an annoying distraction.
Romero only started in with the political shit after people started making connections to it in his work that were not originally intended by him (in, say, Dawn of the Dead), which makes him something of a libtard poseur.
Posted by: ECM at September 11, 2009 02:19 PM (q3V+C)
Toronto citizens taking zombie threat seriously
Good to see a Zombie Disposal Squad is being assembled, especially in a large metropolitan area, as outbreaks can spiral out of control very quickly in a city.