"Isn't a Darwin award a slap in the face for being stupid?"In a nutshell...apparently Eddie didn't get what was said or hasn't heard of it.In case of the latter, this award is given to those who improve the human condition by eliminating themselves (through sheer stupidity) from the gene-pool.1 - (21 February 2004, Ottawa, Canada) Ameer, a second-year engineering student at Carleton University, was celebrating his 20th birthday with friends in his 11th-floor apartment when they embarked on a spitting contest. His two friends had already made their marks. Ameer thought he could use his engineering skills to improve his performance. A quick mental calculation of trajectory, projectile velocity, and wind speed indicated that winning required more than a simple "stand and spit" technique. Ameer took a running start, flew over the balcony railing, and plunged to his death. "It was purely accidental," said Ottawa police, "momentum carried him beyond." The building's security guard heard the thud. "He was one of the smartest guys I ever met in my life," the guard said. "He had a maturity beyond his age." Spitting contest deaths are becoming a trend. In 1999, a 25-year-old soldier in Alabama won the first Darwin Award in this category in 1999, using the same techinque and achieving the same result. 23-year-old Bartosz of Mt. Prospect, was nominated for falling 20 feet onto his head in December 2005. Bartosz is remarkable for having fallen over an apartment railing without running start. But Ameer clearly trumps his competitors with his 11-story fall. Perhaps the three have reunited in the afterlife, arm in arm, sailing through the air, their projectiles suspended in front of them like bullets in the Matrix movies. 2 - (1986, United Kingdom) In 1986 the UK saw its most violent storm in 350 years. Winds exceeded 90 mph, and an incredible amount of damage was done to property and people up and down the UK. Millions of trees were uprooted by the gales. In Margate in the county of Kent, one unfortunate homeowner had a property bordered by three massive poplars. The wind had felled one, which came to rest across his back garden. Another poplar had been bent over just far enough to lodge its top under the soffit of his roof. The foliage was blocking his upstairs bedroom windows, and something had to be done. This chap did not own a chainsaw, nor could he reach the trunk of the tree from the house, even when leaning out the window. So he decided to shinny up and saw off the top while sitting astride the trunk, with his feet wedged against the gutter of his roof. He had plenty of time to reflect on the wisdom of his position, as it took him 20 minutes of sawing before the bent tree, which experts estimate held the energy equivalent to small field gun--parted company with the portion trapped by the soffit, and sprang back upright. His body was found in a neighbor's garden over a mile away. The police surgeon stated that his neck probably broke during the whiplash and he would therefore have known nothing of the impact with the ground....and one more example in light of the function of this board... 3 - (23 December 1991, Florida) This account of an aircraft accident is quoted directly from the National Transportation Safety Board report, with comments added in [brackets] for clarity. Aircraft: PIPER PA-34-200T, Registration: N47506Injuries: 2 Fatal. The private pilot and a pilot rated passenger [two pilots] were going to practice simulated instrument flight. Witnesses observed the airplane's right wing fail in a dive and crash. Examination of the wreckage and bodies revealed that both occupants were partially clothed and the front right seat was in the full aft reclining position. [The pilots had converted the co-pilot seat to a bed.] Neither body showed evidence of seatbelts or shoulder harnesses being worn. [They were lying on the bed.] Examination of the individuals' clothing revealed no evidence of ripping or distress to the zippers and belts. [Their lack of clothing seemed to be voluntary.] The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: The pilot in command's improper in-flight decision to divert her attention to other activities not related to the conduct of the flight. [The pilot and co-pilot were having sex, and nobody was flying the plane.] Contributing to the accident was the exceeding of the design limits of the airplane leading to a wing failure. [The lack of a pilot caused the plane to fly erratically, over-stressing the wing and leading to a crash.]
