Most Bizarre Errors You Constantly See
- Thread starter PainInTheAssInternet
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes they should, gravity is just a theory as well.Vegosiux said:
...
Always bug the hell out of me when I see bad weapon discipline. Finger off the trigger and stop waving it around!
Ah! Agreed! Although it is 5 seconds before it explodes at maximum range. But you are right, at the 50m-200m max range you would realistically see it used in a game or film it would be a double explosion!wombat_of_war said:
The one in Black Hawk Down is correct though, they did dodge it, however it was an evasive manoeuvre that effected the fellas targeting, not actually dodging the round.
Also... as it is a "tank busting" weapon, with a specifically designed shaped charge that melts through the tanks armour, creating a fragment inside that bounces around and killing everyone inside, it is annoying that in most games you have to shoot a tank 5-6 times to defeat it sometimes... and it will always completely destroy the tank inside out, just so you know it's dead. Also unrealistic! Watch the footage from Libya and you realise sticking a bomb (250-500lbs, much much bigger warhead than the 5lb RPG-7) through the top of a tank will sometimes barely show any signs of destruction!
See also: Leaning them against walls, sticking barrels into mud/sand/crap when there is no need to, banging magazines on hard things (usually quite hard) before inserting into the rifle... and EVERYTHING to do with the Law of Armed Conflict!thaluikhain said:
Also... silencers... AAAAAH!
They don't have an all-purpose "other"?Ed James said:
Oh, yeah, silencers. And...what about carving a cross on the front of a bullet to make it more hurty or whatever?Elementary - Dear Watson said:
And the clip/magazine thing.
Also the neverending magazine, where you can fire 100 shots from a 30 round magazine. I love when you see a couple guys blasting away and then when the fights over their face is squeaky clean. When ever I used a weapon my face and hands were always covered in oil flecks, dust and carbon bits. Seeing them use insignia from the wrong service or mixing up the uniforms of each branch. Also using incorrect terminology in general.Elementary - Dear Watson said:
Frankenstein is not the name of the monster, it's the name of the doctor. How the hell did this error begin in the first place?
I must admit I genuinely have no idea what the distinction between these terms is, so I probably get it wrong. I tend to use them interchangeably for "metal thing with bullets in which plugs into a gun"thaluikhain said:
Fairly simply, Frankenstein is a cool evil sounding name, and the Monster itself was never given an actual name in the book. So you can see how the slightly awkward "Frankenstein's Monster" got changed to just using Frankenstein for the monster.Lovely Mixture said:
Eh the one that I see most common on here is 'I could care less'.
My god it annoys me. The correct phrase is 'I couldn't care less' and I'm beginning to think those who use the other one are just trying to either annoy me or fool others into also doing it.
There are plenty more but that one bugs me the most.
My god it annoys me. The correct phrase is 'I couldn't care less' and I'm beginning to think those who use the other one are just trying to either annoy me or fool others into also doing it.
There are plenty more but that one bugs me the most.
Was not the creature called "Adam"? Presumably Adam Frankenstein, named after his "dad", though.Alfador_VII said:
Damn, ninja'd by a minute!thaluikhain said:
I'm sure he was called Adam after the first man (Adam and Eve), and I'm certain it was on QI! (So it must be true!)
I agree about Frankenstein's Monster, and how he's visualised as green, black hair and bolts in his neck. The hell? He was made from dead people's body parts if I remember.
I think that was for a Halloween or horror movie marketing thing, if I had to guess.
Clip/Magazine thing? I thought that was just to do with where you are from? Like Car Park/Parking Lot, Aluminium/aluminum, BBQ/Grill, Telly/TV, Tomato/Tomato, and Beer/weak-yellow-fizzy-thing-chilled-within-an-inch-of-its-life-that-tastes-of-nothing-or-rats-piss-if-you-are-lucky?thaluikhain said:
EDIT: Just looked it up... well... the more you know! I only use weapons with magazines, so that is what we call them in the British Armed Forces, but I can see how others often get it wrong!
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,172
- 150
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
One that annoys me whenever I see it is that it's not uncommon for certain species of hominid to be depicted as white-skinned, even though those particular species only ever lived in Africa and so you would expect them to be dark like the modern day inhabitants. To people's credit though I have this error less over the last few years.
The use of "literally" as emphasis, rather than what it actually means. Then I learned that at least one dictionary actually changed its definition to include the idea that literally can also mean figuratively. I wanted to find the source of this linguistic evil and choke it out of them.
I'm also easily annoyed by the phrase "could care less". COULDN'T care less is perfectly sensible, but "could care less" is useless and conveys the opposite point that most people who use it are trying to make. It's such a simple error, I don't understand why it's so common. Similarly, abuse of "much less" and "let alone" is startling common where people get the severity order mixed up (ie. "He couldn't program a VCR, let alone write code for a major company" is the correct use. I'll see people reverse it all the time. Obviously jokes about VCR programing aside).
There are other things, I'm sure.
I'm also easily annoyed by the phrase "could care less". COULDN'T care less is perfectly sensible, but "could care less" is useless and conveys the opposite point that most people who use it are trying to make. It's such a simple error, I don't understand why it's so common. Similarly, abuse of "much less" and "let alone" is startling common where people get the severity order mixed up (ie. "He couldn't program a VCR, let alone write code for a major company" is the correct use. I'll see people reverse it all the time. Obviously jokes about VCR programing aside).
There are other things, I'm sure.
This is a misconception as well. HEAT relies on kinetic energy rather than heat to defeat armour; it doesn't melt its way through anything any more than a water jet cutter. On impact, the shaped charge can incapacitate a tank either by destroying vital equipment such as hydraulic lines, or by killing crew members by directly hitting them or by spalling armour and interior fixtures.Elementary - Dear Watson said:
I thought the UK military did some basic training using old-fashioned bolt action rifles...and you don't have clips to hold ammunition that isn't in magazines?Elementary - Dear Watson said:
Though, the one that bugs me a bit is the M1 Garand clip. It sits inside the weapon, difficult to top up once it's inside, and it ejects once it's empty. That sounds a lot like a magazine to me.
Anyhoo, apparently in the US, some manufactures label them "magazine clips", because of this.
Personally, I kinda want to live in the US, and have an old fashioned pistol fed by stripper clips, just so I can trip up shopkeepers that know their terminology by asking for a "clip of 9mm bullets for my handgun". That seems like a bit of work, though.