McDonald's Installing DNA Security

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If I worked at a McDonald's with this DNA security system, I'd spray random people as they came in and out of the restaurant. :)

In an effort to crack down on robberies at McDonald's in Sydney, the company has hired SelectaDNA, a British security firm, to install a system that sprays a "non-toxic solution with DNA Code" on would-be thieves on their way out the door of the fast-food outlets.
Click to expand...
 
Who steals from McDonalds? Is it even possible they could pick somewhere with worse tasting "food"?
 
Why not spray them with some kind of disease? I bet that will work better as a deterrence.
 
I read the title and my first thought was that they were taking DNA samples as part of a new meat selection process. :p
 
... Though spraying would-be thieves with used frying oil that smells like their French fries would be a dead giveaway.
 
so...what happens when the perps get smart enough to just wear a poncho?
 
Don't they have an RFID spray similar to this so they can track them via helicopter? Obviously not suited for something like holding up a McDonalds. Or am I thinking of Burn Notice?
 
Skripka said:
Who steals from McDonalds? Is it even possible they could pick somewhere with worse tasting "food"?
Click to expand...

Employees. I remember seeing some report a while back about how much money McDonalds loses on things you wouldn't expect to be that expensive. Cheese for example, like the big boxes full from the stockpile, were a popular target. Who knew processed velveeta crap was among their significant overhead.
 
It says right in the other article it's because of hold-ups. Old fashion armed robberies.
 
HeavensCloud said:
Don't they have an RFID spray similar to this so they can track them via helicopter? Obviously not suited for something like holding up a McDonalds. Or am I thinking of Burn Notice?
Click to expand...

Yeah I doubt RFID microdots would have that range such that you could detect them from the air.


That said, my biggest worry about McDonalds is the DNA in the food from some upset loser who thinks he's above his job.
 
Skripka said:
Who steals from McDonalds? Is it even possible they could pick somewhere with worse tasting "food"?
Click to expand...
Establishments that serve Scottish cuisine make much revenue. Thieves would like to steal as much of that as they can.
 
I'm guessing the cost to design and install this is way way more than a mcdonalds carries in register cash.

Too bad the optimal solution of execution on site will never catch on. Not only saving untold fortunes when it comes to prison time, but would vastly cut down on repeat crimes. Think about it -- if you caught someone red handed committing a violent crime shoot on site means they don't get to go do the same thing to someone else the next day. There are only so many crazy violent criminals in any given population, start cutting them out of the equation - and society benefits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
5 years down the road when they discover this shit on your skin causes cancer.........umm yea........lets wait for that story to unfold.
 
Nice, so let's let all the potential morons considering robbing McDonald's in Australia know ahead of time that they should avoid using the doors and instead op to smash a window.

Cool story bro.
 
Wait wait wait.

Armed robbery? I thought Britain was more civilized and people couldn't own a gun? How do you rob a place without a gun? Knife, maybe? nah. If it was me I'd laugh and grab that pot of 500 degree coffee and throw it at the punk. That or start throwing frozen almost beef patties at him like smelly ninja stars.

Unless .. say it isn't so, the thieves are breaking the gun control laws also.
 
Wenthral said:
Wait wait wait.

Armed robbery? I thought Britain was more civilized and people couldn't own a gun? How do you rob a place without a gun? Knife, maybe? nah. If it was me I'd laugh and grab that pot of 500 degree coffee and throw it at the punk. That or start throwing frozen almost beef patties at him like smelly ninja stars.

Unless .. say it isn't so, the thieves are breaking the gun control laws also.
Click to expand...

Sydney is in Australia. The security firm is British.
 
Here in the United States if you try to spray your DNA on someone without their consent, they put you on the sex offender registry.
 
DaRkL3AD3R said:
Nice, so let's let all the potential morons considering robbing McDonald's in Australia know ahead of time that they should avoid using the doors and instead op to smash a window.

Cool story bro.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to bring an umbrella?
 
kcmastrpc said:
Australia has some pretty strict gun control laws as well.
Click to expand...

Yes I know. I was correcting the person I quoted. And nobody ever said gun control eliminates gun crimes. They reduce them.
 
Azhar said:
Yes I know. I was correcting the person I quoted. And nobody ever said gun control eliminates gun crimes. They reduce them.
Click to expand...
The street price is increased depending on how good their border control is (easiest for an island nation that has no poor neighbors), but just to add that statistically the violent crime rate has increased with the increase of anti-gun legistlation both here and abroad and visa versa. Not necessarily cause and effect, but a fact to consider nonetheless.
 
Azhar said:
Yes I know. I was correcting the person I quoted. And nobody ever said gun control eliminates gun crimes. They reduce them.
Click to expand...

Yes, while virtually every other type of crime imaginable rises. (or at least they do in almost every country that's enacted strict gun control regulations / bans in the past century).
 
TheCommander said:
No need. The food will do the job.
Click to expand...

The what?

kcmastrpc said:
Yes, while virtually every other type of crime imaginable rises. (or at least they do in almost every country that's enacted strict gun control regulations / bans in the past century).
Click to expand...

At this point I am convinced that violent crimes are more of a cultural thing than anything else.
 
dgz said:
At this point I am convinced that violent crimes are more of a cultural thing than anything else.
Click to expand...

It's a human nature thing. No society, in the history of mankind, has ever been free of violence. The strong will prey upon the weak. Ever since we figured out how to pick up a rock and throw it, humans have been creating deadlier and more effective weapons for a number of reasons.

“The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all.” ~Ronald Reagan
 
Dude, don't you cite me some fucking president as if he wasn't a fucking hypocrite and didn't add fuel to the cold war fire. He wouldn't be there otherwise.

No amount of guns can save you from the government. I mean, the US army has enough to wipe us all a thousand times.

Violent crimes are conducted almost exclusively in poor areas.
 
dgz said:
No amount of guns can save you from the government. I mean, the US army has enough to wipe us all a thousand times.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't WWII be a good example?

The United States army was miniscule prior to WWII due to an isolationist foreign policy, and Japanese leaders had considered the possibility of a strategic invasion of US soil, just as had been done with the Soviets. Yamamoto replied that this would be impossible due to the armed citizenry, as he replied "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".

The British government, having disarmed its citizens, also called for assistance with its "home guard" in arming of its citizens in fear of a German invasionary force. As such, the United States started a volunteer program to donate private arms to the UK, totalling over 120,000 firearms of various calibers (which unfortunately were destroyed en masse after the war).

Some of the first legistlation by the Nazi regime was gun control, but aimed specifically at those considered enemies of the party by banning imports and outlawing firearm ownership of suspected communists, jews, and other non-Aryan undesirables. The country was highly militarized under totalitarian rule, and yet it was still considered a threat to have these "enemies of the state" armed and able to provide resistance.

What you have to remember is that there are over 300 million people in the United States so only around one in three hundred solders, and armed civilians can act just as the Vietkong (which mostly were nothing more than uneducated village farmers from the north) or insurgents today being able to perform guerilla attacks without providing a target that modern technology like tanks and air support can really counter. The citizens could not attack an aircraft carrier with simple handguns and rifles, but it does represent considerable power and makes totalitarian rule virtually impossible.

Heck, that's how our country was formed against its then oppressive British government and the reason that gun ownership was so important to specifically protect as a constitutional right (as one of the balance of powers that they went to such great lengths to create in all branches of government), and how even in relatively recent times the Irish Republican Army resisted the British as well.
 
I'd like to think our military is a thousand million times more powerful versus rifles hiding behind blades of grass in comparison with Japan worrying about it at the time.
 
Azhar said:
I'd like to think our military is a thousand million times more powerful versus rifles hiding behind blades of grass in comparison with Japan worrying about it at the time.
Click to expand...
There's an old expression that even a mighty lion can be killed by ten mangy dogs. We have to assume they aren't chihuahuas though! :D

But seriously, you're a fool if you don't understand the problem of a rifle in every home to any military occupying force, no matter how advanced.
 
Ducman69 said:
There's an old expression that even a mighty lion can be killed by ten mangy dogs. We have to assume they aren't chihuahuas though! :D

But seriously, you're a fool if you don't understand the problem of a rifle in every home to any military occupying force, no matter how advanced.
Click to expand...

Just ask our soldiers who are in Afghanistan.
 
Man, if your going to rob something, make it worthwhile atleast. Rob a bank or something. Stealing is stealing, and if you go to jail, you're going to get much more respect from your fellow cell mates for attempting to rob a bank rather than a fast food joint.
 
dgz said:
Dude, don't you cite me some fucking president as if he wasn't a fucking hypocrite and didn't add fuel to the cold war fire. He wouldn't be there otherwise.

No amount of guns can save you from the government. I mean, the US army has enough to wipe us all a thousand times.

Violent crimes are conducted almost exclusively in poor areas.
Click to expand...

Wow, judge the message, not the messenger. I can drop you a quote from a number of other presidents re: the 2nd amendment. Maybe one of them will fit your political dogma (though I doubt it).

You know that the Army is comprised of conscripted citizens, right? You know that army bases, their equipment, and soldiers are spread throughout this entire country. Every single revolution in the history of mankind started small, that's a fact that should not be easily dismissed.

Government, regardless of what they possess, is not an entity that is all-powerful. The argument that they have "drones, nukes, smart-missles" is fallacious. We have those things, the people, and if we want to take them back from the government, it'll start at the business end of a rifle. End of story.
 
Ducman69 said:
Yamamoto replied that this would be impossible due to the armed citizenry, as he replied "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".
Click to expand...

While I agree with what you've said, this quote has no factual reference. There were many reasons behind Japan not landing on the California coast. One of them being that they never took Pearl Harbor.

Japan didn't have the infrastructure or capability of amassing a force large enough to invade mainland US. Even if they could of made a beachhead, they had no way of staging, supporting, and replenishing the invasion.

It really had nothing to do with the fact that the US was well armed, it had to do with the fact that Japan is a tiny island only capable of so much.
 
kcmastrpc said:
It really had nothing to do with the fact that the US was well armed, it had to do with the fact that Japan is a tiny island only capable of so much.
Click to expand...
They had no problem with an invasion of Russia, China, and S.E Asia, which combined are surely no small amount of land nor people.

Germany fits easily into the size of Texas, and got pretty close to controlling all of Europe, as did Napoleon before him.

England is a tiny island and at one point controlled many other large countries.

Heck, even going back to antiquity, a single city-state Rome had a vast empire, which really only fell when the "barbarians" had upgraded from fighting naked with sticks to aquiring armor and steel weapons nearly as good as that of Roman infantry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top