Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NYTimes Year in Ideas

Posted by michael on from the when-ratbots-attack-a-fox-special dept.

jonbrewer writes "The New York Times is back again with their "Year in Ideas" and one that Slashdot missed this year was the RatBot. As featured in the BBC and Business 2.0 earlier this year, these critters are trained to navigate mazes based on remote stimuli. Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Yes."

167 comments

  1. Missed?? by martingunnarsson · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't think /. missed the rat-story, I even recall it was a dupe!

    --
    Martin
    1. Re:Missed?? by SteweyGriffin · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was covered here and entitled "Rat Mind Control".

    2. Re:Missed?? by jonbrewer · · Score: 2

      Eh? Well, the term RatBot had yet to appear in Slashdot... Google Slashdot for ratbot and see...

    3. Re:Missed?? by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why use Google to search Slashdot when you can use Slashdot's own search, which doesn't miss anything ?? (and has more useful search parameters)

    4. Re:Missed?? by ceejayoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because Google finds stuff, and Slashdot's search engine doesn't.

    5. Re:Missed?? by invenustus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At some point, the story of the CIA Spy Cat was also posted. Maybe as part of Quickies? At any rate, searching this site has become impossible.

      --
      grep -ri 'should work' /usr/src/linux | wc -l
    6. Re:Missed?? by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      Uncoveror.com covered the roborat story, and the slippery slope this leads down, such as the plan to create remote control human drones. While slashdot did not miss this one, a lot of other news outlets did, and this outrage must be stopped! Unethical isn't an adequate word to describe turning living creatures into automatons.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    7. Re:Missed?? by snake_dad · · Score: 2
      Eh? Well, the term RatBot had yet to appear in Slashdot

      And the quake2 community is quite thankful for that ;)

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  2. rat bot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I recall correctly, the rat bot was discussed on /. If this is the case, I'm sure others will not fail to point it out, over and over and over and over again.

  3. hrmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am Mickey of Borg.

    1. Re:hrmm by RGRistroph · · Score: 1

      This is the funniest post I have seen on slashdot in several months.

    2. Re:hrmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who like to laugh DEMAND this is modded up.

  4. Hmm.. by RaboKrabekian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Yes.

    How is this any more unethical than the thousands of other experiments performed on rats and mice? Would it be unethical to remote control a human in this manner? Of course. Would it be unethical to perform any number of experiments on a human? Yes - which is why we do it on rats and mice.

    --
    "Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
    1. Re:Hmm.. by kypper · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think we need to get past this 'ethical' bullshit on animals. So long as they aren't screaming in absolute agony and we're sitting there laughing at it, of course... but this image of cruel scientists performing sadistic acts on animals, then doing the actual research to ensure funding remains intact is crap. Psychologists and Biologists, in most animal-testing cases, are simply trying to test hypotheses in order to improve our understanding of the world around us. Is that so fucking hard to understand??

    2. Re:Hmm.. by sebmol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, any experiments with rats and mice are unethical in my book. The momeny we employ them to our gain, we assume the arrogance to believe that we are more important than those creatures. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with human testing if the subject/participant volunteered under free will to be experimented with. I don't see how that could be unethical.

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    3. Re:Hmm.. by sebmol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is not hard to understand at all. But the question remains: who are we to decide that we can employ other animals for our own purpose, specifically so when it comes to testing and experimentation?

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    4. Re:Hmm.. by kypper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that about the time we started tweaking genes and 'playing god' as so many people like to put it, that's when it became ethical. If we're going to tweak genes and alter brain functions/chemicals (and we are, no matter how many people protest), then SOMETHING needs to be the focus of the experiments. Personally, I think we should just do the experiments on the current Whitehouse administration, but that's just me.

    5. Re:Hmm.. by sebmol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Genetic experimentation can rarely be ethical. The problem is that the outcome of genetic experimentation is supposed to be an altered new lifeform, which never got a chance to make the decision whether he/she/it wanted to be altered in the first place. That's where I would see the real ethical dilemma.

      As to the White House administration, let's not go there. For all we know, they might already be the outcome of said genetic experiments <g>

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    6. Re:Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree.

    7. Re:Hmm.. by SlamMan · · Score: 2

      See thats the key. its unethical in your book. Ethics are a metter of personal opinion and personal belife. Me, I think its fine to do experiments on mice in the name of science, but YMMV.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    8. Re:Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, sue your parents. You didn't ask to be born...

    9. Re:Hmm.. by RaboKrabekian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but I disagree completely. Call me egomaniacal, but I do think that I, and all other human beings, are more important than mice. Period. End of argument.

      If experimenting on animals can save the lives of humans then I'm all for it. Humans are more important.

      --
      "Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
    10. Re:Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume the arrogance to believe that I am more important than you and the bulk of humanity, so what is so hard about understanding the effects of natural self interest in our domination over rodents?

    11. Re:Hmm.. by sebmol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The question is not about being born in general. The question is whether the newborn had any influence in the decision that his or her genes be artifically altered.

      Interestingly enough, in recent years parents have sued doctors for not diagnosing potential disabilities in their future children. They claimed that, had they known about them, they would probably have aborted. There's a number of stories about this, for example, French court extens.

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    12. Re:Hmm.. by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      For that matter, who are we to decide that we can employ air molecules for our own purposes?

    13. Re:Hmm.. by sebmol · · Score: 1

      Sure thing, egomaniac.

      Seriously though, what is important and what is not is highly based on our individual values. Personally, I don't think human survival is more important than animal survival. I am also aware, though, that that places me into a small minority on this planet. But who said you had to be in the majority to be right?

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    14. Re:Hmm.. by sebmol · · Score: 1

      Air molecules aren't alive. They don't breathe, move or grow. They are one of the elements crucial to life (as we know it).

      By breathing, we just do what every other animal on the planet is doing. Other animals breathe, eat and dump their shit whereever. Other animals don't, however, experiment with other animals for their own gain. That's a human trait.

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    15. Re:Hmm.. by scotch · · Score: 2

      By killing other living things, we just do what many other living things do on this planet.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    16. Re:Hmm.. by sebmol · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the purpose matters. Aside from humans, lifeforms kill other lifeforms because (a) they are hungry or (b) they are trying to defend themselves. I have yet to see or hear about a case where a cat injected formaldehyde into a mouse to see how it reacts.

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    17. Re:Hmm.. by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2

      Who are you to decide that we can't?

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    18. Re:Hmm.. by sebmol · · Score: 1

      I don't get to. It is up to everyone to make their own decisions in their lives. All I stated was what I believed to be wrong. What you do with that is up to you.

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    19. Re:Hmm.. by scotch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, cats do fuck with mice and other animals with no apparent intention to eat them, and they certainly aren't defending themselves. Sure they don't have formaldehyde, but they still act in ways that meet neither a) nor b) in your post. You probably haven't heard of a lion using a crossbow to hunt antelope, either. The technology you brought up is a bit of a red herring.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    20. Re:Hmm.. by Malor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of all the analogies to choose, this was one of the worst. Have you ever seen a cat play with a mouse? It is VERY cruel. If cats could understand formaldehyde, I have no doubt whatsoever that they'd gleefully inject a mouse with it... well, except for the fact that it would ruin lunch.

      Cruelty is very much a part of nature. A fox will kill every hen in a henhouse just because it can. Wolverines fight just to fight; they are nasty, cruel animals.

      We may be the only animal that can experiment on others... but we appear also to be the only animal that can feel guilty about it afterward.

      By the logic of your argument, because animals don't feel guilty, we shouldn't either.

    21. Re:Hmm.. by sebmol · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I guess this would be a situation where my own knowledge falls short to reality to make an educated guess. If this is indeed factual, it appears that more research on my part is necessary.

      must research...find truth...

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    22. Re:Hmm.. by bytesmythe · · Score: 2
      Other animals don't, however, experiment with other animals for their own gain.

      This isn't quite true...
      Female cats, for instance, will deliver prey to their kittens so they can learn to kill. Of course, kittens aren't really very good at it, so they have to practice. The prey is tormented (since the kitten hasn't figured out how to kill it effectively), allowed to flee (or escapes), and re-captured over and over. All this cruelty just so a SINGLE animal (the kitten) can gain from the experience and survive.

      --
      bytesmythe
      Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
      -- Scott Meyer
    23. Re:Hmm.. by bytesmythe · · Score: 2
      From your original post in this thread:
      we assume the arrogance to believe

      And from your most recent in this thread:
      But who said you had to be in the majority to be right?

      Who said only animal testing advocates were arrogant?

      --
      bytesmythe
      Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
      -- Scott Meyer
    24. Re:Hmm.. by mgblst · · Score: 2

      What an amazing piece of logic. Who am I to decide that i can't not run you over with my car? I think somewhere along the line, someone made the decision that they can perform tests on animals...

    25. Re:Hmm.. by mgblst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, please save the Humans, they are down to 6 Billion in number...

    26. Re:Hmm.. by bethenco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No kidding; I couldn't agree more.

      I get frustrated when people suggest we need to halt some area of research until we can determine if it is `ethical'. How the hell do we do that, and we should we? Would someone please define precisely what `ethical' is and why it matters, because as far as I can tell, the term ethical is just used to denote a bunch of vague, spiritual, fuzzy feelings that vary from person to person.

      As for all the people who are worried about reincarnating as rats or whether we ought to "employ other animals for our own purpose", I think these concerns only make sense in the context of some metaphysical world view. If you don't want to ruin your karma or go to hell, then don't experiment on rats. But please stay out of the way of the scientists; not everyone sees things the way you do.

    27. Re:Hmm.. by bethenco · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see precisely where you draw the line between patterns of chemical reactions and `life'. Here's a really interesting introduction to self-replicating structures even simpler than viruses: Subcellular Life Forms. I think it does a lot to show that the classification of things as `alive' or `not alive' is just an arbitrary human distinction.

    28. Re:Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you out of your mind? If we didn't test on lab rats, we wouldn't have many of the treatments we now have in the medical field for humans. Don't accept medical treatment using anything that was developed using experimental animals. Or try denying it to a dying loved one who could be saved by it. Then you can say that with authority. I won't sacrifice a loved ones health for rats. Ever.

    29. Re:Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are competitors on this planet. We are stronger than rats, and they are a useful tool in our fight to preserve our health and the health of our loved ones. For most of us that's plenty - our survival is a priority much stronger than some rodent. The rest is nature in action. I take it you also find eating animals objectionable? What about when a lion eats a zebra? The lion had no more right than we did, did he?

      We aren't above nature. We happen to be particularly skilled at manipulating the environment, but that doesn't remove us from the system. We are still fighting to survive, except this fight isn't a raw teath and claws fight. Victory doesn't come without damages. Fact of life.

    30. Re:Hmm.. by sebmol · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that it is acceptable to subject animals to testing so that humans can live (longer). You see it that way; I don't.

      It would be acceptable if there was a way to make sure that the subject was actually consenting to participate in the experiment. Seeing that's hardly possible with animals, I can't justify animal experimentation.

      That's also why I said that testing with consenting humans is fine. Note that all I'm worried about is the consent part. If a human subject consents to having sulphuric acid injected into their eyes, by all means, go at it. But don't decide in the place of other beings who don't get a chance to voice their own will.

      Let me ask you this though, if developing an HIV vaccine depended on killing one mice, would you find it ethical if the mice was killed for the welfare of all humans? What about killing a human being? If you agree to the first but object to the second, how do you make that distinction?

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    31. Re:Hmm.. by sebmol · · Score: 1

      I'd rather see the human race extinct knowing that we have been at least ethical about it, then survive at the cost of othr lifeforms. But, of course, that's just me.

      Like all more or less philosophical debates, it all comes back to the meaning of life. Why are we here? What's our purpose?

      If we assert that survival is our purpose, then clearly killing or torturing other lifeforms for our own benefits is not only ethical but essential if it allows us to survive just a month, a year or a century longer.

      If we assert that doing good and helping others is our purpose, then survival becomes less of an issue and animal (ab)use for our own gain a non-issue.

      Or we could assert dozens of other purposes of being. Fact is that that interpretation is a rather personal one. Religions, philosophy and science have tried for centuries to find answers for that ultimate question. What you choose is up to you at the end. As for me, I'd rather go with the second one.

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    32. Re:Hmm.. by qqtortqq · · Score: 1

      But the question remains: who are we to decide that we can employ other animals for our own purpose, specifically so when it comes to testing and experimentation?

      We are humans, top of the food chain. What we say goes.

    33. Re:Hmm.. by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

      Simple.

      Humans are more important or valuable than mice.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    34. Re:Hmm.. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2
      Personally, I think we should just do the experiments on the current Whitehouse administration, but that's just me.
      Well, ideally we'd like the experiments to tell us something useful about human beings.
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    35. Re:Hmm.. by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Except that it's not that simple. There is something particularly gruesome about this sort of thing. It reminds me of a Larry Fessenden movie called "No Telling", which played on IFC for quite a while. It kind of plays like a propoganda movie for animal rights activists, but it's *very* effective.

      In the film, a scientist attempts to sort of create an electric dog. It's real graphic. I could barely watch it, but I'll never think of animal experimentation the same way again. It's billed as a horror movie, and indeed I don't think I could ever really get the image of that semi-mechanical dog trying to walk out of my head.

      Fessenden has a number of axes to grind in the film, animal experimentation being only one of them, but it's the most prominent. After watching that film, I no longer no where I stand on this issue. Having said that, I hate all rats and would like to see them become extinct. Turning them into automations is a bit too gruesome for my taste though.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    36. Re:Hmm.. by Sanity · · Score: 2
      I think we need to get past this 'ethical' bullshit on animals.
      I am agnostic, but some religious guy once said "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself". God or no-God, this is probably one of the best moral-guiding principles anyone has ever articulated, and as far as I am concerned, animals are just as deserving of being "others" as much of the scum in this world that we consider human.

      Thus, the question is - would you be happy about some geeks sticking electrodes into your brain just so that they could see whether they could force you to turn left or turn right in a maze?

    37. Re:Hmm.. by beh · · Score: 1

      I can't help myself, but the words "ethical bullshit" is something, I'd apply more to what a certain G.W.Bush does...

      Personally, I think, that this particular experiment on the rats IS highly unethical; even more so, than most other experiments. If you ask why this is more unethical than other methods - simple: While still being dangerous to the animals, other experiments leave some choice to the animals. As far as we can tell, animals don't seem to have a free will, but at least have some form of decision making. And these kinds of experiments in controlling rats are even taking this away, and it is a line, that in MY opinion never should have been crossed.

      The next logical step, for those "so-called" scientists, who did this, is of course to apply this to the next higher live forms, while already planning to try it on primates some time in the forseeable future.

      The last step - your homeland secretary requiring theses procedures on some select groups of your citizens (e.g. moslems and other "potential terrorists") doesn't seem all that far-fetched anymore, after we sacrifice the first primate in this manner.

      There is a German expression "Wehret den Anfaengen!", that would have been called for with these experiments a good while back.

    38. Re:Hmm.. by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Umnh... did you read the original article? It's probably no more (or less) unethical that offering a person candy or booze to do something. In fact, subjectively it's probably the same feeling.

      That said, I do resent having to go to work each day just to get paid. Isn't that unethical? Well, it's the same kind of stimulus-response (a bit more indirect, of course).

      What's unethical is not this kind of training of rats (this is less unethical than electric shock avoidance conditioning). What might be unethical about this is how you use it afterwards, and what you train them to do.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    39. Re:Hmm.. by HiThere · · Score: 2

      As usual, decisions are either made on the basis of empathy (accurate or inaccurate) or on the basis of power. And they can't be made on the basis of empathy unless the power is present first.

      If the power exists, and is available to many people, then some people will use it for their ends, some will ignore it, and some will try (rightly and wrongly) to use it to the benefit of others. Which position does less damage is sometimes arguable.

      We only allow lab rats to live because they serve our ends. If you deny them the opportunity to be useful, you condemn them and their entire line to death. Is this more ethical? Less?

      I trust, by the way, that you are a vegetarian, and don't wear any leather. Otherwise, consider whether or not your argument is hypocracy, or just fear of new things.

      I'm not a vegetarian. I don't wear leather solely because I'm allergic to it. And these experiments don't give me any qualms because of the conditions that the rats are subjected to. (Don't ask me about various cancer tests. I'm still working on that bolus. [It doesn't go down easily.]) But I feel both hope and dread from these experiments. These could be steps along the way to a direct neural connection to the computer. Hope/fear! Joy/dread!

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  5. a bionic rat won't by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    be slaughtered to examine its organs. Seems like "the high life" for a lab rat to me.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:a bionic rat won't by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Not only that, but it spends its life getting human-induced orgasms just for crawling around a little. :-p

  6. Registration at nytimes.com by AntiNorm · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    If you want Slashdot to stop posting reg-required NY Times links, please respond to this comment with comments and suggestions. They could get a partnership with NYTimes, they could simply not post NYTimes links, etc. Keep in mind that the editors have stated that they have a policy of not linking to reg-required sites. So why then do they insist on posting all the NYTimes links?

    --

    I pledge allegiance to the flag...
    of the Corporate States of America...
    1. Re:Registration at nytimes.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Login Name: Slashdot
      Password: Slashdot

    2. Re:Registration at nytimes.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFP (Read the f***ing policy), NYTimes links are okay.

    3. Re:Registration at nytimes.com by japer · · Score: 1

      I agree. I find this annoying as well.

    4. Re:Registration at nytimes.com by cuiousyellow · · Score: 1

      NYTimes doesn't want the advertising hits from enough people that many servers can't take the load? AC's will generally post the article contents if they are worthwhile :)

    5. Re:Registration at nytimes.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Username: Slashdot
      Password: Slashdot

      This login did not work for me. I tried various
      combinations of capitalization. What is the correct login?

    6. Re:Registration at nytimes.com by mAineAc · · Score: 0

      What is wrong with registering a fake nick and name at the new york times? I don't understand the problem. You don't even need to do that just put in slashdot slashdot check never to ask again and it won't if you have cookies enabled. If you need help with that I can tell you how to enable them if you want :)

    7. Re:Registration at nytimes.com by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      FFS, give it up.

      The Slashdot editors, when they added the no reg-required sites policy, specifically stated that NYTimes is exempted due to the large amounts of interesting articles in the NYT.

      It takes 30 seconds to sign up, and you can provide completely fake info. If you're too lazy / thickheaded / fucking stubborn to do that, then use one of the random login generators or wait for a Karma Whore to post the contents.

      I, for one, don't mind giving the NYTimes a little info for their content. If you do, put up and shut up - find a different way to get the content and stop whining about it.

    8. Re:Registration at nytimes.com by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      The first link was not registration required. Click it. You get the page.

      (Of course, you can't actually click any more links on the page without getting reg-required, but still)

    9. Re:Registration at nytimes.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't someone just create a bogus account and post it so that all other /.ers could use it? Just one account. . .

      such as this one:

      slashdotz/slashdotz

      If someone posts a nytime article use that. . .until some obnoxious ho' decides to change the profile. . . it should server it's purpose. Who says you need to submit legit info to get to the site? Imagine the fun required to sort through all the bogus accounts filling up their registration database? wheee.

    10. Re:Registration at nytimes.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NYTimes is exempted due to the large amounts of interesting articles in the NYT.

      All newspapers (most anyway) have "large amounts of interesting articles." So why should NYT be treated any different? I agree with the poster that said to find articles elsewhere.

  7. had to be said by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Funny
    Imagine a beowulf cluster of ratbots...

    sorry I tried not saying it, but I couldn't do it

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:had to be said by kliment · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I am Jack's total lack of posting responsibility

    2. Re:had to be said by Alethes · · Score: 2

      Imagine a beowulf cluster of ratbots...

      Being led around by the external stimuli known as the Pied Piper.

    3. Re:had to be said by goombah99 · · Score: 2

      I am Jack's Sheepish agreement with you.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    4. Re:had to be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in the world does that need to be said?

      Your post makes no sense. I could maybe understand the post if the subject was, for example, a new PDA, but it is about a rat that has an implant.

      God damn you need to grow a sense of humor.

  8. NYTimes: Idea of the year chosen by SlashDot by dagg · · Score: 5, Funny
    NYTimes idea of the year chosen by SlashDot members:
    Random Login Generator
    --
    Sex - Find It
    1. Re:NYTimes: Idea of the year chosen by SlashDot by Andorion · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or do none of those work anymore?

      =(

      -Berj

    2. Re:NYTimes: Idea of the year chosen by SlashDot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not just you

    3. Re:NYTimes: Idea of the year chosen by SlashDot by damiam · · Score: 1

      Really, is it that hard to register? Type in fake info if you want. It's so much easier to click the link and have it work than to go to the trouble of generating a new login each time.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  9. IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RatBot uses you

  10. Evil uses by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much longer before the evil powers of this earth have human armies augmented and controlled by a similar mechanism...

    --
    I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
    1. Re:Evil uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is an article about just that!

  11. whoever modded this as +1 Funny sucks, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please see this +1 Informative website before moderating.

  12. I agree, I would like to not see such links by danny256 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    there is ALMOST ALWAYS another source for a news item. I suggest that they find it and sub that in. Fuck the new york times.

  13. Creepy? Or Just Pointless? by Schlemphfer · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Interesting how the press seems to dismiss the cruelty issue by reporting the researcher's point of view at face value. Here's the last sentence from the National Geographic article:

    And, Talwar said, "there is no cruelty" involved in operating robo-rats because the animals are never intentionally killed or harmed.

    And here's an excerpt from the BBC piece:

    "Our animals were completely happy and treated well and in no sense was there any cruelty involved," he said.

    Nope, no cruelty at all. Aside from drilling holes in the rat's skull, attaching wires into his brain, and mounting a control box permanently behind his head.

    I think it's a lot of inhumanity for a little gee-whiz. Especially since there's no critical look at whether full-fledged robots could be developed to perform these functions. Yet another example of brutality done to animals with no clear payoff. Surely, research in small-scale robotics is producing, or will soon produce, devices with the mobility and functional characteristics of rats.

    The sad thing is that I'm probably going to be modded down for raising these concerns. Time and again, a sizable portion of Slashdot posters seems to stick up for animal research, no matter how cruel and no matter how pointless. Now I'll stand back and give people a chance to post all about lifesaving animal research, ignoring the fact that so much of what's done is useless fluff, much like these remote controlled rats.

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
  14. An Idea For The NYT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Discontinue requiring "free" registration.

    1. Re:An Idea For The NYT by 955301 · · Score: 1

      Already done:
      user: Slashdotdotorg
      pass: same, spelled backwards

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  15. Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Speak for yourself. by Sanity · · Score: 2, Funny
    I don't know about you, but I don't think there is anything "cool" about animal cruelty. This has no realistic medical applications, and only the rat really knows how painful this experiment is.

    Now, if we could wire Michael up with this kind of thing and send him a signal to stop squatting on the censorware.org domain, that wouldn't be ethical either - but it would definitely be cool.

    1. Re:Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Speak for yourself. by kypper · · Score: 2

      Uh, how does knowing the frontal lobe and motor cortex inside and out such that one could actually control someone via remote control not have realistic medical applications. This could bring out all new cybernetic solutions to motor fuction difficulties and, as it also demonstrates the workings of the brain, could lead to alleviation of lesions etc therein.

    2. Re:Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Speak for yourself. by Sanity · · Score: 2, Informative
      Uh, how does knowing the frontal lobe and motor cortex inside and out such that one could actually control someone via remote control not have realistic medical applications.
      That's a silly argument. Consider an analogy:

      Cosmetics manufacturers could argue that their experiments increase our knowledge of the skin and its reaction to various chemicals. Some time down the line this knowledge could help us cure all sorts of skin diseases.

      That argument wouldn't get them very far with most thinking people, and nor does yours.

    3. Re:Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Speak for yourself. by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      This has no realistic medical applications

      No, but if you'd RTFA you'd have noticed the part about using rats as a cheaper, more effective alternative for rescue dogs.

      I'd say that's realistic (and worthwhile).

    4. Re:Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Speak for yourself. by Sanity · · Score: 2
      No, but if you'd RTFA you'd have noticed the part about using rats as a cheaper, more effective alternative for rescue dogs.
      Actually I did RTFA, and that is one of the lamest pie-in-the-sky excuses for animal torture I have heard in a while.
    5. Re:Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Speak for yourself. by etxjrh · · Score: 1

      I think the primary motive behind the brain research is advancing scientific knowledge while cosmetic research is motivated mostly by improving the (unnecessary?) product.

      Here's three situations: your daughter is starving, you could feed her on mice; your daughter has a terrible brain disease and you could cure it by experimenting on mice; your daughter wants to look prettier by experimenting on mice. Is there any distinction between these?

      I know some people wouldn't distinguish, and that's OK. I know I wouldn't want to harm the cute mice myself. But when push came to shove, I think most people would hurt the mice in the first two situations, but a lot would not for the sake of cosmetics. On the other hand, if the cosmetic experiments really were conducted to discover harmful chemicals then perhaps people would be more accepting. How do you think carcenogenic chemicals are identified (I'm sure cosmetics comapnies aren't responsible though)?

    6. Re:Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Speak for yourself. by Sanity · · Score: 2
      I think the primary motive behind the brain research is advancing scientific knowledge while cosmetic research is motivated mostly by improving the (unnecessary?) product.
      I don't think that advancing scientific knowledge in its own right is a good enough reason to make other living creatures suffer. If there is a direct causal link between the experimentation and medical benefits, then it might be tolerable, but that certainly isn't even nearly the case here.
      your daughter is starving, you could feed her on mice; your daughter has a terrible brain disease and you could cure it by experimenting on mice; your daughter wants to look prettier by experimenting on mice. Is there any distinction between these?
      None of these describe the situation here. Mice are being experimended on, and there is at-best a minute liklihood that this research will significantly help to cure anyone of anything.
      I think most people would hurt the mice in the first two situations, but a lot would not for the sake of cosmetics.
      Yes, but the situation being discussed here doesn't fall into either of the first two situations you describe, despite their transparent attempts to persuade us that it fits into the second.
    7. Re:Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Speak for yourself. by etxjrh · · Score: 1

      You're right on every point. I, personally, think experimenting for scientific research *can* be OK. 1 mouse for a good discovery would be OK, loadsa mice for not much would be bad. I don't know what they're trying to cure or the likely mouse count in this case. If experimentation was stopped I wouldn't be upset. I think you'd argee that this is slighly distasteful rather than "cool?"

    8. Re:Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Speak for yourself. by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      pie-in-the-sky?

      Building collapses (lets say in an earthquake). You send a rat with a small video camera attached in, remote control it, and search out people trapped below.

      Sounds useful and entirely possible.

    9. Re:Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Speak for yourself. by Sanity · · Score: 2
      You send a rat with a small video camera attached in, remote control it, and search out people trapped below.
      Yeah, in a cartoon. How would you control it? "Go left", "Go right" would be meaningless in the complex environment of a collapsed building. It would be incredibly difficult to explain to the poor mutilated creature which direction you wanted it to go in - but even if you could, on what criteria would you direct it? The only meaningful criteria might be smell, but since you are controlling the rat, you don't have the benefit of its sensory knowledge. If you start claiming that this could be achieved, then I reinvoke my "pie-in-the-sky" claim about this whole thing.
  16. Re:Continuing the First Post Quest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I would like to see FirstPost! be put in FreeBSD ports.

    /usr/ports/net/firstpost

    Don't use the GNU copyleft license, it is viral in nature. Use the BSD copyright if you really care about freedom.

  17. Re:Creepy? Or Just Pointless? by kypper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nope, no cruelty at all. Aside from drilling holes in the rat's skull, attaching wires into his brain, and mounting a control box permanently behind his head.

    The brain has no pain receptors. Human patients have been drilled into and probed without any pain whatsoever.

  18. Crying baby translator... by doormat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I saw that as one of their ideas.... wasnt that a simpsons episode with homer's brother??

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  19. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IN SOVIET RUSSIA lame jokes tell YOU.

  20. ratbots: another step towards mind reading by grungy · · Score: 1

    I always think about mind reading when I hear about these things. Is this a signifigant step in that direction? I'm not too worried about the rats, but it would be creepy if the govt. could use the same technology to read my mind and find out that, say, I'm thinking about how to circumvent DVD protection, or something. Anyone know how fine-grained a view of the rat-thoughts they can see?

  21. Are you saying... by Schlemphfer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that if somebody held you down and drilled holes in your skull without your consent, you would not consider this an act of cruelty? What time can we schedule your appointment? :P

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
    1. Re:Are you saying... by kypper · · Score: 2

      Anytime you want. But you have to do it too; we're making a distinction between humans and mice here. Cruelty to animals is generally considered such because of pain or unnecessary death, not because of "consent".

    2. Re:Are you saying... by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Mice cannot legally consent, as they do not reach 18 years of age. Thus, their guardian must consent for them. As the parents of the mice are also under 18, guardianship is given to the researchers caring for them (think of 'em as foster parents ;-).

      Heehee...

    3. Re:Are you saying... by sebmol · · Score: 1

      See that's exactly the problem. There is no way that someone else can rightfully consent in my place. The whole idea of age of consent and what comes with it is a mere legal device trying to at least somewhat fix the much more fundamental problem of parent-children relationships.

      GPL: Free as in herpes? I almost choked on my coffee laughing about that one. It's hilarious! Good work :-P

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
  22. Re:**** THE PROOF THAT Microsoft IS EVIL **** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing that impresses me, is that someone hates Microsoft so much, that they'd spent all those hours finding this crap out. Bravo.

  23. Re:Creepy? Or Just Pointless? by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Time and again, a sizable portion of Slashdot posters seems to stick up for animal research, no matter how cruel and no matter how pointless.

    I'm just happy my angioplasty was "cruelly and pointlessly" tested on dogs before it was tried on me.

    But I suppose you forego most drugs and medical procedures so as not to benefit from animal testing.

    --
    Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
  24. Re:America is the future, Europe is the past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This comment is not only wildly off topic, but its whole point is made on a few dubious assumptions, e.g. "The resentment Europeans feel reflects the fact that America is the future and Europe is the past." So because the Europeans are worried that a nation of uneducated yokels ruining the world (Kyoto, dropping anti-weeapons testing treaties, rediculous erosion of basic human rights etc) make the USA the future?!

    "Its embrace of statism was undeterred by the long years of the Cold War when the then-Soviet Russia threatened to impose Communism on the whole of Europe." There is a strange distrust of any form of culture other than cut-throat capitalism here in the USA it seems. What is /so/ wrong with Communism or Socialism? It 'threatens the American way of life!' - i.e. it threatens our ability to abuse and rip off our fellow nationals, to make huge profits at the expense of our fellow man. What a disaster that would be...

    "The locomotive of Europe is the German economy, which has been in a serious mess for more than a decade." Yes, the German economy is not amazing at the moment. No, it is not the 'locomotive' of the EU. Just because we love their BMWs and Mercedes here, doesn't mean that is the only country that makes anything. Both France and Itally have very large car companies (Peugeot, Citroen, Fiat (including Ferarri) etc), as well as strong manufacturing across the whole range of the EU, not to mention a flouirshing IT and Technology industry in the UK.

    Your statement, albeit a troll, really is a load of shit. If you are going to troll, at least do an intelligent one that doesn't base its whole argument on some unstable assumptions. Its people like you that make this country look bad to the rest of the world. No wonder the Europeans dislike us when we have oaths such as yourself representing us.

  25. Re:Creepy? Or Just Pointless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey jackhole, PETA called. They need you to show up at 3 for the "Sacrifice 12 human babies to the vegan gods so that one baby seal can be saved" party.

    You fucks make me sick

  26. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haha, everyone hates your michael

  27. Googling /. doesn't work. by Raetsel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's a simple reason why... Meaning, in this case, they obey the /. robots.txt file It seems quite comprehensive, and (as a result) searching Slashdot is very difficult.

    (Some time ago I posted a comment ranting about the /. search sucking, that they denied Google via the robots.txt file, and some hopeful solutions... but I can't seem to find it. How's that for irony?)

    --

    "...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
    1. Re:Googling /. doesn't work. by Arjuna+Theban · · Score: 1


      No, the simple reason is that the poster is not too bright.

      Try this.

    2. Re:Googling /. doesn't work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the deal with that robots.txt? What are the slashdot people trying to hide? Considering how bad the slashdot builtin search is, you think they'd be happy to let google do the work, especially considering how much press google gets in here.

  28. Re:When can we start hooking these things up to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uh, or hot guys?

  29. Re:Creepy? Or Just Pointless? by bytesmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ignoring the fact that so much of what's done is useless fluff, much like these remote controlled rats.

    While you also ignore a few facts of your own...

    1. Animal experiments are very expensive. If there is really a way to do an experiment without animals, it will be done. With animals, you have to keep them comfortable, fed, watered, and pay staff to care for them.
    2. All animal experiments have to have special approval. You cannot proceed without it.
    3. There are very tight regulations related to the treatment of animals in experiments. Pretty much any procedure more invasive than a simple injection requires anesthesia.
    4. No one does these experiments to be cruel or evil. Experiments are done with the intention of learning something important. This is not the laboratory equivalent of a 7 year-old pulling the wings off flies.

    Neurological experiments absolutely cannot be performed on anything other than a living biological organism. The idea here isn't just to create remote controlled rats, but to discover how we can advance new technologies related to the brain. Modern probes that can monitor the firing patterns of 4 individual neurons simultaneously? The idea that we can now partially enable the blind to see? Do you think that the experiments required to pull this off were performed on neurons in a petri dish? Of course not, and it wouldn't even be possible. Perhaps one day in the future if, heaven forbid!, you are ever tragically paralyzed in an accident, you will perhaps thank the researchers who come up with remote control technology. I know if it were to happen to me, I'd be very glad to have a way to communicate with my family, or take care of myself instead of being a complete burden.

    Especially since there's no critical look at whether full-fledged robots could be developed to perform these functions.

    Many researchers devote their time to developing small-scale robotics, but nothing is close to being anywhere near as agile as a biological organism. But again, the research isn't just about controlling rats; it's also a way to figure out how to interface with the brain. Given the paralysis scenario, what good would a robotic "supplemental" body be if you couldn't control the damn thing? When that kind of technology comes about for general use, you'll have researchers, rats, and monkeys to thank for it.

    The sad thing is that I'm probably going to be modded down for raising these concerns.

    Well, I've got one point left, but I chose to reply instead. Besides, I don't mod down. ;)

    --
    bytesmythe
    Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
    -- Scott Meyer
  30. Re:**** THE PROOF THAT Microsoft IS EVIL **** by Cyno01 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah, and 2+2= *gasp* 4, holy shit!

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  31. Is it Ratbot or Ratbert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inquiring minds want to know

  32. from "Viagra saves wildlife" by suss · · Score: 1, Troll

    The von Hippels have also compiled a long list of animals that could benefit should Viagra ever be made available in Africa, including baboons, gorillas, chimpanzees and spotted hyenas.

    Hm, you probably wouldn't want to meet a gorilla on viagra...

    Ofcourse, if they start giving viagra to wildebeest, would they have to be renamed to gnu/horny?

  33. FRAUD ALERT by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Type in fake info if you want.

    Misrepresenting your identity in a contract (the ToS, which you agree to by providing your information and submitting the form) may constitute fraud in your jurisdiction.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:FRAUD ALERT by sebmol · · Score: 1

      Unless both parties of the contract show sufficient proof of identity, the contract can't really become valid. Confirmation through an e-mail address is rarely sufficient proof of identification. Credit cards, SSN's, DL's and national ID's may though.

      The nature of so called "contracts" online is still highly debatable. As long as there is no way to sufficiently guarantee that the person clicking on the "I Agree" button is really who they say they are, it should prove rather tough on either party to enforce the terms of the contract.

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    2. Re:FRAUD ALERT by damiam · · Score: 1

      So using fake info is fraud, but deluging the registration system with random strings (which presumably also don't represent your real info) every time you read an article is better?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    3. Re:FRAUD ALERT by yerricde · · Score: 1

      deluging the registration system with random strings (which presumably also don't represent your real info) every time you read an article

      That would be fraud or theft of service as well.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
  34. You Can't Stop The Ratbots by USC-MBA · · Score: 5, Interesting
    One common theme (aside from terrorism, of course) clearly stands out from among the NYT's long list of ideas. What do all these have in common?
    • Botox Parties
    • Featherless Chickens
    • Ratbots
    • Genetically Modified Saliva
    • Cooling Atheletes From The Inside Out
    The answer is they are all about using technology to enhance or modify biology. There is a human impulse to go above and beyond the constraints of biological limitations. This is because the imagination will always overflow and escape the boundaries of our bones, nerves, and muscle.

    This impulse to strive, excel, and improve is at the heart of what makes us human. The striving imperative motivates everything from mountain climbers to astronauts, to the market economy itself. To stifle this urge would be to stunt our very humanity.

    As a libertarian I strongly support any efforts by striving, creative individuals to transcend the forces that constrain humanity. "Ratbots" may seem creepy to timid animal rights fundamentalists, but I prefer to see these kinds of experiments as an exciting beginning, as one tiny step on the part of humankind into a new world of freedom and possibility.

    1. Re:You Can't Stop The Ratbots by grungy · · Score: 1
      As a libertarian I strongly support any efforts by striving, creative individuals to transcend the forces that constrain humanity

      This may transcend the abilities of the species, but Oy! does it constrain the liberty of the individual on the business end of the remote-controll.

      Now's the time to tell Congress not to let the military spend money learning how to remote-control people.

  35. Commercial applications by crestfallentears · · Score: 0

    I think that remote-controlled rats could work not only for spying or search-and-rescue missions, but might also sell quite well to the general public, provided a few people are able to figure out how to overclock and install acrylic windows in them.

  36. Impressive. by Raetsel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wow.

    Damn.

    Would you look at that.

    If I were talking about electronics, I'd call that a 'sneak circuit.' All the subdirectories the /. editors didn't include in the robots.txt file are indexed by Google.

    (At least, I figure they overlooked this... give it a few days, then check for an updated exclusion list.)

    On the other hand, I still can't seem to dig up my old comment... and not for lack of trying, either. I suggested a donation fund for a Google Search Appliance, archives on CD for /. subscribers so you could grep the database... that kind of thing. If anyone else manages to dig it up, I'd sure like to know how you found it!

    --

    "...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
  37. Re:Creepy? Or Just Pointless? by sebmol · · Score: 1

    So basically what all this comes down to is that the end (i.e. human health and welfare) justifies the means of getting there (i.e. animal testing)? This planet disgusts me.

    --
    "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
  38. SteweyGriffin==karma whore+troll == ekrout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can't be stopped. Moderators are truely idiots. You have posted almost non-stop for three days karma whoring, google trolling (whoever came up with that term should be commended) and baiting like crazy and continue to be modded up, no matter what. You've probably been capped by now. I don't know if you've bribed an editor or what, but man...

    So, this is my last time (other ACs feel free) - hey everyone, SteweyGriffin is none other than ekrout, a known troll who often contradicts his own statements in the same thread, whores fans to have a large pool of moderators who see him at a +? score, trolls and will undoubtedly sweep the trollback for the weekend (links under his other posts can be found, including his post that proudly shows his reply and moderation amounts - look here you fools (wow - never noticed that the sid for trolltalk was 31337... that's funny). Stop modding him up. Or don't, I don't care anymore. Color me impressed, I surrender.

  39. Re:Creepy? Or Just Pointless? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 2

    You are aware during brain surgeries on humans they are kept awake and required to continue talking?

    Just checking.

    --
    I live in a giant bucket.
  40. Hope your reincarnated as a rat by bogie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then you'll see how fun it is to be injected with cancer and grow tumors the size of a baseball. I wonder if the fact that the scientists aren't laughing at you will be some comfort to you then?

    I'm not completely against animal testing, but your in the wrong here trying to brush off the topic of ethics when discussing animal testing. There are ethics involved and they are not "bullshit".

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    1. Re:Hope your reincarnated as a rat by Emporer+of+Ice+Cream · · Score: 1

      Then you'll see how fun it is to be injected with cancer and grow tumors the size of a baseball. I wonder if the fact that the scientists aren't laughing at you will be some comfort to you then?

      And what if you mother, or daughter, could be saved by making that tumor on the rat? Who's more important? That rat? Or your mother?

      Put the decision in context please. Tell me you HONESTLY believe your loved ones are worth less than some discomfort to a rat. Because that's really what it comes down to, whether you like it or not.

      In nature, animals use their environment and other animals to survive. And they aren't nice about it; it's just the business of staying alive. By doing testing as humanely as possible to advance our knowledge and thus, survival possibilities, we are doing nothing worse than nature itself does.

    2. Re:Hope your reincarnated as a rat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the point is that he's not a rat. And by sacrificing these few rats, we can save a lot more lives in the future - human, rats, and otherwise.

      Also, if you are so sure that these rats do not want to participate, have you ever asked them? Like some humans, you can get most rats to willingly do incredibly suicidal things for the right bit of food.

  41. Re:Creepy? Or Just Pointless? by bytesmythe · · Score: 2

    The real question you're asking is do the ends justify the means?

    Well, sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. It depends on what the ends are and what the means are.

    For instance, if we could cure AIDS or cancer tomorrow by sacrificing just ONE monkey to an experiment, would that be worth it? I would say so. I would NOT, however, advocate brutally torturing every chimpanzee in existence for hours on end just to end navel lint.

    Both of those positions are ludicrous extremes, obviously. We have to be able to strike a balance between the ends (enriching human life) and the means (experimentation on animals). I think, in general, we do a good job of this.

    --
    bytesmythe
    Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
    -- Scott Meyer
  42. Just around the corner... by eyepeepackets · · Score: 0

    ...is the perfect woman: remote controlled, get's hot and wet on command, cooks the food you really want, has a mute button.

    So where do I send my woman, when do I get her back and how long do the batteries last?

    God, I love science. *gush*

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  43. Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the military are intested in this - I can just envisage little guided-rodent-land-missiles, with little backpacks packed with plastique, scurriying accross the battlefield amongst the enemy, then BOOM..

    We'll, it might be happen...

  44. "Open Source Begging" -badly- named by ivi · · Score: 1


    I encourage the Open Source Foundation, et al.
    to take the NY Times to task over the name of
    the subject article/activity:

    www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/magazine/15OPEN.html

    (It's about a woman, whose website asked for
    money; she managed to collect over $13,000
    to help pay off her $20,000 credit-card debt,
    by telling her story & "begging" online...)

    That's -not- the idea of Open Source, folks.

  45. Ringworld by Marillion · · Score: 2

    I remember reading Ringworld by Larry Niven. I talks about a character being a "Wire Head," someone who is addicted on electronic pleasure. In their society, it is considered socially unacceptable to have such an implant. Some alien races have even developed a remote device that can do the same thing from afar - which have been baned by treaty.
    It's a great book that every Good Geek must have in their library

    --
    This is a boring sig
  46. Ethical?, off course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im sure most of all slashdoters will think this is ok because is for scientific purposes, many will say its cool, but it is not. Life is something far from human hands, play with it and you will fuck up. When you say is ok because humans will use this safely on the future (thanks to the tests) you are missing the real question, the real question is, Its really necesary for humans to know or use this?, i guess not. What are you searchig for?, longer life?, we already have population problems and long life, i mean, 80 years old was a dream 500 years ago, when somebody was that old people started to think he was inmortal. I think this is plain pointless researched only because of mixed economic factors (always money), humans are starting to draw their own doom.

  47. Implications are severe and unforseen by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What happens if WalMart (or an "unrelated" corporation) were to put these things into poor, 3rd world natives?

    What if by providing just enough food to survive, squalor for sleeping quarters, and no particular pay, but lots of "pushing the pleasure button" they were to get a group of people willing to work for free?

    Would it be cruel? You talk to these people, and they are smiling, happy, and working 16 hour days in relatively dangerous conditions, with their "happy button" being pressed anytime their output increases some small amount.

    How long before our "free market" makes this a reality? How many people would sign up, knowing that they will be forever "happy"?

    How many people are willing to do this using drugs, to get the same effect, despite the risks?

    This is not something that's possible, it's inevitable, as there is a clear financial reward. Making it illegal won't prevent it.

    Where do we draw the line? As somebody who's frequently rather sure I have the answer, I have to say this one baffles me.

    Toto, we aren't in Kansas anymore!

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Implications are severe and unforseen by WNight · · Score: 2

      You can't just ban it though. It'll still happen but the devices will come from the third-world instead of reputable medical companies.

      Make abuse of it illegal, make it illegal to give to someone else. And make it cheap.

      If it's cheap (and easily available) and it's a crime to supply it, chances are that it'll be easier to get legally (and turn yourself into a veggie) than be strung along by someone else.

      But, if these things do get invented, and I imagine they will, it'll effectively be a cheap and painless (joyful even) mode of suicide. Kids that sniff gasoline today might decide that dying of pleasure is much better than living in a hellhole. And how are we to stop that, or do we?

  48. Re:Creepy? Or Just Pointless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the planet disgusts you so much, you're free to leave at any time.

    I think you'd agree that the world needs fewer humans. You go first.

  49. Yearly by Banjonardo · · Score: 2
    This is SUCH a dupe- they the same artivle last year!

    (See subject)

    --

    -----

    Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

  50. Murder rates most interesting by Goonie · · Score: 4, Interesting
    On my quick browse through, perhaps the most interesting idea was the one on murder rates.

    Basically, murder rates have remained essentially static over the past few decades, while other types of crime such as assaults have become more common. Why are murders different?

    The hypothesis is that improvements in medical treatment have meant that people who would otherwise have died of injuries are now surviving, and thus the murder rate has gone down. Evidence includes the fact there was a decline in the murder rate in the years after the Vietnam War, where improvements in trauma surgery made their way back into the civilian health system.

    I don't know if it's true or not, but it's certainly an interesting, plausible, and quite disturbing idea.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Murder rates most interesting by plasm4 · · Score: 0

      It would be interesting to see what the rates on attempted murder on in this case.

  51. Dupe...... by sharph · · Score: 1
    click...


    slashdot needs some sort of dupe control system.

  52. Three ways... by Storm · · Score: 1

    ...That this is different from the IT industry today:

    1. No implants.
    2. The rats are running the maze.
    3. The maze eventually ends for the rats.

    --
    --Storm
  53. Wireheads by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

    Remember Niven's books? This is the part of the story people are missing: a wire attached to the pleasure centers is possible today. How long before people start getting the hook ups installed and using the perfect drug?

    --
    Sig removed because it was obnoxious
  54. Ironic. by blair1q · · Score: 2

    I'd think it should be obvious that most habitues of slashdot are already master botters.

  55. Hmmm... by Cplus · · Score: 2

    Let me put this to you in the most blunt fashion I can. I would kill you and eat your carcass to survive, that's what living is for. You are weak, and will be eaten, figuratively or literally. Think about it. Sad but true.

    --
    "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
  56. SlasDot / RatBot history by neuropro · · Score: 1

    It's a minor detail that such experiments could be done already in the sixties, and were done by Jose Delgado and others on bulls and monkeys. The electronics is now miniaturized and evidently the world is more ready to accept all this. Read also Michael Crichton's The Terminal Man if you are interested in all this. Ratbot The future of mind control/Economist IEEE SciAm NYT robots

  57. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    This planet has -- or rather had -- a problem, which was this: most of
    the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many
    solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were
    largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper,
    which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of
    paper that were unhappy.
    -- Douglas Adams

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...