Slashdot Mirror


Expert Says Glass Is Major Threat to Birds

dlkf writes "According this AP article, 'Glass is ubiquitous and it's indiscriminate, killing the fit and the unfit... estimates (are) that collisions with glass kill up to 1 billion birds a year in the United States alone.' First wind turbines and now glass. What will they come up with next..."

170 comments

  1. Heh... by DiscoOnTheSide · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just like walls and other cars are a major threat to drivers, porn sites to computer geeks, and a job in the real world for all those heavily pierced freaks. I don't consider this THAT newsworthy... :) (Not Trolling, just burning some midnight karma. :))

    --
    Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
  2. What you can't see... by narratorDan · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...can't hurt you so relax Bob, and keep flying sou..[THUD!]

    "Look mommy a dead parrot!"

    NarratorDan

    --
    "If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, you really don't understand it." - Niels Bohr
    1. Re:What you can't see... by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      It's not dead, it's... uh... resting!

    2. Re:What you can't see... by cujo_1111 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mr. Praline : 'Ello. I wish to register a complaint. (The owner has his back to the register and does not respond.) Mr. Praline : 'Ello, Miss?

      Owner : (turning around, very angry) What do you mean, "miss"?

      Mr. Praline : I'm sorry, I have a cold. (The owner nods, understanding.) I wish to make a complaint!

      Owner : (hurriedly) Sorry, we're closin' for lunch...!

      Mr. Praline : Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this parrot, what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

      Owner : Oh yes, the, ah, the Norwegian Blue... What's, ah... W-what's wrong with it?

      Mr. Praline : I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it.

      Owner : No, no, 'e's ah... he's resting.

      Mr. Praline : Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

      Owner : No no, h-he's not dead, he's, he's restin'!

      Mr. Praline : Restin'?

      Owner : Y-yeah, restin.' Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, isn't it, eh? Beautiful plumage!

      Mr. Praline : The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead!

      Owner : Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

      Mr. Praline : All right then, if he's resting, I'll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Polly! Mister Polly Parrot! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you wake up, Mr. Polly Parrot... (owner hits the cage)

      Owner : There, he moved!

      Mr. Praline : No, he didn't, that was you pushing the cage!

      Owner : I never!!

      Mr. Praline : Yes, you did!

      Owner : I never, never.... (He pulls the parrot out of the cage and screams into its ear.)

      Mr. Praline : 'ELLO POLLAAAAAAAY! POLL-EE! POLLY PARROT! WAKE UP! (He bangs its head against the store counter, horribly hard.) TESTIIIING! TESTIIIING! THIS IS YOUR NINE-O' CLOCK ALARM CALL! (He does it again, harder.) POLL-EEEEEEE!
      (He tosses it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor. Longish pause.) Now that's what I call a dead parrot.

      Owner : No, no.... No, he's stunned.

      Mr. Praline : STUNNED?

      Owner : Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

      Mr. Praline : Look my lad, I've had just about enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I bought it not half an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it being tired and shagged out after a long squawk.

      Owner : Well, he's... he's, ah... probably pining for the fjords. (Praline looks angrily back and forth, stuttering.)

      Mr. Praline : PININ' for the FJORDS? What kind of talk is that? Look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?

      Owner : The Norwegian Blue prefers kippin' on its back! Remarkable bird, isn't it, guv, eh? Lovely plumage!

      Mr. Praline : (coldly) Look, I took the liberty of examining that parrot when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there. (pause)

      Owner : Well, of course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its little pecker, and VOOM!

      Mr. Praline : "VOOM?" (Praline puts the cage down and take the parrot into his hands.)

      Mr. Praline : Look matey, this parrot wouldn't "voom" if you put four thousand volts through it! It's bleedin' demised!

      Owner : It's not! I-It's pining!

      Mr. Praline : It's not pinin,' it's passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late parrot! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the perch he would be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This.... is an EX-PARROT! (pause)

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    3. Re:What you can't see... by Casshan-Robot+Hunter · · Score: 1

      Mr. Praline: A pallendrome? The pallendrome of Bolton would be NOTLOB!!!

      (for those of you that watch the flying circus)

      --
      Why oh why didn't I take the purple pill?
    4. Re:What you can't see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my house killed a parrot, no glass involved, just a gap in the carport roof next to the house wall.
      Bird went for the gap + wall = broken neck.

  3. Legislation is the answer by Catskul · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ban Glass !
    The greedy Glass manufacturing Corperations are out to ruin our envrionment !.

    --

    Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
  4. and killing birds is bad... why? by jerde · · Score: 0, Troll

    I hate birds.

    - Peter

    --
    INsigNIFICANT
    1. Re:and killing birds is bad... why? by trentfoley · · Score: 1

      I hate birds as well. But, the birds in my neighborhood know I hate them. Hundreds of them fill the trees near my front porch. Sometimes, it gets uncomfortably like the Hitchcock movie. Thanks to those vile creatures, I'm building a garage for my cars this summer. But now that I've been informed, I'll use as much clear glass as I can. Make that plexiglass instead.

    2. Re:and killing birds is bad... why? by ocelotbob · · Score: 5, Funny

      I dunno. I love birds. A little bbq sauce, an open flame, delicious.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  5. Imagine the bird killing power of... by idiot900 · · Score: 1, Funny

    A Beowulf cluster of glass!

    Wait, that's called a "building". Never mind.

  6. Natural alarm clock by nocomment · · Score: 2, Funny

    I used to have a bird that crashed into my window every morning at 6:30 sharp. Then one day it stopped. I wondered if it moved but I guess it died.

    --
    /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
    /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
    1. Re:Natural alarm clock by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      " I used to have a bird that crashed into my window every morning at 6:30 sharp. Then one day it stopped. I wondered if it moved but I guess it died."

      This is very common for certain types of birds during mating season. For weeks this one bird flew into my bedroom window repeatedly at 7 in the morning. Eventually I put up something opaque behind the window and it got the idea that it was not seeing a potential mate there.

  7. not much can be done about this by bersl2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem, of course, is not the glass; it's this pesky desire of ours to have transparent artificial barriers as part of our dwellings---something which will not go away.

    Much of the time, my sympathies lie mostly with the animals; but in this case, they're kinda on their own. Survival of the fittest...

    May they all live long enough to have more sex than I do...

    (Which leads me to a deep thought: right now, at this very moment, millions (billions?) of creatures are having sex. None of them are me.)

    Goddamn I need sleep...

    1. Re:not much can be done about this by bhima · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here in Austria we have the shadows of predator birds on most glass stuff that the goverment puts up. Not on houses or buildings but on highway dividers and bus stops and things like that. I supose it helps, but I really don't know.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    2. Re:not much can be done about this by MachDelta · · Score: 2, Funny
      Here in Austria we have the shadows of predator birds on most glass stuff that the goverment puts up.
      Oh what, the glass isn't enough? You trying to kill all the birds by giving them heart attacks too?! How cruel can you get?!
    3. Re:not much can be done about this by ajagci · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem, of course, is not the glass; it's this pesky desire of ours to have transparent artificial barriers as part of our dwellings---something which will not go away.

      You're right--it won't go away. Just like that pesky desire to pollute or to take over all arable land. However, desires can be curbed, and it is a mark of civilization that we do curb our desires and don't live out every one of them.

      In the case of glass, there are plenty of architectural ways in which we can have brightly lit dwellings with gorgeous views without creating traps for birds.

      Much of the time, my sympathies lie mostly with the animals; but in this case, they're kinda on their own. Survival of the fittest...

      Humans are fittest, for now, so, yes, we can kill off all other (large) animals. Trouble is, in the long run, that is not an adaptive strategy for us: we are dependent on a functioning environment. So, what you suggest, namely not worrying about the survival of animals, is, in the long run, maladaptive for us: it will bring about our own extinction.

    4. Re:not much can be done about this by cujo_1111 · · Score: 2, Funny

      May they all live long enough to have more sex than I do...

      That may not be really all that long you know... you are a nerd after all :)

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    5. Re:not much can be done about this by cujo_1111 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you have anything to stop the kangaroos too? :)

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    6. Re:not much can be done about this by Richard+A+Lake · · Score: 1

      Wrong country it's Australia that has kangaroos not Austria

    7. Re:not much can be done about this by selfsealingstembolt · · Score: 1

      We have thought after Arnie becoming governor in California you Americans would know Austria, at least a little. Reading a word until it ends, really really difficult ...

      --
      Keep open minded - but not that open your brain falls out...
    8. Re:not much can be done about this by mlush · · Score: 1
      In the case of glass, there are plenty of architectural ways in which we can have brightly lit dwellings with gorgeous views without creating traps for birds.

      I'm interested do you have any links for this?

    9. Re:not much can be done about this by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      Uh, judging by the grandparent poster's URL, something tells me he knows the difference quite well.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    10. Re:not much can be done about this by bhima · · Score: 1
      Funny, I don't live that far from the Arnold Schwarzenegger Stadium!

      We do have shirts for kids: "Austria: We don't have any kangaroos!"

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    11. Re:not much can be done about this by bhima · · Score: 1
      That way it is survial of the 'fittest'!

      Only the strong hearted birds live!

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    12. Re:not much can be done about this by ajagci · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article itself talked about some alternatives. In fact, that was the point of the article: it didn't say "no more glass", it said "let's make an effort to make glass more bird-safe". Other alternatives I have seen are silhouettes of predators, nets, screens, careful gardening, and various patterned reflective coatings on the outside.

      Of course, simply having vertical blinds, Venitian blinds, or sheer curtains on the inside will probably already reduce the problem: they look like a solid surface from the outside but stil give you a good view from the inside. Even bug screens probably make windows a little more visible and less reflective from the outside and cushion any collision.

      I suspect birds hitting windows is mostly a problem with modern office buildings, where there is lots of glass, plenty of energy-efficient (=mirror-like) outside coatings, no curtains, and no bug screens.

    13. Re:not much can be done about this by Mark+Pitman · · Score: 1

      I would bet that most people in the US think he is from Germany.

    14. Re:not much can be done about this by Debillitatus · · Score: 1
      (Which leads me to a deep thought: right now, at this very moment, millions (billions?) of creatures are having sex. None of them are me.)

      Of course not. You're reading slashdot. ;-)

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    15. Re:not much can be done about this by cujo_1111 · · Score: 1

      If you look at my URL, you will notice I am an Australian... I posted what is commonly called a joke.

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    16. Re:not much can be done about this by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Sure, we know Arnie is from Austria. Great country, pretty good salt.

      Did you know the grandparent is from Australia? Note the '.au' at the end of his domain. So, which country are you from, so we can mock you now?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    17. Re:not much can be done about this by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      The problem, of course, is not the glass; it's this pesky desire of ours to have transparent artificial barriers as part of our dwellings---something which will not go away.

      [Advice for male birds] I think the solution is to not have sexy pictures of birds that can be easily seen from outside.

      [Advice for female birds] I have to wonder if the birds that impact airplanes are all female. After all, don't they all look like giant penises as they come towards you?

    18. Re:not much can be done about this by Ours · · Score: 1

      Maybe the shadow of a saltie crock could do the trick :-).

      --
      "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
    19. Re:not much can be done about this by chatgris · · Score: 1

      Many billions of creatures may be having sex. But at the same time, a lot of those creatures are getting killed while having sex (spiders, praying mantus). Not so bad to be celebet once you think about it eh? Or at least i try to comfort myself with that :(

      --
      Open Your Mind. Open Your Source.
  8. Ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that's great. *Looks around uncomfortably*

  9. In Other News... by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 3, Funny


    Eating a leading cause of Heart Disease, Wisconsin man discovers that a red cape will not let you fly, Running full force into a wall "really DOES hurt" according to Arkansas resident, and Kids say the cutest things!!
    yeesh.

    Sera

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  10. What of it by gnalre · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So do domestic cats. What of it.

    Call it evolution in action

    --
    Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
    1. Re:What of it by floydigus · · Score: 1

      Yes, cats do kill birds. In fact, they are much more of a threat to birds than glass is.

      Many of us will have seen several, if not dozens of birds killed by cats. How many have you seen killed by glass? Personally, I have seen maybe 1 or 2 in my lifetime.

      Evolution in action? If several whole species get completely wiped out from an ecosystem, then I wouldn't call that evolution.

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

    2. Re:What of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call it evolution in action

      Exactly. "Indiscriminately killing the fit and unfit" is a crock of shit. The ones that get killed are by definition unfit for their environment. The ones that have certain traits that make them less prone to slamming into glass will reproduce more than those that don't, and after a while, the population as a whole will be less prone to breaking their necks on windows.

    3. Re:What of it by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      Why not? Evolution can apply to ecosystems as a whole, not just individual species. A stronger species will dominate over a weaker species, and the weaker species will wane into oblivion. Let's call it an increase in net fitness.

    4. Re:What of it by kawika · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Cats? What about other birds? I live on the edge of a park and there is a red-tailed hawk that I am convinced is taking advantage of the glass on our building. Every week or two I will here the plonk of a bird hitting the window. Twice I have looked out and seen that hawk swoop down and grab the stunned bird.

    5. Re:What of it by floydigus · · Score: 1

      By your rather heavy-handed definition, the extinctions of the Dodo, the Moa and the passenger pigeon are all the result of evolution.
      After all, the stupid birds should have just evolved kevlar feathers.

      Putting glass in the flight path of birds is not going to make birds evolve because (one can safely assume) none of them have the advantage of being able to identify and steer clear of glass.

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

    6. Re:What of it by Psion · · Score: 1
      By your rather heavy-handed definition, the extinctions of the Dodo, the Moa and the passenger pigeon are all the result of evolution. After all, the stupid birds should have just evolved kevlar feathers.
      And he's exactly right. Evolution of species happens largely because of environmental pressures. Plenty of food? Species get bigger. Not much food? Species get smaller. Humans put enormous evolutionary pressure on many species. Those that adapt quickly do well (common pigeons). The others...
    7. Re:What of it by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      Well, it might, given a few million years to do it in. Or possibly less....Let's see...

      Say one day there's a bird musical genius. This bird has a song like no other, and it instantly makes all the girl birds want to have his babies.

      So this genius bird musician is flying along, calling to all the lady birds (that's birds that are ladies, not the little spotty bugs, you understand), when suddenly, WHAM, he's lying on the ground with the world spinning around and a really big lump on his head.

      Now, suppose (to continue this admittedly highly unlikely chain of circumstances) that the bird, after running into the glass a few times, makes the following connection; when he's flying along, singing to all the little girl birdies, and the sound of the echos that come back to his ears from around the place change in a specific little way just before he runs into that invisible tree that's lurking around here somewhere.

      If his birdie little brain doesn't get bashed into mush first, or a cat doesn't get him when he's still woozy, there might come a time when he hears that particular type of reflection and ducks. Thereby avoiding the pane of glass, that is. Not by turning into some semi-aquatic member of the avis family that they don't like to talk about because well, he's quackers.

      So, to continue, then...if he then teaches it to all his birds, um, girl bird-friends, no, bird girl-friends, and they teach it to their chicks (baby birds that is, not some kind of weird girl bird-on-bird girl thing) and that's a, well at least, it could be loosely termed as some form of evolution.

      Then you get the mutant birds with really high voices, who get clearer echos and don't run into so many windows, give it a few million years of positive feedback and oh look, it's a bird that uses sonar...

      'Course, I could just be going out on a limb here.

    8. Re:What of it by greenhide · · Score: 1

      As far as I understand it, there aren't that many species that actually can teach each other things like this.

      Also, from what I've seen written, birds don't actually last that long after they've hit a window. It messes them up pretty bad. They probably make it to a tree somewhere, where they keel over and die.

      This is, incidentally, the whole point of the article -- that birds are dying, not that they're getting massive headaches.

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    9. Re:What of it by floydigus · · Score: 1

      Plenty of food? Species get bigger. Not much food? Species get smaller.
      This is more true of individuals than species.

      Those that adapt quickly do well (common pigeons).
      As far as the rock dove is concerned, it did not have to adapt in order to live in cities because it was already well suited to the environment; these birds like buildings because they resemble cliffs and they will readily nest on the abundant ledges thereon.

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

    10. Re:What of it by Kobal · · Score: 1

      I've seen quite a few birds killing themselves on a window. I'd admit it's quite a funny sight, but the envirofreaks will mod me down if I do.
      On the other hand, it's not quite as funny as seeing one crashing on a wall. A friend of mine once simply pointed with his arm at a couple of doves and shouted "Bang". One of the silly birds deviated from its course and hit straight on a nearby concrete wall, without any kind of windows.
      This was the first and only time I've seen someone killing something simply by mimicking a gun. It also makes me thinks that using less glass wouldn't help much: the pea-brained beasties are so stupid they'd crash into anything, anyway.

    11. Re:What of it by Psion · · Score: 1

      Disregarding your post's minor inaccuracies for the moment, what is your point? That environmental pressures do not impact on the evolutionary development of species?

    12. Re:What of it by multiplexo · · Score: 1

      Oh, when I saw this I thought that you meant that domestic cats ran into glass like birds do. We used to have two house cats who imagined that they were mighty hunters of the veldt (which is better than what they were, which is tubby, neutered, not overly intelligent {even for a cat} heat sinks that blocked the heat registers). Anyways both of our cats, Scamper and Duke, had incidents when they saw birds on our deck and thinking that the green shag carpet in our living room was grass, began to stalk them. They would skulk until they got about ten feet from the birds and then run, leap, pounce and slam head first into the sliding glass door. I might have written this off as an accident, except I saw it happen more than once.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    13. Re:What of it by gnalre · · Score: 1

      I think the point is that anything we do changes the environment in some way. For every bird killed because it flies into glass another bird succeeds because of less competition.

      If you start putting values on one species over another you are missing the point. Evolution makes no such judgements.

      (P.S that includes the human race too)

      --
      Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
    14. Re:What of it by floydigus · · Score: 1

      Disregarding your post's minor inaccuracies for the moment
      I do try to be accurate, so let me know where you think these inaccuracies lie - I can handle it.
      what is your point?
      To refute your examples.

      Of course environmental pressures impact on the evolutionary development of species, but in order to be useful, the word evolution should be reserved to describe modification of species to become more or less fit for their environment.

      I don't think that you could use the word evolution to describe a successful act of genocide, for instance.

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

    15. Re:What of it by Psion · · Score: 1

      Alright, then. Your first inaccuracy is in claiming that food availability does not impact the size of a species. In fact, while it is not the sole determinant of the body mass of a species, it is a significant one. Very simply put, larger animals require more food. Generally, any given species will occupy a continuum of genetically predetermined body sizes. Within this continuum, the larger individuals will require more food, and the smaller will require less. When nutritional sources are scarce, large individuals will have more difficulty meeting their nutritional needs than small ones -- thus, fewer will survive to sexual maturity to pass on their genes. Famines are thus an evolutionary pressure that prunes genes determining large body masses from the species in favor of smaller masses.

      During nutritionally plentiful times, the pressure on large individuals is diminished. While there is no direct selection process related to food that favors larger individuals, there are other environmental pressures that favor large size. Large individuals fare better against the species's principle predators. Large individuals defend their territory better. Large individuals endure temporary cold better. Most importantly, large individuals are favored for reproduction. The end result of all these pressures is that genes that favor large body size in individuals are more likely to be passed on than small body sizes. Thus, indirectly, an evolutionary pressure exists that pushes species size higher during plentiful times.

      When you said, "This is more true of individuals than species," you completely disregarded the role of individuals in passing on their genes and thereby influencing species genetic characteristics. Your second inaccuracy lies in your consideration of the extinction of dodos, moas, and passenger pigeons as exempt from the evolutionary process. Evolution is not just the development of a single species, but the development of all species within a closed system. While the loss of the dodo was a horrific blow to all dodo-hood and can't really be seen as contributing to the development of that species, it did result in environmental changes that provided other species opportunities that the dodo had formerly reserved to itself. With the extinction of the dodo, any competitive forces it exerted were removed from the Mauritius Island ecology, and other animals adapted to this.

      Now, it would be dishonest of me if I didn't mention that the environmental influences of the dodo were overshadowed by the deforestation and predators the Dutch sailors brought with them when they settled the island, but remember that evolution is a continuous process that involves all species, including humans. Humans evolved a brain capable of creating a technological civilization and the changes to all species as a result to that are ongoing -- just like the predatory evolution of sharp teeth. We aren't distinct from the natural world, we are a part of a natural world that now includes humanity's production of technology. To claim that human-induced deforestation or skyscrapers aren't natural is akin to claiming that a beaver's dam or a falcon's nest isn't natural.

      You scoffed at the notion that birds could evolve the sense to avoid glass buildings, but I don't understand why that shouldn't be the case. Assuming that humans continue to erect tall glass or otherwise transparent structures for the next few thousand years, I'm sure there are enough visual cues present that evolution will provide birds with the instinct to avoid them. I have already seen birds wheel away from a window just before impacting it...why is it so hard to believe that these animals will survive to pass on their genes while those that unceremoniously break their beaks and necks on the surface will not?

    16. Re:What of it by corbettw · · Score: 1

      This was the first and only time I've seen someone killing something simply by mimicking a gun.

      Don't tell the anti-gun nuts, they'll ban fingers next.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    17. Re:What of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

    18. Re:What of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot, spare me you're asinine stories.

    19. Re:What of it by floydigus · · Score: 1

      Your first inaccuracy is in claiming that food availability does not impact the size of a species
      Maybe I have lost some of my skill with the written language, but I still can't see where in my post I said this.

      There have been plenty of studies that show how species can adjust their own numbers based on availability of food but where are the studies that show an increase or decrease in size of a species? I don't think your two paragraphs of homespun rhetoric really cut the mustard.

      We aren't distinct from the natural world, we are a part of a natural world that now includes humanity's production of technology. To claim that human-induced deforestation or skyscrapers aren't natural is akin to claiming that a beaver's dam or a falcon's nest isn't natural.

      Do me a favour. This argument is always getting trotted out by those who dislike the prospect of being inconvenienced by reducing the environmental impact of their behaviour.
      While ostensibly you're being highly scientific and hard-nosed, in fact you're just conveniently ignoring the obvious differences between man and other animals that build structures e.g. the scale of our endeavours, the fact that we have a choice and animals do not.

      You scoffed at the notion that birds could evolve the sense to avoid glass buildings, but I don't understand why that shouldn't be the case...why is it so hard to believe that these animals will survive to pass on their genes while those that unceremoniously break their beaks and necks on the surface will not?

      Well, it could happen but there are quite a few pre-requistites. There would have to be some distinct genetic reason for the "wheelers" to wheel when the "neck breakers" flew straight on (a mutation that led to improved eyesight, say), and then there would have to be enough risk of this kind of death throughout the populations of the species affected to favour the difference.

      Basically, it's just not going to happen.

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

    20. Re:What of it by Psion · · Score: 1

      Hold on a second. In the first sentence of your last post you claim that you "can't see where in my post I said this" (claiming that food availability does not impact species size). Then in your next paragraph you go on to try to refute that very same idea by calling it homespun rhetoric. You aren't consistent from one paragraph to the next in the same post! Look, go read up on Evolution. TalkOrigins is a good place to start. Then do some research on a man named Edward Drinker Cope. My "homespun rhetoric" is an outgrowth of ideas he expressed about 130 years ago. Along the way, read some Stephen Gould and pay particular attention to the studies of marine iguana populations by Martin Wikelski. I think you'll be amused by the work of Farji-Brener, et al on the selection of ant size by food availability in terrain interstices. Finally, go take a look at the "Dwarf Mammoths" of Wrangle Island and the mechanisms proposed for their size change. When you're done, I think you'll agree that food availability has just as much an impact on species body size as it does on the size of an individual.

      "Well, it could happen but there are quite a few pre-requistites. There would have to be some distinct genetic reason for the "wheelers" to wheel when the "neck breakers" flew straight on (a mutation that led to improved eyesight, say), and then there would have to be enough risk of this kind of death throughout the populations of the species affected to favour the difference."

      If there isn't enough risk to favor the difference, then why is it an issue in the first place? And the simple fact that some individuals show window avoidance strategies means that there is a genetic advantage possessed by those individuals that can be passed on to surviving generations. The mechanism might not be as simple as an improved eye. It might be an avoidance of rectangular volumes. It might be sensitivity to windflow changes. Or avoidance of reflections. Or glare. Windows usually are accompanied by terrain changes below them like a garden or window boxes. Surviving birds might simply be smart enough to pick up on these cues and live to reproduce.

      But after admitting above that my scenario could happen, you then contradict yourself again and stubbornly assert, "Basically, it's just not going to happen." WHY?

      Let's cut to the crux of this dance. You're one of these folks who look at everything humans do as wrong, aren't you? Glass kills many birds every year, so despite the fact that bird populations overall seem to be doing just fine anyway, you'd have us do something to reduce "the environmental impact of [our behavior]" and (I'm forced to assume) stop using glass. Why stop at concern for birds? Because that's as low as you can go and still find 'em cute? How about the rodent populations that are killed by exterminators? How about that poor termite population in your house or apartment? Maybe people should stop using mouthwash because of the adverse impact it has on oral bacteria. Maybe we should stop using chlorine in water treatment facilities because of the negative effect it has on cholera populations. Really, it's tough to say what your position is on this issue, because so far you haven't displayed the courage to come right out and state it. Instead, you've been playing contrarian games with TwistedGreen and I.

      Here's my position, so you aren't forced to draw your own conclusions: Every species on this planet has an impact on those that share its environment. The really successful species enjoy life at the expense of numerous others, and evolution forces all species to continuously adapt to this. Beavers, for example, cause catastrophic damage to the environments they alter. Humans are no different in this regard than any other. The one difference that we do have is a quality of mercy. We generally have sympathy for the suffering of other lifeforms and do what we can to alter it. Even hunters usually don't like to see an animal suffer (although I'm sure some do), a

    21. Re:What of it by floydigus · · Score: 1

      Trust me, I'm not in quite so much of a diametrically opposed position to your own as you seem to think.

      I haven't got time to respond to all this paranoid, bunker-mentality poo, though.

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

    22. Re:What of it by Psion · · Score: 1

      Caught you being self-contradictory too many times, didn't I? That's okay, you didn't seem too interested in holding up your end of the debate anyway. Take care -- maybe next time!

    23. Re:What of it by floydigus · · Score: 1

      Caught you being self-contradictory too many times, didn't I?
      These contradictions are imagined.

      you didn't seem too interested in holding up your end of the debate
      Simply put, you started investing so much time in your posts that to answer each point would take more time than I have to spare.

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

  11. Birds? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Funny
    What about people? Doesn't everybody here have at least one relative/friend who this has happened to?

    In any event, this doesn't affect me. My cats will take down anything within a 100-ft radius of the house, so my windows stay thud-free.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    1. Re:Birds? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      What about people?

      I smacked into a glass door once because my wife cleaned it too damned well. If you leave them dirty, such accidents won't happen. Might save birds too. Crud is Life!

  12. Birds and windows by moorhens · · Score: 5, Informative
    First, a billion birds sounds like an over-estimate, but even if it isn't it probably won't make any serious difference to any bird populations. Every year, most birds die, which is why they need to raise lots of young to keep going at all. Previous studies of birds vs windows, birds vs traffic, birds vs cats generally show that those that die are effectively part of the natural surplus rather than this being new deaths. Not much comfort for the individual bird, but hey.

    Secondly, most birds that conservationists (and yes, we are as scientific and geeky as the average /. er) are really worried about don't live in built-up areas so the impact with glass is likely to be less of a problem.

    Thirdly, window stickers (especially those shaped like a hawk) can sharply reduce the level of impacts especially against windows that look like a fly-through to somewhere else.

    And finally, when you find a bird that hit a window, someone will say it's broken its neck. Not so. Birds' necks are much longer and more flexible than most people realise until they see a lolling corpse. The commonest cause of death against a window is brain haemorrage.

    1. Re:Birds and windows by theaphila · · Score: 1

      > Secondly, most birds that conservationists ... are really worried about don't live in built-up areas so the impact with glass is likely to be less of a problem.

      in cambridge (ma), some hawks have moved in, and occasionally fall for diving into glass. perhaps they are worried about the re-introduction of such species into urban areas.

    2. Re:Birds and windows by moorhens · · Score: 1

      So far as I know, the hawks moving into urban areas in both the US and Britain are only doing so either as a result of habitats elsewhere being screwed up (eg by changes in land management), or where they have filled up available wild habitats. So, perversely, if there are enough hawks around for people to notice them colliding with windows, that could be pretty good news. To a peregrine, an office block with associated pigeons is structurally so similar to a sea cliff full of seabirds that going urban makes sense.

    3. Re:Birds and windows by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      ...when you find a bird that hit a window, someone will say it's broken its neck. Not so. Birds' necks are much longer and more flexible than most people realise until they see a lolling corpse. The commonest cause of death against a window is brain haemorrage.

      Oh, that makes me feel so much better.

    4. Re:Birds and windows by xilmaril · · Score: 2, Interesting

      a story to relate.

      a few weeks ago, I was sitting on the computer (what else), when I heard a *thud* and the entire house shook. it was like an earthquake.

      the cause? a local bird (I don't know what they're called. think really big, really fat pheasant) had flown into one of the exterior walls. not a window, mind, a wall. It sat there for about 10 minutes, stunned (time enough for me to take pics of it demolishing a tomato vine), then it stood up, wandered around my yard for a while, and flew off.

      I know houses these days aren't built as solidly as possible, but it still must have been going at an incredible speed to do that.

    5. Re:Birds and windows by jackbird · · Score: 2, Informative
      Secondly, most birds that conservationists (and yes, we are as scientific and geeky as the average /. er) are really worried about don't live in built-up areas so the impact with glass is likely to be less of a problem.

      True, but they migrate through them. The major cities of the Eastern US are on a huge flyway, for example, which is one reason there's a National Wildlife Refuge inside the New York City limits.

    6. Re:Birds and windows by lommer · · Score: 1

      a few weeks ago, I was sitting on the computer (what else)

      I dunno, I usually sit on a chair or something, they're usually much more comfortable than a computer. You should try it sometime...

    7. Re:Birds and windows by chmod000 · · Score: 1
      Don't knock it. I use a computer to sit on at my home workbench. It's a 386 tower with 80M hard drive that I picked up for free. I turned it on once, just to see if it really worked (it does), and have used it for a workstool ever since.


      But when I move out of this house, it's going in the can.

      --
      Aptal soru yoktur; sadece merakli aptallar vardir.
    8. Re:Birds and windows by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      A lot of the birds may not live in built-up areas, but a hell of a lot migrate through cities. (Hey, they've been flying that same route for a long time. "Where'd that building .. *THUD*")

      Large tall glass buildings are particularly bad because they're (1) large, (2) tall, (3) glass, and definitely (4) illuminated at night. This site talks about the problem and programs (like FLAP) to turn off lights at night, especially during migration and rescue the not-dead-yet injured birds.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  13. I've known this for years... by lxt · · Score: 1

    ...there's a big 6ft by 10ft glass pane in my house - at least once a month a bird (normally a pidgeon) whacks into it, normally either breaking a load of bones (in which case a guy from the RSPB comes round), or dies instantly. Once I've returned home to find the pane completely cracked with a duck lying in the grass...

    1. Re:I've known this for years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So patch it up with duck tape. Yuk yuk yuk!!

    2. Re:I've known this for years... by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      You think a duck is bad? Just wait till you hear "Fetcher la vache!"

  14. So do domestic cats by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

    Sometimes it's a bit of both. We used to have a cunning but lazy cat who would camp out under the big window, and pounce on the stunned birds that occasionally flew into it.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  15. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yes! Thankyou very much for the obligatory penis bird link.

  16. Another reason not to use Windows! by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..."smart" birds avoid running Windows ;)

    Ron

    1. Re:Another reason not to use Windows! by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      su -c "apt-get install crash helmet"

      --
      I hate sigs.
  17. Re:And of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Damn good troll. I could not have moderated it as such though. The duck did fly into the glass, so definitely on topic. It wasn't funny. Kinda informative. Was quite interesting to me - as I had no idea ducks did that, but at least it gave me a good idea of why that duck was flying so hard as to kill himself on impact.

    I wonder if thats why my two tomcats seem to have such conniptions when a certain feral tom comes calling.

    I guess if I had something like that happen to me, I might kill myself inadvertantly on the glass door at the quickie mart.

  18. Oh. My. God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evolution in action? If several whole species get completely wiped out from an ecosystem, then I wouldn't call that evolution.

    Were they here to do it, I suspect the dinosaurs might be able to pursuade you otherwise.

  19. New bumper sticker by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    Slashdot story from the Mysterious Future:

    "Glass manufacturers release new bumper sticker: Glass doesn't kill birds, I kill birds!"

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  20. Owls... lots of owls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here in Austria we have the shadows of predator birds on most glass stuff that the goverment puts up.

    Same here in America - at least in Florida and New Jersey. When I'm in states I don't live in, my eyes are on other issues so I woudn't recall seeing fake predator birds there. Owls.. lots of owls. Usually life size, life colored, realistically placed.

  21. Not the glass... by snakattak · · Score: 0, Troll

    Its the WINDEX that people use! Lets be considerate people and not clean our windows, that way birds don't have to die meaninglessly.

    --
    Ban Reality TV!
  22. Insects too by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A dozen times a day flying insects bang (surprisingly loudly) into my office windows.
    Don't know how many get killed by it, though.

    1. Re:Insects too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the parent a troll? What response is he trolling for?

    2. Re:Insects too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a bug, that's a feature! Wait a minute, I guess it is a bug.

  23. No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My dad was walking out of a store once and didn't use the door... they had just washed the windows and he had just taken off his glasses... The glass shattered and he still has scars down the front of his thighs...

    1. Re:No kidding by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Informative
      That's my point. Encounters like that range from the embarrasing all the way up to 'scarred for life with impaired mobility'.

      Thankfully, a low-tech solution is available - just put a damn sticker on the glass on or about average eye level. Works every time.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  24. But the impact patterns are BEAUTIFUL! by dpilot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My place of employment has glassed-in corridors between buildings, some of those corridors being multi-story. They have solved the bird problem by placing stick-on silhouettes of some sort of predatory bird, one on every other pane, or so. I haven't seen or heard of a collision, since.

    But back when they were happening, the birds left a beautiful dust pattern on the windows as they hit. It captured incredible levels of detail to the feathers, etc.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  25. I guess they can't cite guns... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...because not enough birds are killed by them. How long d'ya reckon it'll be before someone organises the real-world equivalent of a Google-bombing to correct that oversight?

    (Cue gun-rights flamewar, grin, duck, run :-)

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  26. uh huh by Bluesman · · Score: 1

    This is just another excuse for my neighbor who "loves animals" to not remove the half-inch layer of dirt from her windows.

    --
    If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    1. Re:uh huh by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      This is just another excuse for my neighbor who "loves animals" to not remove the half-inch layer of dirt from her windows.

      Why do you care how much dirt is on your neighbor's window?
      Are you the neighborhood cleanliness enforcer or the neighborhood peeping tom?

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    2. Re:uh huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Peepin' Tom.

  27. flamingoes by real_smiff · · Score: 1

    birds can get pretty big you know. even if you exclude ones that don't fly. of course it's probably got something to do with the beak.

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

    1. Re:flamingoes by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      Wow... I've heard of seacows, but aircows? That's just getting ridiculous.

  28. hard-headed Black Woodpecker by ballpoint · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A year ago I heard a big bang and found a dazzled rare (at least in my neck of the woods) Black Woodpecker on the ground. I managed to grab it before the cat did, held it in my hands for 5 minutes letting it come to its senses and let it fly away.

    The bird probably survived because woodpeckers should be well equipped to deal with head-shocking events.

    It's not often that you get to see these birds close up, not to mention hold them and quitely look at them. Quite an experience.

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  29. It's outside of the USA, end of story. (-: by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    But... I bet the Austrians have some kangaroos tucked away in a zoo somewhere, to satisfy tourists who mistype their destinations. I know we've got the odd stone castle tucked away in case the misreading goes the other way. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  30. Neighbour's used to catch crows (ravens in .uk) by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This was twenty-odd years ago, in Paraburdoo. Cat would pretend to be dead, lying in the hot, hot sun until a crow got to the point of actually reaching out to have just a little... BLAM! rude shock. Same cat would regularly beat up and chase away quite large dogs. Never seemed to fight with ours, though.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Neighbour's used to catch crows (ravens in .uk) by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 1

      Ravens are different from crows. They're, like, jumbo-size crows.

      Or did you mean that your neighbours cat would generally catch crows, exccept when it was in the UK, when it would go for the ravens?

    2. Re:Neighbour's used to catch crows (ravens in .uk) by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Ravens are not crows.

      Also ravens are bigger and typically smarter than crows.

      http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/3_ask/archive/qna/ 32 93_heinrich.html

      --
  31. Gee, we've killed about all of the preditors by Halvard · · Score: 1

    I think that pretty much says it all. Stew on that.

  32. /ME waves from Oz... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...happy that emus don't fly. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  33. News@11... by sepluv · · Score: 1

    Seriously though, birds are particularly prone to hitting glass (and buildings) in areas of high light pollution (like New York) -- many scientific studies have been done on this -- see The Fatal Light Awareness Program and the ODP for general light-pollution info.

    --
    Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
    [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    1. Re:News@11... by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      You call it a 'scientific' study as if that'll make anyone care.

  34. Next by El · · Score: 1

    What will they come up with next? Uh... airplanes?

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  35. The obvious answer by aztektum · · Score: 1

    Stop using windows! (the glass kind) There by increasing the amount of lights you need to use in the house (esp. in the summer time) and increasing power consumption!

    Great googly moogly

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  36. One hit per hour by dargaud · · Score: 1
    Moved back to the countryside while I'm looking for a job. My parents feed the birds and about once an hour one of them runs into the window of the room where I'm typing this, knocks himself out and gets eaten by the cat / crow / hawk that happened to pass first.

    But there are still plenty of those species. I'm more worried about some that have utterly disapeared in the 15 years I was away: no more swallows for instance. Global warming or excessive use of bug spray ?

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:One hit per hour by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that global warming has disrupted the swallows' migration patterns?

      Don't worry, they'll be back... and they'll hopefully bring plenty of coconuts with them.

  37. Not just birds - deer too by Discoflamingo13 · · Score: 1

    One of my neighbors had a 200-lb buck break through a sliding glass door into their living room, stomp around for a bit (spraying arterial blood over pretty much everything), and promptly leave. They think he might have been attracted by a miniature orange tree in their house. The buck died from blood loss about 10 feet from their house. They added curtains and a bunch of distracting plants in about a week.

    Moral of the story - if people want to fix the problem of things hitting glass, they'll probably need a strong incentive - like having to replace most of their carpet and furniture because it is thoroughly saturated in deer blood.

    1. Re:Not just birds - deer too by falzer · · Score: 1

      > The buck died from blood loss about 10 feet from their house.

      Hey, free deer.

    2. Re:Not just birds - deer too by Discoflamingo13 · · Score: 1

      Well, it was in Wisconsin - the sheriff tagged it, and they made sausage out of it.

  38. small potatos by hal9000 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "[Ornithologist Daniel Klem] estimates that only habitat destruction kills more birds [than flying into glass]."

    Err... other than the bird slaughtering industry I presume? Eight billion chickens and a quarter billion turkeys are slaughtered annually by the poultry industry in the US.

    Source: 2003 poultry stats from the US Dept of Agriculture
    (page 5)

    --
    Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    1. Re:small potatos by GeneralEmergency · · Score: 1


      Eight billion chickens and a quarter billion turkeys are slaughtered annually by the poultry industry in the US.


      How in the world do they catch all those wild chickens and turkeys? More importantly, how have I managed to not hit even one of these 8.25 billion fowl with my car yet?

      What? You mean that they're *NOT* wild birds? They're farmed? Farmed as in brought into existence by humans expressly for the purpose of feeding humans?

      Then what are you on about?

      --
      "A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
      GeneralEmergency
    2. Re:small potatos by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      Does the taking of life somehow become unworthy of mention when it is done purposefully?

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    3. Re:small potatos by A+Bugg · · Score: 1

      For food, yes it does, so get off your high horse, plants are alive too for christsakes.
      It's called the food chain for a reason.
      A Bugg

    4. Re:small potatos by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously suggesting that if I were to kill my neighbor's dog, I wouldn't have any explaining to do so long as I eat the remains? A lot of sense that makes.

      Minor complaint: If you look at relationships of what all the various organisms eat, it will look nothing like a linear chain. It's a complex network. "Food chain" is a misnomer.

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    5. Re:small potatos by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      All you carnivors need to back off, cut hal9000 some slack.
      If God had wanted us to eat animals, he would have made them out of meat.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    6. Re:small potatos by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      If God didn't want us to eat people, he wouldn't have made them out of meat either. I mean, c'mon. :-)

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    7. Re:small potatos by Dieppe · · Score: 1

      Well... if you were to kill your neighbor's dog that would be theft.

      However, the RIAA would like you to feel that killing your neighborbor's dog is actually as serious as a crime they like to call "copyright infringement"...

      Oh wait, I guess you could only do that if you put your neighbor's dog meat on a P2P site for all to, uh, download...

      (See, cause "copyright infringement != theft" because you aren't denying the original owner of the use of their dog and... Oh, never mind... mod me down, it made funny sense when I first wrote it.....)

  39. Re:Birds? News? by jc42 · · Score: 1

    What about people? Doesn't everybody here have at least one relative/friend who this has happened to?

    Some years ago, one of the tasts that I had involved occasionally delivering some equipment for events at a nearby synagogue. The only place to park and unload was next to a glass wall that had two glass doors. One evening, when backing out in the dark, I didn't notice that the door was still open. Crunch!

    The next day, when I went in to talk to the rabbi about it, first his secretary and then he laughed loudly. They had both done exactly the same thing.

    Eventually they faced the problem, and put some highly-reflective stickers on the inside of the door. It looked unaesthetic from the inside, which was the main hall. But it ended the problem of a broken door every few months.

    In any event, it's a bit odd to see a "news" story about problems with birds flying into glass. If you look at any birding mag from the past century, you'll find ads for stickers (mostly outlines of predatory birds like owls or falcons) to keep birds away. This has been a well-known problem ever since sheet glass was developed.

    When the first "glass tower" skyscrapers started getting built back in the late 40's, there were stories about how a new task for the janatorial crew was to pick up the dead birds from the sidewalks.

    So how did this get passed off as news?

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  40. Dilbert Cartoon by jameskojiro · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon where a bird complains about the "forcefield" that is really a Window.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  41. Windows are good by enosys · · Score: 1
    Windows are good (at least this meaning of "windows"... hehe). Would you rather live in a windowless box without any natural light ever or have holes in the walls with wind, rain and sometimes snow coming in?

    I guess it'd be ok to complain about glass that's not for seeing through but is just decorative like on some skyscrapers...

    1. Re:Windows are good by Demodian · · Score: 1

      ...without any natural light ever...

      We are nerds, remember? We don't need natural light!

  42. Just do what my grandmother does by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    She used to have a real problem with the neighborhood birds picking on her cat and stealing its food. So she goes to one of those "Everything 99 Cents" sh8tholes and picks up a long cord of cheap bright yellow tinsel, the kind you'd spiral around a Christmas tree. She takes that tinsel and wraps it all over her porch railings- up and down around and around, so that it's everywhere. I don't know how much the neighbors' property values suffer but it sure keeps the birds away. It's almost as if they have taste. They don't want to be seen anywhere near that stuff.

    1. Re:Just do what my grandmother does by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "neighborhood birds picking on her cat and stealing its food"

      I'd feel sorry for the cat, except for the peals of laughter.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  43. PETA by macdaddy · · Score: 1

    PETA will have a field day with this. I pop over to their site every once in a while to get a good laugh. Sensationalism as its best!

  44. what about the birds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (wont somebody please think of the birds?)

  45. Where are the bodies? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    If 1,000,000,000 birds are killed each year in the USA where are all the bodies? I think someone would have noticed...

    1. Re:Where are the bodies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cats, dogs, homeless bums, other eaters of carrion..

  46. Not the who story by macemoneta · · Score: 1

    Remember that 1,000,000,000 dead birds means 1,000,000,000 easy meals for birds that know how to avoid windows. The ones that hit my greenhouse rarely last through the day before other critters, including birds, leave nothing but a pile of feathers.

    For animals, an increase in the food supply usually means increased reproduction. So does this really have any impact on the birds population, or is it an increase in turnover?

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

    1. Re:Not the who story by *SpOoNdRiFt* · · Score: 1

      Negative. It's the unnecessary accelerated extinction of a species because they were pushed out of their habitat.

  47. Poem by joebok · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From Pale Fire by V. Nabokov:

    I was the shadow of the waxwing slain
    By the false azure in the windowpane;
    I was the smudge of ashen fluff--and I
    Lived on, flew on, in the reflected sky.
    And from the inside, too, I'd duplicate
    Myself, my lamp, an apple on a plate:
    Uncurtaining the night, I'd let dark glass
    Hang all the furniture above the grass,
    And how delightful when a fall of snow
    Covered my glimpse of lawn and reached up so
    As to make chair and bed exactly stand
    Upon that snow, out in that crystal land!


    Great book!

  48. PETA=People eating tasty animals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ho Ho

  49. Not necessarily the fittest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with your point. Except for the "that know how to avoid windows" assumption. Do they really know how to avoid windows? Or were they simply lucky enough to avoid windows on that day? If the latter, then the turnover is not assuring meals for the more fit birds. It's simply turnover.

  50. Windex by s2kdave · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the study is probably funded by the Windex commercials featuring birds flying into glass windows. :-)

  51. easy to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you continue to have that problem you might look at fixing it :) Seriously just a couple of stickers will keep birds from hitting your windows. They used to run into the building here until they but them up (they look like silhouettes of swooping birds) and they stopped. Cheap and nonintrusive.

  52. Only unfit. by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1
    Glass doesn't kill "fit and unfit" birds alike, it only kills the unfit.

    Don't get me wrong - it's a bad thing. But by definition, the birds that hit the glass and die before they reproduce are unfit. The real problem is that glass, um, moves the birds' cheese, changes the fitness function. We don't know how fast the birds will adapt to having to avoid transparent and reflective objects, so we ought to help them by not making so damn many of them.

  53. CR@P by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    The populations of birds are for the most part remaining stable. Those that declining are doing so for reasons other than running into windows. Therefore these birds happen to be dying by running into wondows rather than something else that would kill them at about the same rate, quite possibly starvation. Now, which is kinder?

    Why not come to the aid of earthworms (which are far more beneficial then most birds) and tell everyone not to walk on the ground after it rains?

    To keep most birds from running into windows, cut a piece of black paper or plastic into the shape of the sillouette of a raptor and stick it on the window. Stick it on the outside if reflection is a problem. Any that don't steer clear of a raptor's shadow might as well leave the gene pool.

    The problem isn't that they're dying, it's that they're dying where they can be found by someone who can get the media to listen to them as they pretend that if it weren't for Evil Humans the poor birds would live forever.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:CR@P by *SpOoNdRiFt* · · Score: 1

      But if we're responsible for killing them for no reason at all, we should rememdy this situation, and let natural selection remain natural.

    2. Re:CR@P by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      *SpOoNdRiFt* (722914) sez: "But if we're responsible for killing them for no reason at all, we should rememdy this situation, and let natural selection remain natural."

      Humans ARE natural. Humans evolved within, and continue to exist within, nature. Claiming otherwise is the height of egotism, as well as the same sort of mentality that people use to divorce themselves from the damage they do to the environment. Anyone who thinks humans are not part of nature are free to try to exist outside the food chain.

      If the problem is that there are too many of us, putting too much pressure on the ecosystem, fine, I can buy that. But we do not come from outside nature and everything we do is part of it.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    3. Re:CR@P by *SpOoNdRiFt* · · Score: 1

      I want to refer all of you to a book titled "The Last Extinction" by Kaufman and Mallory, published in 1986 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
      Just a few excerpts.. pg 1.
      "The prognosis is clear for the 5 to 10 million other kinds of living things that share the Earth. They are in big trouble."
      "...the entire liveable universe of other species can vanish overnight as one river is dammed or one hillside is laid bare."
      Norman Myers projected that by the end of this century, species will be vanishing at the rate of 100 per day, due largely to the destruction of tropical rainforests. On a human time scale, these rates may seem slow. On a geological time scale, however, the wheel is spinning at a blurring rate, and the disappearance of species amounts to a virtually instantaneous mass extinction."
      "...conservation of biological diversity means safeguarding both species and varieties within species."
      pg 58
      "...mass extinctions now take on a dual significance: destroyers of diverse, well adapted lineages and deliverers of new groups into dominance and diversification."
      "...So sweeping are the changes wrought by Man and so swift are they in their action that they obscure and almost submerge the slow march of the other processes of nature, and this difference in degree, associated with Man's purposefulness, almost inevitably leads to a sharp distinction being drawn between nature and man... but Man himself is still "Natures insurgent son." -Scottish naturalist James Ritchie in his book 'The influence of Man on Animal Life in Scotland'
      It sounds like he wants to draw the line, but we know we cannot because we are part of nature.
      The point is that the mass extinction of any species will have great effects on other species, if we continue to kill the birds and just write it off to 'Natural Selection' it could backfire right in our face, and maybe for the worse. In the end it comes down to conservation and being responsible. If we can do something to stop killing the birds needlessly, then lets take steps to do it, and fast! Yeah, we're part of nature. We're for sure the shaper of it. We have the technology to remedy this situation, but most choose not to. Save the birds, and maybe save ourselves in the process. It's unfair and selfish to push every other living thing out of the picture. Their is without a doubt a mass extinction of many species in the works, and we have caused it. I guess you can show a picture of the rhino's to your kids (or their kids), and maybe play back a recording of a whale but it's not fair to anyone that it should come to that (especially the extinct species). Unfortunately, the damage has been done in many cases. Let's turn it around!

  54. Is this Groundhog day? by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 1

    This was discussed on /. last year (2003) already.

    --
    My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
  55. Sandhill Cranes by core+plexus · · Score: 1
    I get some Sandhill Cranes in my yard here in Alaska every year, and not once has one come close to flying into the window. It's always the smaller birds, and then it is rare.

    Alaska Bugs Sweat Gold Nuggets

  56. Allision sensors anyone ? by geoswan · · Score: 1
    Maybe what is required is an allision sensor ? When it detects that a bird is at risk of alliding with a window it flashes a light, hoots a horn, or some other thing that might warn the bird away.

    (What is an allision? When something bumps into a stationary object it is an allision, not a collision.)

  57. From the obvious(tm) department... by Henry+Stern · · Score: 1

    In other news, predators kill billions of animals per year.

  58. So, where's the science? by nigelo · · Score: 1
    What is this doing in the science section?

    Where's the numbers to back up the assertion that 1 billion birds are slaughtered every day. 200 slaughters per skyscraper = 5 million skyscrapers. That's a lot of slaughtering by a lot of skyscrapers....

    I have birds hitting my windows (reflective tint film makes them mirror finish, I guess), but I have yet to see one slaughtered in the process.

    So, where's the science?

    Sounds like more of the same

    --
    *Still* negative function...
  59. badminton net by Gibberlins · · Score: 1

    One day I let my cat out in the back yard and was just sitting around drinking a beer. All of sudden I see a bird fly through the yard and right into the badminton net. It got stuck and I felt really bad so I spent about half an hour cutting it out of the net. One of the bird's wings was hurt so I set it off in a quiet place under some bushes and gave it some water. I checked on it later but it was gone.

  60. Birds are remarkably resilient by Foddrick · · Score: 1

    I had a budgie once that cleverly flew into a ceiling fan and was flung across the room and slammed into a wall. After recovering from the shock he was no worse for wear and lived on for a few more years.

    1. Re:Birds are remarkably resilient by *SpOoNdRiFt* · · Score: 1

      They're bones are hollow, they're not made for crashing into what may as well be a brick wall at top speed, especially if the bones we're talking about is the spinal cord. As a side note, birds ALWAYS hide their weakness and/or sickness. They are a flock animal and any signs of weakness or sickness will cause the flock to reject that member, therefore they keep it a secret. If you think your bird may not have been hurt by that 'incident', think again.

    2. Re:Birds are remarkably resilient by Foddrick · · Score: 1

      I actually did take him to the vet, crazy I know paying $30 for the vet to look at a $15 bird, but hey.. The vet said there was nothing wrong, barring a small bump on one of his bones. The bird is dead now, so maybe it did kill him slowly.

  61. Go read a book. by gnovos · · Score: 1

    killing the fit and the unfit That's not how it works... If you die, you are unfit, by definition. Birds that can't see glass or can't withstand the impact are unfit for that environment. Fitness is not some subjective thing, it's a rule.

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    1. Re:Go read a book. by *SpOoNdRiFt* · · Score: 1

      The rules have been changed by us. An invisible force that cracks your neck has nothing to do with natural selection. Inevitably it will lead to extenction because they cannot adapt to something they can't see. Remember natural selection refers to nature. A skyscraper is not natural.

    2. Re:Go read a book. by gnovos · · Score: 1

      The rules have been changed by us. An invisible force that cracks your neck has nothing to do with natural selection. Inevitably it will lead to extenction because they cannot adapt to something they can't see.

      Leading to extinction is a possible outcome of natural selection. You still seem to misunderstand how it works. If you can't see a window, and it kills you, then the birds who CAN vaugely sense it will survive. Windows don't kill bats, for example, because they developed echo-location. The birds who are extra chipper and like sing while flying may hear thier echo just in the nick of time and survive, and that trait may be passed on to thier children.

      There as no "rules" to be changed by us, there is only one "rule". That rule is simply, if you survive to bear children, you are fit to survive. A little circular, but that's how it works.

      The world that these birds live in is not some static, unchanging thing that we came and interrupted. New bird diseases pop up all the time killing swaths of them. Predators start hunting in new locations. Forests they live in burn down. Skyscrapers are no different. Tons of things are constantly changing for these animals and the end result is always the same: those fit enough will survive and bear children.

      Remember natural selection refers to nature. A skyscraper is not natural.

      It's as natural as a beaver dam or a termite mound. Just because humans do it doesn't make it unnatural. Besides the process of selection is what "natural" refers to. Unnatural selection would be something like picking bird's names out of a hat and killing them... But even that could be a form of natural selection if "luck" were something you could pass on to your kids.

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    3. Re:Go read a book. by *SpOoNdRiFt* · · Score: 1

      I see your point, that's an excellent post.
      However, what if we did cause the extinction of all species of birds because of this 'glass' problem? According to the rule, they would all be considered to be unfit- correct?
      And what if, by proxy other species died off because of an interruption of the food chain?
      And what if, because of an epedemic of overpopulation we contributed to other mass extinctions, eventually cutting our own food supply? Would it not be ourselve the ones that are truly unfit? That would throw a wrench in Darwin's theory, or at least work ironically in favor of us protecting the so-called 'unfit'.
      We are the only species to inhabit every continent on Earth. Our brains are so far superior to every living creature on Earth, that it would be more responsible to exclude ourselves from Darwin's theory (when compared with all other beings on Earth)and take measures to protect those that share the planet with us. We have identified a problem, and we should rectify it, not just write it off to Darwin's theory.

  62. David Attenborough's "The Death of Birds" by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
    First wind turbines and now glass. What will they come up with next...
    Thanksgiving dinner?
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    1. Re:David Attenborough's "The Death of Birds" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can someone please mod parent up? i think its really funny :)

    2. Re:David Attenborough's "The Death of Birds" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's funny. I think you're both idiots. I find nothing funny about killing beautiful, harmless, innocent creatures.

    3. Re:David Attenborough's "The Death of Birds" by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
      I find nothing funny about killing beautiful, harmless, innocent creatures.
      I've been a vegan since 1984.
      That means that I don't eat anything that comes from an animal, not meat, not seafood, not even milk, eggs, honey, or bee pollen.
      I don't even use refined sugar, because animal charcoal is used as part of the refining process.
      I don't wear leather shoes or a leather belt.
      I don't have any pets because I consider it animal slavery.
      I don't knowingly use products that were tested on animals, when I can help it.
      (Some medications are a bit of a problem here.)
      When there is an insect in the house, I catch it with a butterfly net and release it outside.

      Nonetheless, I can joke about killing animals in the same way that I can joke about killing humans.
      There are people here who joke about people being raped in jail (the tired "Bubba's boyfriend" line).
      Does that mean that they actually advocate or support people getting raped in jail, or that they would do it themselves?
      I don't think so (well, most of them).

      The killing of innocents, whether they be civilians in a war zone, people wrongfully convicted for murder, human children who haven't yet been born, or non-human animals, is a great tragedy in this nation, and, indeed, the world.
      That doesn't mean that we can't make fun of it.

      To summarize: Lighten up.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  63. A billion???? by jzarling · · Score: 1

    My parents are bird watchers and have created a "bird friendly" backyard meaning feeders, baths, a small pond, and trees and shrubs that birds like. (tho how "community" figured out a bluebird prefers a certain kind of house is beyond me.

    Anyway my point is with all the little feathered friends flying around I have never seen one hit a window. So if one billion are killed every year, which would be like 3 for every man,woman or child in the US alone, shouldnt I see like 6 birds hit the glass every year.

    --
    It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
    1. Re:A billion???? by *SpOoNdRiFt* · · Score: 1

      It's true, trust me. I work in a control tower, and they fly into the windows at top speed. It's a horrible, regular sight. Thankfully, they never knew what hit them because their neck gets instantly cracked. They come in all sizes. I have tried to put things out their to distract them, but it doesn't work- they look 'through'.

  64. Linux is the solution. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    Thats right now that we know windows kills birds we have yet another reason to use Linux.
    Sorry it had to be said :)

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  65. Re:CR@P - problem with reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a problem with your reasoning. Even if the total bird population is not going down, it is the population sizes of each species of bird that really matters. Species A and B could both be losing 20K birds a year to glass accidents, but if the population size of species A is one billion, and the population size of species B is 20K + 1, then there is a problem.

    Main concern: Not that birds are dying, but that rare bird populations could be dying, i.e. we are going to have a hell of a lot of pigeons and starlings, and nothing else.

    -A theoretical biologist with too much time

  66. Re:PEDA? by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1
    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
  67. Cobweb Decals by jake-in-a-box · · Score: 1

    or raptor silhoettes, both are available at reasonable cost from bird enthusiast suppliers. Theory is that these are things that birds notice. Raptors because they are dangerous, cobwebs because birds don't like having to clean them off their feathers. Of course, I don't know how many birds will be looking out for cobwebs at 250 ft altitude.

    --
    To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.
  68. [OT] Congrats by sbszine · · Score: 1

    You've successfully fended off every half-arsed 'argument' in this thread : )

    It's lunchtime here, so I go now to vegan yum cha.

    --

    Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    1. Re:[OT] Congrats by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      Yea, these boners aren't even worthy of responses, but it's fun to watch them spewing vitriol to make up for their inability to consider the issue with honesty.

      Well, off to make some Shells & Chreese!

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
  69. so what! by SammysIsland · · Score: 1

    UMMM.... can we say, "Natural Selection?" c'mon... say it with me.. "NATURAL SELECTION"