Slashdot Mirror


Trained Rats for Mine Detection

rikomatic writes "The dangerous profession of anti-personnel mine detection is getting a surprising new tool: giant Gambian rats (NY Times reg). Some resourceful Belgians have figured out how to train these 30-inch rodents to hunt out landmines. They are cheaper and work harder than dogs and are more reliable than metal detectors. Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?"

456 comments

  1. Dumb rats! by shoaler · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, they can't be trained too well or they'd have enough sense to stay away from those land mines.

    1. Re:Dumb rats! by akadruid · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know you're kidding but it's actually smart from the rat's perspective. They get bananas from it, and no explosion.

      Rats are:
      *Effective
      *Cheap
      *Relentless
      *Not attractive
      *Not heavy enough to detonate mines

      Therefore, the ultimate mine-detecting device.

      from the article:

      Rats are abundant, cheap and easily transported. At three pounds, they are too light to detonate mines accidentally. They can sift the bouquet of land-mine aromas far better than any machine. Unlike even the best mine-detecting dog or human, they are relentlessly single-minded.

      "Throw a stick for a dog to fetch, and after 10 times the dog will say, `Get it yourself, buddy,' " Mr. Weetjens said. "Rats will keep working as long as they want food."

      --
      "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
    2. Re:Dumb rats! by T-Ranger · · Score: 5, Funny
      "Throw a stick for a dog to fetch, and after 10 times the dog will say, `Get it yourself, buddy,' "

      Clearly Mr. Weetjens has never met a Border Collie

    3. Re:Dumb rats! by mark-t · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "Throw a stick for a dog to fetch, and after 10 times the dog will say, `Get it yourself, buddy,' " Mr. Weetjens said

      In my experience, only if the dog is abysmally lazy. Dogs don't fetch a stick to do work, they fetch because they want to play.

      <anecdote> I recall when I lived with my parents, they had a sheltie that had way more endurance for "fetch" than I, or anyone else in the family for that matter, ever did. She'd go for 30 or 40 tosses easily before wanting to take a breather and you'd think she'd had enough, but then after about 3 or 4 minutes, she'd be carrying the stick up to you again and drop it at your feet to throw it again... rather comical to watch, really... she'd drop it, and look up at you expectantly, and wait for a few seconds... if you didn't pick it up, she'd pick it up herself and then drop it again right at your feet, then she'd run away, all the while looking back to see if you are throwing the stick, if you still didn't pick it up, she'd come back to you and pick the stick up and drop it again at your feet (rinse, lather, repeat). Talk about single-minded!!! </anecdote>

    4. Re:Dumb rats! by naChoZ · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Throw a stick for a dog to fetch, and after 10 times the dog will say, `Get it yourself, buddy,' "

      I had a friend with a pitbull who purchased one fresh case of frisbees per summer because after the tenth throw, the dog didn't want to run again. So he shredded the frisbee with his teeth and dropped it at his owner's feet and looked at him like "There, throw that, m-f'er..."

      I saw one, too. Poor frisbee...

      --
      "I can be self-referential if I want to," said Tom, swiftly.
    5. Re:Dumb rats! by Rocky+Mudbutt · · Score: 3, Funny
      Actually, they wanted to use lawyers but found the rats would work cheaper.

      There are some things a rat won't do. For everything else there's HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.

      --
      Ethics II Axiom 2. "Man thinks." B. Spinoza
    6. Re:Dumb rats! by Helios1182 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think our Cairn Terrier had that beat. While my parents would get us ready for bed at night they would trough a tennis ball down the stairs and the dog would run down to fetch it and bring it back up. She could do this for 1 - 1.5 hours at a time.

    7. Re:Dumb rats! by Stitch_626 · · Score: 1

      If you look at it from the dog's point of view, if you didn't pick up the stick and throw it right away the dog was probably thinking "Stupid human...how can I make it clearer?"

      I have a cat the same way. She loves to chase wadded up paper. When I run out she just sits there as if to say "I'm waiting get some more paper". She's part Maine-coon and from what I understand this is normal for this breed.

      --
      Ohana means family. Family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.
    8. Re:Dumb rats! by carlos_benj · · Score: 2, Funny

      (rinse, lather, repeat)

      Hey, I remember you! The guy who walks downtown with a stick and sudsy hair....

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    9. Re:Dumb rats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what do you mean not attractive? i'm guessing you've never had a pet rat? :-( They are very intelligent animals.

    10. Re:Dumb rats! by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      My folks have a dog who plays ball by herself: she'll nudge the ball closer and closer to the edge of the porch, catching it just in time, until finally she pushes it off the edge and runs down, brings it back up, and starts over again. She prefers if we throw it for her (lacrosse sticks work great for this--good range with little motion, and no touching the slimy ball), but when we tire, she starts being a little scientist. ;-)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    11. Re:Dumb rats! by bot24 · · Score: 1

      My dog will have a tug-of-war with you, but he doesn't like to loose. He gets very defensive of his stuff when you try to take it. He waves it in your face and says, "Hey! Come play with me!" and then ends up pulling the thing apart until you let go, crying the whole time. If it gets to the point where he gives up, as soon as you put it down he's ripping it to shreds. He opens his toys and dumps the contents all over the house.

    12. Re:Dumb rats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those giant Gambian rats are especially attractive, with a silky coat an' stuff. Here's a Google image search clicky.

  2. Even dogs are getting outsourced... by aapold · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rats don't have a union and get paid 1/10th the food dogs do...

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
    1. Re:Even dogs are getting outsourced... by scubacuda · · Score: 2, Funny
      Hey...that sounds like programmers also.

    2. Re:Even dogs are getting outsourced... by Eccles · · Score: 5, Funny

      And note that these are Gambian rats. Even our rats are being outsourced!

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    3. Re:Even dogs are getting outsourced... by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      Rats don't have a union and get paid 1/10th the food dogs do...

      Right now, local children are used instead. Storing some sweets is probably cheaper than transporting those rats, so there is little incentive to stop that awful practice.

    4. Re:Even dogs are getting outsourced... by 6502_C64 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I don't know about you, but, I, for one welcome our new Gambian rat overlords.

    5. Re:Even dogs are getting outsourced... by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

      Nope programmers are the ones taking the jobs away from the rats. For example, today Programmers spend their lives in little twisty mazes of cubicles, all alike. This used to be the job of rats.

  3. Who is going to care? by thebra · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well I'm gonna guess PETA might care. They aren't happy about the military using dolphins.

    1. Re:Who is going to care? by kunudo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Screw PETA, kids avoid getting blown up while playing soccer etc beacuse of stuff like this.

    2. Re:Who is going to care? by irokitt · · Score: 1

      I live in San Diego, where they used to base the dolphins. They were always very careful about security because of the violent threats they kept recieving.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    3. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what they need? Robotic dolphins that can look for mines. Real dolphins could then be used to remotely control the robots. That would keep the real dolphins out of danger, while still using their mine-detecting intelligence. The robotic dolphins could have laser beams attached to their heads for mine destruction when mines are found, too!

    4. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dolphins are cute thats why.. nobody cares about the nasty looking creatures.. In canada when we had to cull our seals tons of activists whined because of the cuteness .. little did they know we _had_ to do it or our cod population would have dissapeared.

    5. Re:Who is going to care? by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Dolphins are cute, rats aren't, especially big ones.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    6. Re:Who is going to care? by hotbutteredhtml · · Score: 1

      How about frickin sharks with frickin laser beams attached to their heads!

      --
      how 'bout I give you the finger....and you give me my phone call.
    7. Re:Who is going to care? by n1ywb · · Score: 1

      Yes, but nobody is happy with PETA about anything. I think it has something to do with associating meat bearing animals with victims of serial killers, and generally being a nuisance.

      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
    8. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The solution is obvious... use PETA members instead of the rats. I like rats.

    9. Re:Who is going to care? by kippy · · Score: 1

      Naw, hippies and PETA folks usually just give a shit about animals if they are cute, magestic or they think they are smart.

    10. Re:Who is going to care? by Erwos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Too bad PETA threw away all its credibility on stupid, bullshit issues.

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    11. Re:Who is going to care? by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Screw PETA, kids avoid getting blown up while playing soccer etc beacuse of stuff like this.

      How exactly do dolphns detect mines on a soccer field? Perhaps you meant water polo?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:Who is going to care? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny
      "Screw PETA, kids avoid getting blown up while playing soccer etc beacuse of stuff like this."

      Why the hell are kids playing soccer in the ocean surrounded by mines?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    13. Re:Who is going to care? by Henrik+S.+Hansen · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Screw PETA, kids avoid getting blown up while playing soccer etc beacuse of stuff like this.

      It must be nice to be able to categorize the values of lives like that.

      Do you realize that people were saying roughly the same thing about black people back when slavery was abound? The lives of black people were obviously not worth as much as white people's lives.

      Sadly, our ethics has not developed much further in that manner, so man still treats other species very poorly. Just think about how your meat was treated prior to it being processed into your steak.

      I'm not saying that we should all become vegetarians (I'm not), but we should definitely start doing something about how we treat animals.

    14. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like some activists need culling.

    15. Re:Who is going to care? by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In order to survive on this world we must eat living creatures - be they plant or animal. For a balanced diet we must have animal flesh; plant food just doesn't hack it alone. To get animal flesh we must kill the animal. Similarly, these same creatures can serve us in other useful ways (seeing eye dogs, carrier pigeons, and Gambian rat mine detectors) that is certainly more 'humane' than being food.

      Given the above, as long as these giant Gambian rats are treated well until their eventual explosive demise (which is a quicker cleaner death than some of the destruction and death caused to humans by PETA fanatics), I don't have a problem with it.

      What I get angry about is people who don't treat their animals well: they don't feed them, care for them, or provide an environment that is enriching for the animal during its life. The wanton destruction through neglect is really the problem - not animals used in testing, or Gambian rat mine detectors. What is worse is when people decide they have to abandon an animal 'in the wild'.

      I can't count how many dogs and cats have been dropped off at the rural crossroads near my house. If you aren't going to be able to take care of an animal, why have it in the first place? We end up having to kill them anyway when they become a nuisance (hungry, scared and lost, they put pressure on the local ecology and farms - and become dangerous to young children). It would be more humane for these people just to take these animals into their back yards and shoot them in the head in the first place.

      This lack of responsibility is immature and disturbing; adults who in many cases hold responsible positions in society - yet stoop so low. Worse is the poor example they show their children - who themselves become poor stewards.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    16. Re:Who is going to care? by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that dolphins are intelligent. To summarize, they seem to have a pretty complex language, they've been observed communicating with each other and working in groups like humans, and, IIRC, they've passed the self-awareness mirror test (they can recognize "themselves" in a mirror, as opposed to believing it's another animal, like regular animals do).

      Rats are, well, rats.

    17. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but who's there to protect the rats and dolphins?

    18. Re:Who is going to care? by chimpo13 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you saying PETA destroyed any credibility with "holocaust on your plate"? That's where PETA compared bacon to millions of dead Jews, Roma (Gypsies), the handicapped, Slavs (Poles, Russians, and others), Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals. If so, you're crazy. It's obviously the same thing, as any Hannibal Lector will tell you.

    19. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, I've always liked

      PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals
    20. Re:Who is going to care? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My cats all pass the mirror test, to an extent. One of them thought it was another cat when she first saw herself in the mirror, but only that first time. Now they see themselves in the mirror all the time (especially the one cat that spends all her free time sitting in the bathroom sink), and don't react to their mirror images at all.

      I don't know what they think their mirror images are, if they know it's themselves, or if they've just learned to ignore it. But they certainly don't believe it's another animal or else they'd react to it.

    21. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure Joe Victim would love to hear your bleeding heart animal rights story while his leg is being amputated from having been injured by a mine.

    22. Re:Who is going to care? by Annirak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ever heard of a *land* mine?

    23. Re:Who is going to care? by Spatula+Sam · · Score: 5, Funny
      Why the hell are kids playing soccer in the ocean surrounded by mines?

      Hey I think you just invented the next x-game.

    24. Re:Who is going to care? by cyberlync · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a difference between people (of any color) and animals. That difference is sapience. That alone makes it alright to risk any number of animals to save the life of one human. Its the same reason that animal based medical research is ok.

      Now don't get me wrong, if animals arn't need they shouldn't be used. Its not ok to substitute an animal for a machine just becuase its cheaper. In this instance there isn't an as effective alternative to the rats. In this case not only is it fine to use the rats we have a moral requirement to do so.

      No matter how you want to cut it non-sentient species just don't rate as highly as sentient species.

      --
      I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
    25. Re:Who is going to care? by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Informative

      In order to survive on this world we must eat living creatures - be they plant or animal. For a balanced diet we must have animal flesh; plant food just doesn't hack it alone. To get animal flesh we must kill the animal.

      Actually, this isn't true. It's perfectly possible to have a balanced diet with all the human nutritional requirement simply by eating plants. The problem is that it's not easy: you have to know which foods have what nutrients, and be sure to eat enough of them. Protein is a big problem too; there are non-animal foods with a lot of protein (like nuts), but just eating salads isn't going to be enough. That's why there's so many college kids that have nutritional problems. They decide to become vegetarians because it's "cool" or whatever, but they don't actually do their homework and learn how to do it properly, so they end up with insufficient protein, low iron, etc. Eating meat makes it much easier to have a balanced diet.

      For the record, I'm a happy carnivore.

      Now, if you were talking about cats, you'd be correct: cats require certain amino acids that can only be found in meat. Dogs and humans are omnivorous, and can survive without meat if necessary, but not cats.

    26. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1) they multiply faster
      2) you don't get attached to them

    27. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Tell that to the parents of some kids that would have been alive if the rats had been available in their mine-infested landscape.

      Tell that to me, married to the daughter of a diabetic that required pig insulin to live. My wife also required experimental heart surgery that had been perfected on dogs 40 years ago. Sorry, that argument just doesn't rub with me.

    28. Re:Who is going to care? by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny
      "Ever heard of a *land* mine?"

      Yes. But I've never heard of dolphins being trained to find them.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    29. Re:Who is going to care? by J'raxis · · Score: 2, Informative
      My mistake, it's a little bit more complex than I originally explained. Here's a quote from the Wikipedia dolphin intelligence entry:
      The standard test for self-awareness in animals is the mirror recognition test, developed by Gallup in the seventies, in which a temporary dye is placed on an animal's body, and the animal is then presented with a mirror. Most animals react to a mirror as if it is another animal. However, like great apes, dolphins have been shown to recognise the mirror image as themselves, by examining the marking on their body. Evidence for mirror recognition by dolphins was anecdotal until the nineties, but the scientific studies carried out by researchers Marten and Psarakos (1994, 1995) and Reiss and Marino (1998) confirmed it.
    30. Re:Who is going to care? by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

      I can't count how many dogs and cats have been dropped off at the rural crossroads near my house.

      In Maryland and Virginia, we are seeing the release of non-native pets (Snakehead Fish in Maryland)which can greatly affect the native creatures. I agree with you totally that taking care of an animal means taking care for life (be that yourself or putting it up for adoption). Releasing most animals back to the wild is cruel.

      As for the vegetarian issue, I've got several friends/coworkers that have been living this lifestyle for a while (10+ years in most cases). None have shared any problems outside of some difficulties in restaraunts offering the vegetarian meals.

      Me, I bought my grill and my local policy is no tofu.

    31. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      According to this article on The Age, the rats do not weigh enough to set off the mines. So, they are far less likely to get blown up as a human or dog. Therefore, using them is more humane than using a dog. If demining organizations don't use rats or dogs, what do they use? I suppose we could use PETA members. Any volunteers???

    32. Re:Who is going to care? by kunudo · · Score: 1

      It must be nice to be able to categorize the values of lives like that.

      I don't believe there's an inherent *value* to any life. My personal preference is that I like it, though. I prefer humans over rats too, but maybe I'm biased.
      Let me repeat that for you: there is no inherent special value to living things. You may decide that all life is infinetly valuable, but that doesn't define it as a global constant, so to speak.

    33. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think the point being made was that the person saying screw PETA was going overboard because PETA hadn't said a thing about rats clearing land mines. Kids don't get killed by mines in the ocean, and rats don't have brains the same size as humans, so the comparison is unfair.

    34. Re:Who is going to care? by Seek_1 · · Score: 1

      hmm....

      /me having visions of 30 PETA members locked in a big metal box stuck out in the sun on a tarmack for two days..

      yes, I do believe that could work!

    35. Re:Who is going to care? by Henrik+S.+Hansen · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There is a difference between people (of any color) and animals. That difference is sapience. That alone makes it alright to risk any number of animals to save the life of one human. Its the same reason that animal based medical research is ok.

      Actually, thinking about it you do make a point. I agree that there should be an ethical differentiation of sentient species and non-sentient species.

      However, I think you are wrong in saying that any number of animals should be risked to save a single human. The key point being: how do you decidee when a species is sentient or not? You really can't, can you? To some degree, maybe. Apes, for instance, should be considered sentient. And what about robots? (OK, that part of the discussion is probably best left out for a few more years :)

      It seems that you just think that only humans are sentient, which I certainly don't agree with.

    36. Re:Who is going to care? by Arathrael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whether dolphins are cute, or rats not, is a matter of opinion. I think it's typically a matter of uninformed opinion, but that's just my opinion. :-)

      I personally think rats are cute. I have a exceptionally cute rat sitting on me licking my hand as I'm typing this, so I'd argue that I have some idea of what I'm talking about. They're also intelligent, clean (yes, clean), and they make excellent, and increasingly popular, pets. I have eight myself (not as excessive a number as it might sound - they're social creatures who like company, and looking after multiple rats isn't hugely different from looking after one).

      Most people when they've met rats I've had have tended to find them cute, despite some of their initial preconceptions. That's just my experience of course, and if you think rats aren't cute, fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But I do find it somewhat depressing that the majority of people (and I'm not saying you're one of them) who express that opinion know pretty much nothing about rats. Just shows how easily people in general accept the opinions foisted on them by the society in which they develop I suppose.

      Anyway, I'd also argue that whether they're cute or not is irrelevant to this topic, or it should be anyway. 'Animal rights' shouldn't be based on the cuteness of the animal in question, it should be based on the actual facts of the situation in question, and cuteness doesn't really enter into that. In this case, the rats are rewarded for the work, and there's little risk - as the article says, they're too light to set off the mines. So while I care - and as I expect anyone else who is concerned with 'animal rights' and isn't irrationally prejudiced against rats cares - I don't have a problem with using rats for this purpose, so long as they're treated humanely otherwise.

    37. Re:Who is going to care? by zors · · Score: 1

      Has anyone actually determined what good they've done?

      This has tought me the difference between PETA and rats:

      Rats contribute something to society.

    38. Re:Who is going to care? by radish · · Score: 2, Informative

      a balanced diet we must have animal flesh; plant food just doesn't hack it alone

      Wow. I must tell that to all my vegetarian friends. All of whom are way healthier than me (who loves a good steak) and some of whom do athletic things like run marathons. Which would kill me dead.

      I mean - I support the freedom of choice in what to eat, and I have no problems at all with killing animals for food (provided those animals aren't in short supply and are treated humanley) but many years of experience from many millions of people demonstrates that humans can survive perfectly well without meat. Anything else you read is plain FUD.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    39. Re:Who is going to care? by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 3, Interesting


      > The lives of black people were obviously not worth as much as white people's lives.

      Okay, so let's take this to the logical head.

      Your baby and a rat both wander into the path of a speeding truck. Which one do you save? Think quickly.

      Tick tock, hero. Tick tock...

    40. Re:Who is going to care? by Annirak · · Score: 1, Funny

      Lets follow this thread through and see what happened. First, thebra made a statement, then he cited a similar example to back himself up.

      thebra:
      Statement: "Well I'm gonna guess PETA might care."
      Support:"They aren't happy about the military using dolphins."

      Next kunudo made an assertion that we shouldn't care about thebra's statement

      kunudo's Reply: "Screw PETA, kids avoid getting blown up while playing soccer etc beacuse of stuff like this."

      Then you came out of left field, obviously having not understood the above sequence of posts.

      You: "Why the hell are kids playing soccer in the ocean surrounded by mines?"

      I think you missed something.

    41. Re:Who is going to care? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I try not to burn my food, much less reduce it to ashes.

    42. Re:Who is going to care? by unbiasedbystander · · Score: 0

      SCREW PETA I want a T-Shirt that has that written on it.

    43. Re:Who is going to care? by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Rats, PETA members, or both?

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    44. Re:Who is going to care? by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it was a dare like this one

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    45. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's so biased...

      Why are humans sentient and other animals not? Why is a human "more special"? What about dolphins, cats, other primates, even the octopus?

      Of course you may like humans more because they are your species (and therefore it's easier/more pleasant/more fruitful to interact with them than with giant rats). So, replying to the other poster who asked about choosing between saving your baby and a rat -- or even, so as not to be so radical and make it too easy, someone else's baby (I won't dare to say "a black baby", in a reference to the other post because people wouldn't get it) and a rat, or an adult and a rat -- you may like humans more than rats. But I'd choose saving an armadillo rather than a dog (I don't like dogs).

      Of course it's easy to make a differentiation between a sea urchin and a chimpanzee, but can you really see that much difference between another mammal and a human?

    46. Re:Who is going to care? by Kadagan+AU · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's why there's so many college kids that have nutritional problems. They decide to become vegetarians because it's "cool" or whatever, but they don't actually do their homework and learn how to do it properly, so they end up with insufficient protein, low iron, etc.

      Silly me, I thought my nutritional problems in college were due to junk food and alcohol. ;)

      --
      This space for rent, inquire within.
    47. Re:Who is going to care? by D+H+NG · · Score: 3, Informative
      Unfortunately, in PETA's view, a life of a rat and a life of a child are more or less equivalent.

      Q: "Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?"

      A: No. Look at it another way: Suppose that the only way to save 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn't that be worth it? Most people would agree that it would be wrong to sacrifice one human for the "greater good" of others because it would violate that individual's rights, but when it comes to sacrificing animals, the assumption is that human beings have rights and animals do not. Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.

    48. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you're just putting your life, or other people's lives, in front of other beings'.

      It's like saying "send the <insert race/nationality/linguistic group here> to find the bombs, we don't want any of our people injured."

      Just it's not jews, it's rodents.

    49. Re:Who is going to care? by pacc · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Brigitte Bardot couldn't make the difference between dogs and rats either.

      But if I'd blame her someone ought to tell me what it is first.

    50. Re:Who is going to care? by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      So, where do they get vitamin B12? Presumably from pills or foods that have been artificially fortified - plant food alone isn't enough, and would lead to irreversible neurological damage outside of a technologically advanced society.

    51. Re:Who is going to care? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      I thought the line for sentience was self-realization. For (bad) example some animals can tell if the image in the mirror is them, and some can't. Of course, two animals of the same breed might differ on this point. But then there are crows which are tool users, and will bend a piece of wire to fish food out of a hole, and they live in societies, how do we make a decision there?

      To me the ultimate issue is this: You should minimize your loss of intelligent life. The more intelligent it is, the more important it is. I am willing to lose entire colonies (but not species) of rats to save one human life, or perhaps even to save a limb or two attached to a human from birth. But I would hesitate at killing a bunch of monkeys to save a life.

      finally, I think your intent and the way the animals die should be considered. A rat on a land mine is likely going to end up as rat puree in less than a tenth of a second. It's really not a bad way to go (as if there were a good way) because death is more or less instantaneous. You know how you have those dreams where something terrible happens (I had one a couple nights ago where I was in an out of control car because some work I had done on my suspension failed or something and I woke up right before I crashed thinking "out loud" to myself "I hope this is a dream") and you get that sinking feeling in your stomach? Well, you wouldn't even have time for it to sink all the way. On the other hand, if you have the rats getting impaled and bleeding to death in agony or dragging their guts across the fields or something, well, that seems to me to be kind of sick and wrong.

      Besides, didn't someone come up with some kind of spider robot where you attach bamboo (you could use fiberglass, preformed fiberglass tube can be made very cheaply and it doesn't need to be milspec because the whole point is that the tubes get destroyed) canes to the legs and it walks through minefields poking around and getting legs blown off?

      In the end though, I just can't feel bad about some rats. I think of them as the animal equivalent of fleas or mosquitoes in that no matter how many you kill there's still more of them out there somewhere and when you encounter them in their natural state they are always a pain in the ass. They'll happily eat you alive if you're sufficiently disabled, why shouldn't we use them to find and/or detonate mines?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    52. Re:Who is going to care? by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative
      It's perfectly possible to have a balanced diet with all the human nutritional requirement simply by eating plants. The problem is that it's not easy: you have to know which foods have what nutrients, and be sure to eat enough of them. Protein is a big problem too


      While it's true you need to eat a well varied diet to make sure you're getting enough of everything, and you must be conscious of protein, if what you're eating is fairly widely varied, even protein isn't difficult to get.

      Your body will get all it needs to build its proteins or assemble what is present in what you eat.

      It is no longer the thinking you need to eat rice+beans (for example) to have a complete protein. You're more likely to have to worry about iron and a few other things than protein.

      Here's a few links:

      http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/proteinexplain.htm l
      http://veggietable.allinfo-about.com/articles/v egg iepyramid.html
      http://www.ivillage.com/food/hlthe at/veggie/articl es/0,,165835_90543,00.html

      (And, yes, I am an herbivore.)
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    53. Re:Who is going to care? by Wehesheit · · Score: 1

      The reason they're healthier than you is because they run marathons and excercise. Every vegetarian I've met has been in relatively good shape because they tend to be the ones to take care of their bodies. The rest of us just float around half assed.

      --
      This P.I.G. will walk on the water, This P.I.G. will walk on the sea, This P.I.G. will walk whereever he wants.
    54. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not saying that we should all become vegetarians (I'm not), but we should definitely start doing something about how we treat animals.


      I get it. It just isn't going to start with you, right?

    55. Re:Who is going to care? by canoe_head · · Score: 0

      Screw PETA? Is that anything like fucking the dog?

    56. Re:Who is going to care? by sirvulcan · · Score: 1

      PETA.. People Eating Tasty Animals

    57. Re:Who is going to care? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Do you realize that people were saying roughly the same thing about black people back when slavery was abound? The lives of black people were obviously not worth as much as white people's lives.

      It is YOU who is attempting to devalue the lives of black people.

      Not only is your post intellectually dishonest, but it's factually inaccurate. In case you didn't know Irish indentured servants were often treated far worse than the african slaves. Indentured servants had to be let go eventually so there was less value in them. The most dangerous jobs were given to Irish indentured servants because if they were killed in the process, the loss to the plantation master was lower than if an african died.

      Sadly, our ethics has not developed much further in that manner, so man still treats other species very poorly.

      Uh huh?

      Just think about how your meat was treated prior to it being processed into your steak.

      Gee, it was given food, water, a pasture to roam, protected from wolves, mountain lions and diseases. Then it was killed relatively quickly before becoming my dinner.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    58. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why the hell are kids playing soccer in the ocean surrounded by mines?
      Hey I think you just invented the next x-game. "

      A buddy and I tried to invent an x-game once. We tried to play frisbee while rollerblading. We figured that it had almost all the requisits:
      1) made of two trademarked words: frisbee + rollerblade
      2) enhanced difficulty and danger possibility over either activity alone
      3) it's actually pretty lame, if you try it

      The only thing we were really missing is the consumption of some cabonated beverage. We figure if we'd had some beer or maybe mt. dew then hair rock would have started playing and chicks in bikinis would have magically appeared.

    59. Re:Who is going to care? by alcmena · · Score: 1

      Unless, as the article points out, they are backwards enough that they are literally eating their own crap.

    60. Re:Who is going to care? by Nosf3ratu · · Score: 0

      Given the proper education about vegetarianism/veganism, it is far healthier than many people would have you believe. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of meat eaters claiming that vegeterianism is a dangerous way of life unless you "work really hard" at it, or you "do your homework." Claiming that is so blatantly obvious, it's pathetic. That's only a "valid argument" because vegetarianism is not the norm. If the tables were turned, and everyone on the planet was a vegan, yet there was this new "hip subculture" of people who ate meat, I guarantee you that every vegan would be saying, "Yes, eating meat can be a viable lifestyle, but you have to know how to do it. You can't eat all meat. The meat of humans, for example, will make you sick. And naerly 75% of chicken sold in the U.S. is infected with salmonella, so you have to know how to cook it. Furthermore, you must be sure to balance it out by still eating plenty of grains and vegetables, or your hair will fall out." It's only necessary to "work really hard" at being vegan/vegetarian, because the food industry, especially the fast food and restaraunt industries, do not give people any alternatives to eating greasy carcasses for lunch. A vegan lifestyle is far healthier than whatever you're living now, it just requires more work, but not because humans are intended to eat meat, rather, it's what's primarily available.

      Whether you like it or not, this idiotic argument is precisely the same as saying, "Yes, you can run Linux, but you have to do your homework, and be very careful not to IRC as root."

      Bottom line is that anything worth doing requires work.

      --
      The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori
    61. Re:Who is going to care? by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the game-within-a-game from Final Fantasy X? Blubber-ball or some such shit.

      "Extreme Rice!" - MST3K

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    62. Re:Who is going to care? by s.fontinalis · · Score: 1

      How about if we could save 10,000 mentally deficient babies by sacrificing 1? You do realize that large mammals, including endangered species, are killed and maimed by mines?

    63. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quoting my (ex)sister-in-law the Nurse, "There are three types of vegitarians: the liars, the malnurished, and the very busy."

    64. Re:Who is going to care? by jargoone · · Score: 1

      Gee, it was given food, water, a pasture to roam, protected from wolves, mountain lions and diseases. Then it was killed relatively quickly before becoming my dinner.

      Maybe for your steak.

      I took a class called "Speciesism" my senior year of undergrad. We read books and articles pretty much about the topics being discussed in this story. One thing that's appalling is the treatment animals receive in so-called "factory farms". A quick web search will enlighten you.

      Yes, I suck because I know this and still don't change my ways. Oh well.

    65. Re:Who is going to care? by Uggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hah, you know how many gophers you've got to plough under to grow an acre of corn? EVERYTHING we do impacts nature, kills living stuff, and reduces resources.

      We need only to be aware, to respect, to manage, and to not be cruel. Give a little respect to that cow that made that delicious burger. Honor that wonderful salmon steak.

      It's not wrong to kill to eat/survive/learn. It's wrong to not appreciate or to carelessly waste life.

      --
      Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
    66. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, get a patent on this!

    67. Re:Who is going to care? by localman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought the line for sentience was self-realization. For (bad) example some animals can tell if the image in the mirror is them, and some can't.

      Humans don't develop this ability until 1 or 2 years of age. So maybe we should use infants for mine detection? ;)

      Cheers.

    68. Re:Who is going to care? by warpath · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it a joke? Hence the +Funny mod?

    69. Re:Who is going to care? by Zareste · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Screw PETA, kids avoid getting blown up while playing soccer etc beacuse of stuff like this

      Note how that always comes from people who would just as easily use those kids as mine detectors.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    70. Re:Who is going to care? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Bottom line is that anything worth doing requires work.

      Except that veganism isn't "worth doing". I happen to like eating meat; it tastes good.

      And since when does eating human meat make you sick? People have eaten human meat in various situations for thousands of years, and so have many animals.

      The problem with vegans is that they're a bunch of self-righteous pains in the ass that refuse to get along with anyone that eats meat, and you can't associate with them because they refuse to eat at any restaurant and just whine and complain that there's nothing for them to eat. If you want to be a total outsider to society, fine: go buy a cabin in rural Montana, make your own garden, and write a manifesto. The rest of us have heard your arguments for year, have rejected them, and are sick of it.

    71. Re:Who is going to care? by localman · · Score: 1

      What a lousy hypothetical. If my baby and a random person were both in the path of a speeding truck I'd save my baby. What about if it were my dog and some random person. I'd probably save my dog.

      "Logic" is useless when misapplied.

      You're creating a false dilemma. The point of the parent post was that we can still minimize the suffering of living things while continuing to value human life above non-human life.

      In the land mine case I say "go for it". It doesn't seem cruel to the rats and it saves lives (human, dog) and loads of money. For me this is a good enough solution.

      Squirting irritant cosmetic products in rabbits eyes? Not so sure about that. I'd prefer if we didn't, thank you.

      De-beaked chickens clawing, shitting and rotting all over each other while waiting to be processed? No thanks. I'll buy free range meat whenever I can.

      Just because you can reduce every decision to a black-and-white hypothetical doesn't mean that the real world works that way.

      Cheers.

    72. Re:Who is going to care? by JerkBoB · · Score: 1

      I'll bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

      "Hey everyone, there Annirak sitting by (him|her|it)self in the corner! Let's go screw with (him|her|it) by making a joke and watching (him|her|it)self get worked into a tizzy trying to correct our faulty logic!"

      As an aside, one trait of people with Asperger's Syndrome (from the DSM-IV), is "Low to no apparent sense of humor". Look it up, you might learn something about yourself.

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...
      Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
    73. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what would happen if the cod population disappeared? 1% of Canada's economy would vanish with it. The horror!

      There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that seals had anything to do with the decline of cod or that culling has any beneficial effects on fisheries. Scientists at the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans have acknowledged this for a decade, and the DFO even states that the seal cull is "not an attempt to assist in the recovery of groundfish stocks."

      If you want to kill seals, that's fine with me; kill seals. But don't spread FUD to make it seem like a noble conservation effort.

    74. Re:Who is going to care? by peg0cjs · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.

      I will happily grant Rover the exact same "human" rights as a person as soon as he files his lawsuit against the government.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (Mainly due to Bill & Ted's Karma Adventure)
    75. Re:Who is going to care? by Fjord · · Score: 1

      Squirting irritant cosmetic products in rabbits eyes? Not so sure about that. I'd prefer if we didn't, thank you.

      So what is the solution. A company is trying to make a new concealer that doesn't clump when you sweat. How do they make sure it doesn't burn your skin off when you put it on?

      Or is the solution to say that current cosmetics are enough for the market and no research should continue?

      --
      -no broken link
    76. Re:Who is going to care? by smurf975 · · Score: 1

      I say if the PETA disagrees then have their members volunteer to clean up the mines!

      --
      -- I don't buy it, I grow it.
    77. Re:Who is going to care? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Human meat isn't overly abundant in nutrients that human beings actually need. Thus, you are more liable to get sick from it than you are to get sick by eating steak, for example (MCD notwithstanding).

    78. Re:Who is going to care? by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      Rats are very intelligent and obviously self aware. The pass the mirror test too! They have a language. Bluntly rats are so intelligent I could make a fair argument that they are smarter than the average Senator or Congressman.

      It doesn't bother me one bit if they get blown up saving humans. Congressmen or Rats take your pick. Neither species is human so what do I care.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    79. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point he was trying to make was, that there is a logical division between saving someone's life with the use of an animal and just using animals for corporate profit. I for one do not really care if the corporations advance cosmetics and I believe that the quality of an animal's life is worth more than profits I will never see. As well cramping them up and mutilating them to squeeze out another dime per ton of chicken seems a little excessive too. Therefore it is worth the few extra cents for the simple fact of not being evil and buying a non-mutilated, non-cramped, and non-crapped on chicken.

    80. Re:Who is going to care? by Cecil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That alone makes it alright to risk any number of animals to save the life of one human.

      Maybe in your opinion, but that is very, very far from being considered a universal truth of any sort. Certainly not all of us have such a high opinion of humans. If I had to choose between saving the life of a cat or my boss, sentient or not guess which I would choose? And I'd feel it was at least as morally neutral as choosing one human over another to save.

      Most animals with moderately sized brains have the ability to learn. This at least qualifies them as intelligent, and therefore equal, in my books. And some are not more equal than others. Sentient is a rather meaningless term as far as I'm concerned, and should not be used to decide whether a creature deserves to live or die any more than the same choice should be made based on distinctions such as whether it has feathers or fur, or is green or pink, or is large or small.

      I don't argue that sometimes animal testing is needed for the good of all, but it should be decided based on careful consideration of the issues and types of suffering involved, rather than a blanket "moral right".

      cut it non-sentient species just don't rate as highly as sentient species.

      I'm just glad there are plenty of people who don't think that way.

    81. Re:Who is going to care? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      I think the point is cosmetics in general are not a need. Getting dead or dismembered walking through a field rates pretty high on my list of things to avoid. A company does not need to make a new cosmetic people dont need a new cosmetic people do need all there limbs and there life. You can tell you have be to removed from reality and it's harshness when you start to value an animals life over your own species but that dosent mean we get to abuse them either. Use animals in war, sure go ahead if it means less lives lost or that some sergent comes back physcialy intact let the critters die. Making the cosmetic people come up with a different posibly more expensive method of testing isn't a great burden to avoid turturing animals, stem cell grown eyes would be a nice double good thing it would be something to test on for the cosmetic industry and might actualy do something usefull like give a blind person sight.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    82. Re:Who is going to care? by localman · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, well, with all the "no animal testing" products out there, by companies which are often at the forefront of the research, I guess there must be a way around this, no?

      I'm guessing there aren't that many totally unknown chemicals being introduced into cosmetics. And new formulations can be safely tested on humans who are willing to put up with a possible itchy red spot for $25.

      (I was once paid to be a lab rat myself, mind you).

      But sure -- if there's some truly unknown but seemingly useful substance and nobody can come up with a way to test it without torturing animals... I'd probably say go ahead. Once you know, stop testing it that way. But you don't need to squirt 500 new variations on the same 20 shampoo ingredients into a hundred rabbit eyes every year because the color or fragrance ratios have changed.

      Cheers.

    83. Re:Who is going to care? by Annirak · · Score: 1

      Just because it's +Funny modded doesn't make it a joke. It just means the mod thought it was Funny.

      Whether or not the OP *intended* the post to be a joke is not decided by how the post is modded.

    84. Re:Who is going to care? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The problem with vegans is that they're a bunch of self-righteous pains in the ass that refuse to get along with anyone that eats meat, and you can't associate with them because they refuse to eat at any restaurant and just whine and complain that there's nothing for them to eat.

      Then you hang around assholes. I know a number of vegetarians, and none of them will comment on food you order. I find that if I order something without meat, others will often comment on it long before the vegetarians I know comment on others eating meat.

      But yes, I often complain at restaurants about the food choices. "hold the bacon" on a sandwitch sends them into fits. If they won't make it as I want it, then there is a problem.

    85. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try yeast. There's plenty of B12 in unfiltered homebrew.

    86. Re:Who is going to care? by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      I know how my meat was treated prior to becoming a steak; exceptionally well. Lots of good food, gentle handling, followed by a swift, painless, and totally unanticipated death.

      And all for the most selfish of reasons. Stressed animals don't make good steak.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    87. Re:Who is going to care? by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 1

      To get animal flesh we must kill the animal.

      Balderdash. I've been subsisting for four years now by hacking the legs off of live cows and fixing them up with tourniquets so they don't bleed to death.

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    88. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which ever one isn't a nigger! ;)

    89. Re:Who is going to care? by Stitch_626 · · Score: 1

      "How exactly do dolphns detect mines on a soccer field? Perhaps you meant water polo?"

      It would have to be on a soccer field, I've never been able to figure out how to keep the horses from drowning!!!

      --
      Ohana means family. Family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.
    90. Re:Who is going to care? by GQuon · · Score: 1

      What about if it were my dog and some random person. I'd probably save my dog.

      There, you answered the hypothetical. You would save your dog rather than another person.

      But you still have a point.

      --
      Irene KHAAAAAAN!
    91. Re:Who is going to care? by GQuon · · Score: 1

      Humans don't develop this ability until 1 or 2 years of age. So maybe we should use infants for mine detection? ;)

      I have a clear position on this. If the adults of a species is sentient, I will afford the infants the same protection as the adults.

      (Not commenting self-realization.)

      Next question.

      --
      Irene KHAAAAAAN!
    92. Re:Who is going to care? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing is, there's a difference between "vegetarians" and "vegans". I haven't found vegetarians to be much of a problem; they usually have no trouble finding stuff to eat. The problem is vegans. Not only will they not eat meat, but they won't eat anything that has anything to do with animals (eggs, cheese, milk, etc.). Cut all that out, and you're basically left with leaves to eat.

      I eat vegetarian food quite frequently: pizza, pasta dishes, etc. But vegans can't eat any of that, since there's usually cheese in it somewhere. They can't even eat a cake or many other desserts (cakes are made with eggs).

      The effect is an extreme difference between the two groups. One has simply eliminated actual animal meat from their diets. Sure, I think it's silly, but I don't know of any restaurant where you can't find a non-meat entree, so they're usually not much of a problem to be around. The other group has basically sworn off almost all Western foods, since there isn't much that doesn't have at least some milk, eggs, or cheese in it.

      As far as I'm concerned, these vegans can believe whatever they like. There's people who believe that they must dance with poisonous snakes, and let themselves die of snakebite if they get bitten. They're obviously fools, but as long as they keep it to themselves and don't try to convince me to do it, I really don't care. Vegans would also be fine if they just accepted that they're completely out of line with 99.9% of the society they live in, and kept their beliefs to themselves. And when their team at work decides to do a "team lunch", they need to just stay out of it, or not eat anything and shut up about the selection. Instead, I've found that they tend to be very vocal about their food choices, and try to convert everyone else; it's a religion to them.

    93. Re:Who is going to care? by Stitch_626 · · Score: 1

      My solution for this is to use the prison population. Now before some people get all upset it could be a voluntary program where the inmates who volunteer get a few years shaved off of their sentences.

      --
      Ohana means family. Family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.
    94. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A black child and a white child wander into the patch of a speeding truck, which one do you save?

    95. Re:Who is going to care? by yarbo · · Score: 1

      http://whyfiles.org/012mad_cow/6.html

    96. Re:Who is going to care? by localman · · Score: 1

      In a ridiculouse situation like that I think most people would save something dear to them rather than something they had no familiarity with. It's fairly instinctual.

      I don't think this says anything about objective value (a flawed concept) or even my values. And certainly nothing about the gray areas where most decision making lies.

      Extreme hypotheticals are mostly useful for shutting down interesting or subtle thought in favor of knee-jerk reactions.

      Cheers.

    97. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, vitamin B12 is only present in animal products... Of course, one can eat synthetic vit B12 i.e. vitamin pills, but it's unclear how well the body metabolizes this...

    98. Re:Who is going to care? by Quixote · · Score: 1
      For a balanced diet we must have animal flesh; plant food just doesn't hack it alone.

      I know, you probably haven't heard this, but there are 100s of millions of people in India who have never eaten a bite of animal flesh. Millions of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists (to name a few) get by just fine on a vegetarian diet (note, I said "vegetarian", not "vegan").

      Try not to believe everything that the meat industry tells you (directly or subliminally).

    99. Re:Who is going to care? by Mateito · · Score: 1

      > rats don't have brains the same size as humans.

      Which means they cover fewer square feet with cerebral matter should the mine go off.

    100. Re:Who is going to care? by Mateito · · Score: 1

      > A company is trying to make a new concealer that
      > doesn't clump when you sweat. How do they make
      > sure it doesn't burn your skin off when you put
      > it on?

      Easy.

      - Healthy people who are stupid enough to cake themselves with make-up in the name of beauty deserve it.

      - People who are using it to cover some horrible birth-defect or accident scar are already maimed, so if it burns off their flesh, it doesn't matter.

      Seriously. We now know enought about biology and pharmacology that a lot of animal testing really isn't necessary.

      For the rest, there are always uni students who will let you do all sorts of shit for enough money to pay next months rent and food bills.

    101. Re:Who is going to care? by Mateito · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even if it wasn't mine, I'd save the dog.

      Because the dog's family are less likely to sue if I hurt the person in the process of saving their life.

    102. Re:Who is going to care? by localman · · Score: 1

      I hope it was clear I was joking, and not questioning your logic, which I basically agree with.

      But I do wonder, more seriously, do you extend unborn children the same protection? I say unborn children to distinguish a cell blob from a fetus that is past the point of viability -- currently around 7 months, I believe?

      Just curious...

      I don't know where I draw the line on that one yet... but I do find "birth" to be a bit arbitrary.

      Cheers.

    103. Re:Who is going to care? by Jardine · · Score: 1

      For the record, I'm a happy carnivore.

      You meant omnivore, right? I'm not sure if a human can live off an entirely meat diet.

    104. Re:Who is going to care? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah; I just like to emphasize that I like meat.

    105. Re:Who is going to care? by Wolfier · · Score: 1

      No shit, we're treating our friendly bacteria and viruses in a very unfair manner.

      Guys, we should seriously cut down the use of antiseptic and antibiotics.

      Think about the billion of viruses that will die if you take medicine!!

    106. Re:Who is going to care? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      I don't feel that I know enough about human developmental biology to really know what I think about abortion. I think that once any significant brain development occurs it's capable of learning, and at that point you might argue that it's meaningfully human. I'm not really sure when that's considered to have happened, though.

      I definitely feel that until the fetus has enough brain to remember, there's no loss of life. I also feel that any argument besides this one (as your brain is the seat of youness) is based on emotion rather than logic, but I'm open to other ideas.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    107. Re:Who is going to care? by violajack · · Score: 1

      "In the end though, I just can't feel bad about some rats. I think of them as the animal equivalent of fleas or mosquitoes in that no matter how many you kill there's still more of them out there somewhere and when you encounter them in their natural state they are always a pain in the ass."

      Unfortuanely, I could easily apply that logic to people. No matter how many you get rid of there are still a lot more of them out there, and I've encountered plenty who are pains in the ass. It's not a matter of numbers or temperment that make the rats a good choice, it's the fact that they're OCD and don't weigh enough to detonate a mine.

      If intelligence is a factor in relative worth, I think you would have to elevate them above fleas and mosquitoes as they are very smart. Granted, they use their powers for evil rather than good.

      I don't think PETA could get too upset over this (other than the fact that the first group died because they were left to boil on the tarmac). As long as the rats are well taken care of in their off-time. As I understand it, one of the big advantages to rats over dogs is that the dogs will occasionally get blown up, while the rats are too light to set off the mine. So we went from dogs getting blown up to nothing (theoretically) getting blown up.

    108. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither one. I'd save the azn kid tho.

    109. Re:Who is going to care? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Well I'm gonna guess PETA might care."

      Depends on the cuteness factor. How much PETA cares is directly proportional to how cute the animal is and/or how close they are to humans species-wise (i. e. how well they can anthropomorphize the critter).

      I don't see PETA protesting, say, spraying insecticide to kill off mosquitoes in rather nasty ways. They may be worried about other animals (usually mammals, but occasionally birds) that might be affected, but not the mosquitoes themselves.

    110. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      You're more likely to have to worry about iron and a few other things than protein.
      That's what spinach is for.

      A Happy Omnivore
    111. Re:Who is going to care? by LaBlueCow · · Score: 1

      Don't quote the DSM - IV or otherwise. It really won't win you any friends.

      --
      [SQL Error ID 10-T: This sig. is above your current threshold.]
    112. Re:Who is going to care? by LaBlueCow · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I believe the posts getting +5 Funny and +4 funny are actually LESS funny than the ones modded +1 funny.
      Strange thing that happend when you set the filter to allow 0 and 1 score posts - you notice Slashdot is strangely clique-ish. If you're not part of the clique, you get a 1. I suppose this post will get a 1 again...

      --
      [SQL Error ID 10-T: This sig. is above your current threshold.]
    113. Re:Who is going to care? by LaBlueCow · · Score: 1

      Morally I might be slightly inclined to agree, but due to the rampant laziness, greed, stupidity, and over-breeding of the human race, I vote for the rats. They're also not as dirty. Hoo-ray for the rats!

      --
      [SQL Error ID 10-T: This sig. is above your current threshold.]
    114. Re:Who is going to care? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      I had a rat named Fuzzmeister. Fuzzmeister was pretty cool: liked to get lost in the apartment, hide in the bed and chew away at a pile of egg crate foam we got until he had made a little den. All was well except that for about a month we did not know what sex he was.

      Then almost overnight his testicles grew to one third of his body weight. The little guy would run around the house with his huge-ass nutsack bouncing off of the floor. Damn.

      We swore that we would get a girl for the next one.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    115. Re:Who is going to care? by JerkBoB · · Score: 1

      Touched a nerve, did I? Well, I wasn't particularly looking to win friend and/or influence people by making that post.

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...
      Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
    116. Re:Who is going to care? by radish · · Score: 1

      Exactly. My point is it is perfectly possible to be healthy and not eat meat.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    117. Re:Who is going to care? by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence. When did I ever say that I would be unwilling to use a mentally challenged orphan to save 10,000 people?

    118. Re:Who is going to care? by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      So far as I know, no NAZI ever ate Jew Stew. Something usefull came out of that food (ITS FOOD!). Not the only difference, but a long shot. But a difference. They are not the same thing.

    119. Re:Who is going to care? by jonnystiph · · Score: 1

      Humans don't develop this ability until 1 or 2 years of age. So maybe we should use infants for mine detection? ;)

      I am all for it, Hell yes lets suit up the infants. Also help the worlds over crowding and get some of those screaming brats off the bus/train/plane(s). Sounds like a win, win, win situation. Ideas are Mod proof! haha.

      --

      If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank

    120. Re:Who is going to care? by jonnystiph · · Score: 1

      The thing is, there's a difference between "vegetarians" and "vegans". I haven't found vegetarians to be much of a problem; they usually have no trouble finding stuff to eat. The problem is vegans.

      Two solutions for this problem:
      1: Free Range Vegans (mmmmm...tasty!)
      2: Set them loose into a pen of hungry dogs and they will quickly learn thier place in the food chain.

      --

      If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank

    121. Re:Who is going to care? by LaBlueCow · · Score: 1

      Not really, just musing on the fact that anyone really looking into the DSM (an NOT in the psycho-pharma-pseudo-psychiatric-etc. fields) will realize that the DSM, in large parts, is full of tripe.

      --
      [SQL Error ID 10-T: This sig. is above your current threshold.]
    122. Re:Who is going to care? by JerkBoB · · Score: 1

      What're your credentials to make such a claim? The DSM is not meant to be read like scripture... It gives practitioners a way to associate various behaviors and symptoms with specific disorders. No doubt the DSM is misused by some, but there are incompetent people in all sorts of fields.

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...
      Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
    123. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the point is you are a rat and should be out sniffing mines.

    124. Re:Who is going to care? by Tiro · · Score: 1

      Kind of irrelevant--unlike the shepherd dogs, the rats aren't heavy enough to set off the land mines, so not many are going to get killed by them.

    125. Re:Who is going to care? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I don't know what they think their mirror images are, if they know it's themselves, or if they've just learned to ignore it. But they certainly don't believe it's another animal or else they'd react to it.


      Cats use mainly smell to identofy other cats.
      The mirror test is great for birds, they're very visual creatures, but for animals who's sense of indentity is not carried by vision, is pretty pointless.

      Dogs don't care about pictures of their owners, but they react to recorded voices and treat their worn clothes with some affection.

      Anthropomorphism is a bad habit.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    126. Re:Who is going to care? by cyberlync · · Score: 1

      Very nice moderators. You don't like my outlook so you moderate me as flaimbait. Lord I have mod points all the time and never ever do negative moderation based on personal opinion. What is up with you people.

      --
      I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
    127. Re:Who is going to care? by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      That alone makes it alright to risk any number of animals to save the life of one human.

      There's actually a bigger bonus to using the rats that I'm not seeing mentioned much. Most of us would consider it okay to sacrifice 10 or 20 rats for the sake of 1 child.

      The reality of the situation is: for every rat that is killed, 4 or 5 children might be saved.

      The rats are not heavy enough to set off a normal mine, so if one does die it is unusual. And that rat has a high probability of finding a couple mines that would have otherwise killed or maimed a child.

      It sounds like a good exchange to me.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    128. Re:Who is going to care? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.

      Have these people not heard of the food chain ?

    129. Re:Who is going to care? by Zareste · · Score: 1

      Ironic. Everyone else gets a +5 for that.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    130. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it self evident that people who can't tell the difference between people and animals wouldn't have enough reasoning capability to moderate correctly?

    131. Re:Who is going to care? by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      Great idea! Reduce the population problem in those third world countries, AND reduce the number of land mines! It's like killing two mines with one baby!

    132. Re:Who is going to care? by jfern · · Score: 1

      Rice and beans.
      It has all the necessary amino acids.

    133. Re:Who is going to care? by neonmagic · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with the parent post on most items - although I don't think that rats should be doing our dirty work.

      Rats are incredibly smart - and exceptionally loyal. And very loving. And yes, they are clean. Gambian rats are actually illegal to be imported into the US. They are very large compared to normal domesticated rats (themselves related to rattus rattus).

      I'd suggest that those that think it's funny, or think rats are dumb, or unclean actually go out and observe pet rats. You'll be very very surprised. Oh and they are very social animals.

      Dave

      --
      Slashdot can go and get fucked.
    134. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it seems this *ahem* author, is notorious for moderating in such a fashion. Yes, it's bullsh*t.
      YMMV

    135. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither one. I'd save the azn kid tho.

      BZZZT!! YOU LOSE!

      Game Over

    136. Re:Who is going to care? by cfuse · · Score: 1
      Whether dolphins are cute, or rats not, is a matter of opinion. I think it's typically a matter of uninformed opinion, but that's just my opinion. :-)

      An animal that is incontinent is never cute.

    137. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of us with a spiritual leaning; e.g., Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, New Agers, Jews, Hindus, etc., would argue that life doesn't begin at sentience; it begins when a creature has its own DNA, even if it's only one cell large. Once it is endowed with a spirit of some sort, its individuality and its right to protection has begun.

    138. Re:Who is going to care? by CrimeaRiver · · Score: 1
      The problem with vegans is that they're a bunch of self-righteous pains in the ass that refuse to get along with anyone that eats meat
      I can't imagine anyone not getting along with someone as clearly friendly, non-judgmental, and accepting as yourself. I have known many people who don't eat any kind of animal products of any kind, and they all do so as a personal choice that they don't impose on others.
    139. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funniest... comment... evah!

    140. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I profoundly disagree unless you include eggs as a vegetarian would - but not a vegan(Ghandi ate eggs).

      There has not been a single example
      of a long term tribe in humanity existing
      on vegetables alone though there have been
      examples of almost pure meat eaters, like
      the Eskimos, who were(before contact with
      the West) in excellent health.
      Vegetarianism is a religious movement largely
      founded on scientific and philosphical fallacies
      adn which often includes very bad stuff like tofu. Vegetarinas aren't statistically any healthier than non-vegetarians though they do
      get different bad diseases.

      For more info http://www.plaeodiet.com

    141. Re:Who is going to care? by Arathrael · · Score: 1

      They're not incontinent. Consider the source of your information (a pest control company). Consider the fact that they can't even get the names of diseases right (it's "weil's" not "wiels"). Check the facts elsewhere. That's a good example of the uninformed opinion I was talking about though. :-)

      Besides which, it's not like dolphins get out of the ocean to go. :-)

    142. Re:Who is going to care? by cfuse · · Score: 1

      Since you asked: try this (page 8) from the defense logistics agency (who aren't a pest company).

      Just because you love it, it doesn't suddenly stop being a rodent (or incontinent). If you don't believe me, get out the blacklight (as per the above PDF).

    143. Re:Who is going to care? by Arathrael · · Score: 1

      What did you do, type 'rat facts incontinent' or similar into Google? Great research technique!

      The fact is, rodents aren't incontinent. Rats do tend to spot in many locations (not everywhere), some rats more than others. But they usually actually go to the toilet (as opposed to the odd scent mark) in specific areas. Some rats will even use a litter tray if one's provided in an appropriate location. Also, males mark more than females, adults more than juveniles. And male marking is greatly reduced by castration. They scent mark, some more than others. They're not incontinent.

      Hamsters are also rodents, and don't, I think, even scent mark in that manner - they have scent glands in their hips they use. Clearly rodents. Even more clealy not incontinent.

      Rodents aren't incontinent.

    144. Re:Who is going to care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a game called water polo, that can be played in the ocean (at least I have) and it is like soccer... just in water.

    145. Re:Who is going to care? by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      Man, that's the funniest. Laughing out loud at work when you're by yourself is great. And then laughing even harder when it's modded "Insightful".

    146. Re:Who is going to care? by warpath · · Score: 1

      (Ok, so I am responding two days later and thus this will probably never be seen, but...)

      Fair enough. I shoulda left off the "Hence the +Funny mod?" bit.

  4. I'm sure the ASPCA will just LOVE this by viking099 · · Score: 1

    I mean, after they went nucking futs over the donkey bomb in the middle east, this is going to be insane.

    Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Belgium will get some letters and protesters real quick.

    1. Re:I'm sure the ASPCA will just LOVE this by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am sure countries with mine infestation problems will really care what animal rights organizations have to cry about. All I would have to do to gain some sympathy is put two-four 8 year olds with missing limbs because of land mines. That will shut up most people who want to complain about rats that breed like...well rats...

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    2. Re:I'm sure the ASPCA will just LOVE this by localhost00 · · Score: 1
      I am sure countries with mine infestation problems will really care what animal rights organizations have to cry about. All I would have to do to gain some sympathy is put two-four 8 year olds with missing limbs because of land mines. That will shut up most people who want to complain about rats that breed like...well rats...

      Actually, you should know that PETA and other such extremist groups are remorseless to the well-being of children.

      --

      Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

    3. Re:I'm sure the ASPCA will just LOVE this by 6Yankee · · Score: 1

      Who the hell modded that Funny? Man, there are some twisted people around.

    4. Re:I'm sure the ASPCA will just LOVE this by Xibby · · Score: 1

      Can't wait to see news footage of the PETA protest. Yes...it will be the PETA members with far too much money on their hands, protesting on a mine field. I suspect they'll learn why using rats is a good thing before the day is over... :)

      I can dream can't I?

      --
      I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
    5. Re:I'm sure the ASPCA will just LOVE this by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Hollywood man - you think those PETA are going to get their hands dirty? You know they are just going to hire Gary Coleman to act as some impovershed, disabeled kid .

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  5. Dophins got competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we need somethign in the air and we're all set!

    fp transient!

    1. Re:Dophins got competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Bats baby... Then you even have operatives that can work in total darkness.

    2. Re:Dophins got competition... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      And "Them bats is smart; they use radar." - DL

      --
      What?
  6. reg free by Coneasfast · · Score: 3, Informative

    reg free version

    --
    Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
  7. Google links by Albanach · · Score: 3, Informative
  8. Anti-rodent bias in humans! by Xoder · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sick of this anti-rodent bias in humans! "Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?" says the poster, and not a one of you will disagree with him, will you?

    Fuckin' speciests, the lot of you!


    On a more serious note, people will be upset about this, if only because it costs time and money to train any animal, even rats.

    --
    The previous sig has been removed due to /. protecting your best interests
    1. Re:Anti-rodent bias in humans! by irokitt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I, for one, welcome our old rodent overlords. They're responsible for our wonderful planet, and if they want to perform experiments on us, I have absolutely no problem with it.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    2. Re:Anti-rodent bias in humans! by nizo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I figure if anyone complains about training rats for this, they should feel free to sign up as a "mine field clearing" expert and help clear minefields personally. I think this is great, since who knows how many people worldwide get maimed or killed each year by landmines.

    3. Re:Anti-rodent bias in humans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At first, I thought it was "Trained Rats for Mime Detection"

    4. Re:Anti-rodent bias in humans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is great, since who knows how many people worldwide get maimed or killed each year by landmines.

      I know: "A landmine kills or maims a person every 20 minutes--more than 25,000 people a year."

      source: http://www.unicef.org/pon97/p57a.htm

    5. Re:Anti-rodent bias in humans! by Xoder · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I was unclear with my pronouns. What I meant was: people will be upset when the little buggers die, because of said money and time.

      --
      The previous sig has been removed due to /. protecting your best interests
    6. Re:Anti-rodent bias in humans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you. As long as there's speciesism the humans deserve what they get.

      Flame away speciesists....

    7. Re:Anti-rodent bias in humans! by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
      I'm sick of this anti-rodent bias in humans!

      As a leval 3 vegan, *I'm* sick of the anti-banana sentiment that results in these rats being rewarded with them as food. Where's the bananas' parade?

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    8. Re:Anti-rodent bias in humans! by Quazion · · Score: 1

      I saw a documentaire on TV about this. And it looks pretty harmless, the rats are too light to make the mine's go off.
      I agree that the who's gonna cry entry was a bit lame...but they wont be upset i guess, since the rats wont be harmed in anyway, they just have to work a bit. The show showed the rats on the humans like monkeys on shoulders, seemed they where enjoying them selves.

      They are trained to smell the explosive materials on the mines and get food if they find it, seems pretty oke for some hard work =) Further more they are way faster then humans cleaning up mine fields, since they use stick in a 30 degree angel in heavy protective suits and have to put the stick in the ground every couple of centimeters. But sure this stuff is in the article..which i ofc didnt read.

  9. Use Lawyers Instead by SloWave · · Score: 4, Funny


    Why not use lawyers instead. They aren't as cute and no-one gets attached to them.

    1. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or reality TV contestants.

    2. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by MrRuslan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Especially SCO lawyers...

    3. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by AgntOrnge · · Score: 0, Redundant

      And you forgot, no one is going to cry when one blows up

    4. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by stienman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why not use lawyers instead. They aren't as cute and no-one gets attached to them.

      The article points out that you have to be at least as smart as a gambian rat to do this kind of work.

      -Adam

    5. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason, thinking about the cast of "The Practice" (except Rhona Mitra, William Shatner and James Spader) getting blown up while looking for mines gets me mildly excited.

    6. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by AviLazar · · Score: 0

      Why not use SCO? At least then they can say they contribute to the well-being of the world. I am sure that Darl could spread out on two or three mines.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    7. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least PETA won't raise a stink about them - they only care about the animals.

      Reasons Why A Lawyer Won't Suffice
      1. They're harder to train than rats.
      2. They won't actually work, but they'll demand to be paid.
      3. If there's a loophole, they'll find it. But they won't find any mines.
      4. Lawyers won't die when you blow them up. You have to cauterize the wound, or two heads will grow in its place.
      5. They're sure to object.

      I watch too much Law & Order.

    8. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by deadlinegrunt · · Score: 1

      But I thought the punch line was "There are some things that even a rat won't do."

      I guess saving lives is one of them rather than ruining them...

      --
      BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
    9. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by HalfOfOne · · Score: 1

      And besides, there's some things that rats won't do!

    10. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by coyote_oww · · Score: 4, Funny
      And you forgot, no one is going to cry when one blows up

      Problem with this is that it may actually encourage people to lay mines, so as to cause lawyers to be consumed in the de-mining process...

    11. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Why not use SCO?

      What, you think there's anyone left at SCO that's not a lawyer?

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    12. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 1

      "Why not use lawyers instead. They aren't as cute and no-one gets attached to them."

      IIRC they looked into it, but lawyers were WAAY too expensive, even if they were better at digging up dirt, and more expendable!

      --
      The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
    13. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm willing to risk it

    14. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Heh. Actually, this is sort of a repeat of a similar story several years ago, when they were training rats to sniff out mines.

      In those stories, they usually explained that wild city rats (brown or black) didn't make very good mine sniffers, because, although they are smart enough for the job, they really are fairly nasty wild animals that don't train well. Lab rats have been domesticated in a sense, and cooperate with humans better. But there was a problem: People tend to think that this sort of rat is cute. The trainers did get attached to them. That was ok for this purpose, because they wanted the rats to be well cared for. They're trained workers, after all.

      If you look at the photo in the nytimes article, you'll also see a really cute critter, sorta like a small bunny. I'd bet that people like them, too. Plump, fuzzy critters are cute, even if they are a species of rat.

      At 3 pounds (around 1.4 kg), they're definitely heavier than lab rats, but apparently still light enough to not trigger the mines. I wonder if they're more intelligent or easier to train than lab rats? If they live longer, that could also be an advantage.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    15. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by Tristandh · · Score: 1

      I just love moderator humour... Modding this up as insightful as actually at least as amusing as the original post :-)

    16. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by coyote_oww · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess I should have added a smiley or something. Or my sense of humor is just tooo dry.

    17. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by Kaa · · Score: 1
      ObStdJoke:

      The National Institute of Health (NIH) announced last week that they were going to start using lawyers instead of rats in their experiments for the following reasons:

      The lab assistants were becoming very attached to their little rats. This emotional involvement was interfering with the research being conducted. No such attachment could form for a lawyer.

      Judging by the phenomenal rate of increase of the lawyer population, lawyers breed faster.

      Lawyers are much cheaper to care for and the humanitarian societies won't jump all over you no matter what you're studying.

      There are some things even a rat won't do.

      In contrast, there was only one foreseen disadvantage:

      With lawyers, it may be more difficult to extrapolate test results to human beings.

      --

      Kaa
      Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
    18. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      Sorry, man, you're one post too late. Good try though.

    19. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by joggle · · Score: 1
      you have to be at least as smart as a gambian rat to do this kind of work

      That's only if you want them to come back. That's not a problem in the case of lawyers.

    20. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't use them because lawyers weigh too much and would set off the land mines, in spite of all their hot air.

    21. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by plasm4 · · Score: 1

      Plus there is the added benefit of not requiring a bomb-squad, as the lawyer is heavy enough to set off the bomb.

      Does anyone have any good study tips for the lsat? Trying to break into the high 170's.

    22. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by jnicholson · · Score: 1
      Since being modded Funny no longer adds to your karma, there are those who advocate using Insightful instead. That's why you keep seeing those posts modded Insightful.

      Now can we please stop commenting about it?

      --
      "Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
      -- Nick Davies
    23. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by coyote_oww · · Score: 1

      I did not know that. Thanks for informing me.

  10. Pinky & the Brain Episode by 4sheez · · Score: 0

    Raaaaahhhh Brain... lets go mine hunting! I apologize in advance...

    --
    Down, down, down. The Red knight's goin' down.
  11. Amusing... by guido1 · · Score: 1

    Anyone else find it amusing that the link to more info about rats is to the NY times?

    1. Re:Amusing... by E10Reads · · Score: 1

      Yeah, especially cause everyone knows that the real rats are at The Post

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

      As much as slashdot would love to come up with original news content .. i believe the link is to the original article :P

  12. Ba dum dum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No first born required for reg. Here is the google partner link

    Note to editors: Post a eff'ing no-reg required link.

  13. Careful now by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 4, Funny

    > Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?

    My father was a giant Gambian rat, you insensitive clod!

    John.

    1. Re:Careful now by irokitt · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did he smell of elderberries?

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
  14. Obligatory Princess Bride quote by Plaeroma · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Rodents of unusual size? They don't exist!" *rat attacks*

    1. Re:Obligatory Princess Bride quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you're going to do it, get it right.

      "Rodents of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist."

    2. Re:Obligatory Princess Bride quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ITYM "Rodents of unusual size? I don't believe they exist!" *rat attacks*

    3. Re:Obligatory Princess Bride quote by ewhenn · · Score: 1

      "Rodents of unusual size? They don't exist!"

      What can I say, rodents were able to break into my inbox and read all of my enlarge your unit spam.

  15. Well... by El_Ge_Ex · · Score: 1

    Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?

    They will...

    -B

    1. Re:Well... by Pax00 · · Score: 1

      Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?

      Peta won't cry.. they will just go out and beat lay land mines in New York city to show people what it is like to run through a mine field... it doesn't sound like a bad idea to me...

      pax

  16. Another alternative. by Jaywalk · · Score: 4, Funny
    if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?
    Aww, I think they're cute. Any chance of training Darl instead?
    --
    ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
    1. Re:Another alternative. by JesseL · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, because Darl obviously never learns.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  17. maybe, but by AviLazar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not as cool as my trained sharks with frickin laser beams....

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  18. HAH! by blunte · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?


    PETA. They'll be all over this. I can't believe you posed the question, sarcasm as it may have been.
    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
    1. Re:HAH! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I had a friend who was a staunch PETAphile. I made it a point to have wings and ribs whenever we went out to dinner.

    2. Re:HAH! by gUmbi · · Score: 2, Funny

      PETA. They'll be all over this.

      We could use PETA members to sniff them out instead but I think the patchouli might interfere with the mine-detection.

      Is there a People for the Ethical Treatment of PETA Members (PETPETAM) we need to worry about?

      Jason.

    3. Re:HAH! by blunte · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heh heh heh.

      But clearly your friend wasn't a true PETA member, or he/she would have been violent toward you when you received your meal. This also would have kept you distracted while the ELF people lit your SUV on fire in the parking lot.

      --
      .sigs are for post^Hers.
    4. Re:HAH! by sirgoran · · Score: 2, Funny

      Doesn't PETA stand for People Eating Tasty Animals?

      (just wondering)

      -Goran

      --
      Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
    5. Re:HAH! by Noxx · · Score: 1

      IIRC, someone originally registered peta.org and put up a homepage for People Eating Tasty Animals. PETA spent several months/years/whatever in court before they got control of the domain.

      Even if it's not true, it's still funny.

      --
      Study everything, you'll find something you can use - Jason Bourne
    6. Re:HAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't PETA stand for People Eating Tasty Animals?


      Exactly. And how the HELL are you going to eat a tasty animal if it's been blown all over the landscape? Now do you understand why PETA is agsinst this kind of behavior?

  19. They won't blow up by USAPatriot · · Score: 1, Informative
    If you RTFA, the rats are 3 and a half pounds; too light to set off the mine.

    --

    Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.

  20. hm by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?

    uhm.. the guy who paid x thousand dollars to have it trained?

    --
    Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
    1. Re:hm by deadlinegrunt · · Score: 1

      uhm.. the guy who paid x thousand dollars to have it trained?

      Naw, I quit getting upset at government wasting my taxes.

      --
      BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
  21. Rodents! by Obscenity · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Perhaps some Rodents Of Unusual Size will be used explosion dampening devices.

    --
    OMG OMG OMG WTF OMG WTF BBQ STFU RTFM, OMFG OMG OMG OMG ROFL LMAO OMG WTF STFU ROFLMAO
  22. The rats will get outsourced too by MooseByte · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Rats don't have a union and get paid 1/10th the food dogs do..."

    That's OK, just wait 'til those damn rats get outsourced to IT workers, who don't have a union and get paid 1/10th of the rats.

    1. Re:The rats will get outsourced too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! There's job opportunities in mine detection?! Do you know who I should forward my resume to?

      - IT worker

  23. Why bother training? by Patik · · Score: 1

    Just release thousands of rats into a field and let them blow up. Once you detonate the mines they're no longer a problem.

    1. Re:Why bother training? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 2, Funny

      better yet, make it into a Junkyard Wars episode. the team to detonate the most land mines by hurling giant rats with a catapult wins.

    2. Re:Why bother training? by cperciva · · Score: 1

      Just release thousands of rats into a field and let them blow up. Once you detonate the mines they're no longer a problem.

      Rats are too light to detonate the mines.

    3. Re:Why bother training? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People do exactly that.
      1) Find a herd of large game (like zebras)
      2) Chase them into a mine field
      3) ???
      4) Profit

      Some pretty sick stuff but effective.

    4. Re:Why bother training? by xlyz · · Score: 1


      Rats are too light to detonate the mines.

      but lawyers are not

  24. Who will cry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?"

    PETA, that's who....

  25. Who will care? by Woogiemonger · · Score: 5, Funny

    Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?

    The rats' pan-dimensional, super-intelligent kindred will care, and I would not want to tangle with them.

    1. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mods on CRACK.. insightful? WTF? Funny you dipshits.

    2. Re:Who will care? by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Er, thats mice.

      Assuming you meant H2G2.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    3. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who in the holy fuck moderated this "Insightful"??

    4. Re:Who will care? by *weasel · · Score: 1

      You laugh, but if you ask me, it sounds like they're already using miniature giant space hamsters (pic).

      In which case, I do hope they're careful.
      It's best not to underestimate Giant Space Hamsters in general.

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  26. How about nutria? by YodaToo · · Score: 1

    We have lots of nutria here in Louisiana that might also be trainable for this. As an added bonus, after they blow, they should be just crispy enough to eat!

  27. Bring on... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the "Rat Patrol" jokes.

    And how long 'til we hear "Hey! Whose rat is this?"

    "MINE!"

    1. Re:Bring on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful. You are really showing your age!

    2. Re:Bring on... by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, yeah.

      I for one, welcome our new mine-sniffing rat overlords!

      You really missed that one...

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  28. Somebody has to say it... by iabervon · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Rodents Of Unusual Size? Frankly, I don't think they... " *boom*

    1. Re:Somebody has to say it... by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 1

      well, they don't anymore

    2. Re:Somebody has to say it... by PMuse · · Score: 1

      Raistlin looked down at her. In the gully dwarf's hand was a dead, very dead rat.

      --Way too many RPGs.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  29. Gambian National Anthem by Mad+Man · · Score: 5, Funny

    from Dr. Fegg's Encyclopedia of All World Knowledge

    Dr. Fegg has only ever written one national anthem. Here it is, reproduced for the first time. Dr. Fegg would like to remind all his readers that he has not yet been paid for it.

    -The Gambian National Anthem-

    Gambia, Oh Gambia,
    Though only small and thin,
    When it comes to being called Gambia,
    You are the one to win.

    Your capital is Bathurst
    A name that means so much
    To you who live in Gambia,
    Though less so to the Dutch.

    Gambia, where men are men
    And trees fit in the ground.
    The one six-lettered nation
    Where Gambians abound!

    Gambians! O Gambians!
    Though your country is so thin
    And most of it a river
    It's the place that you live in.

    From mountains down to flat bits,
    Ring out your anthem great,
    Though now you're part of Senegal
    The words are out of date.

    -Bertram Wesley Fegg DD

    WARNING: Humming of this anthem, even to oneself, renders the reader liable for royalty payments. These should be sent to Dr. Fegg personally and *not*, repeat *not* to the chisellers at the Gambian embassy. ::Note::
    Many people ask: What is Dr. Fegg a doctor *of*? Well, without going into specifics Dr. Fegg has tried his hand at many things in his time.

    His is the sort of mind that can encompass deck chair repairing, sweeping, billposting and the buying and selling of cars with one previous owner. So it is perhaps unfair and irrelevant to confine his extraordinary talents to the mundane world of labels and categories.

    Dr. Fegg *has* delivered babies, but only during the busy pre-Christmas period when the Post Office can't cope. And Dr. Fegg has done brain surgery-- though *never*, repeat *never* in the Bournemouth area.

    1. Re:Gambian National Anthem by pjt33 · · Score: 1
      Many people ask: What is Dr. Fegg a doctor *of*?
      Not, however, those with sufficient education to know that DD stands for Doctor of Divinity, which is usually an honorary degree.
  30. If I were in charge... by elh_inny · · Score: 0, Troll

    Personally I'd use all those responsible for placing the mines to remove them. Probably this would mean I'd have to hire Bush, Clinton etc.
    How silly of them.

  31. Personally,.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that we should start using some of the politicians out of DC. That would solve 2 problems at once.

  32. Now if only by fiendo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now if only we could just train humans not to plant the mines, *then* we'd be getting somewhere.

    --
    I went to the city because I wished to live without deliberation.
    1. Re:Now if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's the rats turn to train humans now. Keep us updated on progress.

    2. Re:Now if only by GarryOwen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Land mines are very useful for helping overcome superiority of numbers. Think North Korea, they have alot of soldiers who could possibly overrun the South Korean/American defences if not for the land mines acting as a barrier. Also land mine technology has come a long way, it is now possible to set timers on them so they auto distruct after a period of time(24 hours, 1 week, etc.)

    3. Re:Now if only by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      True, but think a level or two up.
      Convince North Korea not to make such nasty noises about invading the South. Not such big armies will be needed, and no mine barrier needed.

      Pie in the sky, yes...but eventually we will get there.

    4. Re:Now if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're foolish. There will always be people who want More, and are willing to kill for it.

  33. Free NY Times Registration by adequacy · · Score: 1
  34. Better Idea? by su2ge · · Score: 1

    I have a better idea. Train venomous snakes and the like to blow up land mines. Nobody will miss a snake that will possibly bite the crap out of you and kill you.

  35. That would be an American mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful


    as they refuse to sign any mine treaties, just like every other treaty

    do you see where the hate begins ?

  36. Trained Rats for Mine Detection... by Unnngh! · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...so, Darl has finally been trained to do something useful?

    1. Re:Trained Rats for Mine Detection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROA (Rats Organisation of America) will sue you for comparing with Darl!

    2. Re:Trained Rats for Mine Detection... by XSforMe · · Score: 1
      ...so, Darl has finally been trained to do something useful?

      No, goodness forsake. It might actually compel people to plant mines

      --
      My other OS is the MCP!
  37. Foreing species by gmuslera · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe someone could cry if them don't blow up. Introducing new species in some environments could be harmful, and if they escape you could have a new plage on hand. There are already some examples of that happening, but as most should have seen the Simpsons examples of frogs in australia or lizards in springfield i think by now is evident why is bad.

    1. Re:Foreing species by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      um have you heard of the concept of sterilization?

    2. Re:Foreing species by ultramk · · Score: 1

      I'm astonished this would get modded up.

      Yes, introducing (sic)"foreing"(/sic) species would be a bad idea. Using a few trained rats is hardly likely to result in a giant rat invasion. This sort of trained animal helper is very valuable, and would be under very close observation, probably on a leash or tether.

      What do you expect, they would just dump a crate full of giant rats on the ground and say "Go get 'em boys!" and wait for them to come back dragging land mines? (gee, hope they come back)

      Out of curiosity, are all examples of ecological catastrophe of which you are aware based on episodes of The Simpsons? Hey, have you considered running for congress?

      m-

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    3. Re:Foreing species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well in this case the rats already live in sub-saharan africa, "Cricetomys gambianus, also known as the Gambian and African giant pouched rat. Up to 30 inches long, it thrives in most of sub-Saharan Africa" so using them in Mozambique shouldn't be a problem.

    4. Re:Foreing species by gmuslera · · Score: 1
      Ok, not was the best possible examples, but in that moment don't thinked right keywords to search in google for this kind of things, but that examples was based on things that actually happened, you could find more information in a more boring format here and here. In the other hand, those Simpsons episodies showed very graphically how something as innocent looking like few animals in a new territory could harm a lot, no new reading required.

      At least i don't tried to use Holliwood examples, like in Jurassik Park, Mimic or Godzilla, those examples would have been definatelly less serious than using Simpsons episodes.

      And about controls, yep, the released rats could be sterilized, have some way of controlling/contain them, but, you know, shit happens and murphy rulez.

  38. Oh no... by tony1c · · Score: 1

    I've just glimpsed the next wave of IT outsourcing, and I don't like it...

  39. have some cheeese....rat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how dare you! i take offense to "if one blows up...who cares."!

    --mickey mouse

  40. Did anyone else get the feeling.... by pcgamez · · Score: 2, Funny

    that at the end of the article, it was going to mention how Mr. Cox has an uncle who died and left US 3.4M in a Tanzanian bank and with your help, it can be recovered?

  41. Shaker Lemon Pie !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recipe from "We Make You Kindly Welcome" by Elizabeth C. Kremer

    Ms. Kremer was in charge of our dining operation at the beginning of restoration and was responsible for setting the standards of excellence we maintain today. She developed many of her recipes from those handed down from the Shakers of Pleasant Hill. If you would like to purchase this cookbook call (859) 734-5411, x242.

    Ingredients:
    2 large lemons
    4 eggs, well beaten
    2 cups sugar

    Slice lemons as thin as paper, rind and all. Combine with sugar; mix well. Let stand 2 hours, or preferably overnight, blending occasionally. Add beaten eggs to lemon mixture; mix well. Turn into 9-inch pie shell, arranging lemon slices evenly. Cover with top crust. Cut several slits near center. Bake at 450 degrees for 15 minutes. Reduce heat to 375 degrees and bake for about 20 minutes or until silver knife inserted near edge of pie comes out clean. Cool before serving.

  42. Who's going to cry? by goldspider · · Score: 1
    "Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?"

    Well that's what I thought about the U.S. Navy using dolphins for mine detection, but I took a lot flak from PETA for that one...

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:Who's going to cry? by HanClinto · · Score: 1
      My mother was a Gambian rat, you insensitive clod!

      And your father smelled of elderberries?

    2. Re:Who's going to cry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the People for the Eating of Tasty Animals will only object if the rats aren't cooked well enough.

  43. they won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, actually, they are light enough to not trigger the mine. sorry, no mashed giant rat for dinner.

    1. Re:they won't by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, when they start they aren't heavy enough. But each time they find a mine, they get food. So after a certain number of mines, the rats will be heavy enough and then: Rat-burgers!

  44. If you read the story.... by CompWerks · · Score: 5, Informative

    You'll see that since they only weigh three pounds they don't trigger the mines.

    --
    If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.
    1. Re:If you read the story.... by SuperDuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From the article:

      Rats are abundant, cheap and easily transported. At three pounds, they are too light to detonate mines accidentally. They can sift the bouquet of land-mine aromas far better than any machine. Unlike even the best mine-detecting dog or human, they are relentlessly single-minded.

      "Throw a stick for a dog to fetch, and after 10 times the dog will say, `Get it yourself, buddy,' " Mr. Weetjens said. "Rats will keep working as long as they want food."


      Better than dogs, in this case.

      Has anyone considered ducks?

      --

      "Kinky sex involves the use of duck feathers. Perverted sex involves the whole duck." - Lewis Grizzard
    2. Re:If you read the story.... by Dogbert2 · · Score: 1

      i have rats at home there 6 inches long and weigh 2 pounds i figure that if the rat is 30 inches long it will wiegh more like 8-9 pounds atleast. thats probibly enough to trigger i mine.

    3. Re:If you read the story.... by Arathrael · · Score: 1

      If your rats are 6 inches long and weigh 2 pounds, then your rats are seriously overweight.

      From what I've read elsewhere, the weight given in the article for giant pouched rats is about right.

  45. Who is going to cry? by YankeeInExile · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In most of the slashdot penetrating world, we think of dogs primarily as companion animals, and find the thougt of them being blown to bits in mine clearance as "sad" (at least I certainly would)

    I suspect from the point of view of the mine-clearing-canine group from Canada (they were recently spotlighted in a television program on National Geographic here) - it is the cost of training the animal that is the more serious loss, than the emotional suffering the handlers may suffer from the loss of a companion. For one project they had on the order of a half-dozen animals. So, losing one in an accident would be a pretty serious reduction in force.

    Hopefully with rats, the cost of training, supporting, and getting them into the mine fields would be low enough that the mission would be less adversely impacted by losing one animal.

    I am certain my friend who keeps pet rats would be just as horrified imagining a rat being killed ina clearing accident as I would be imagining a dog suffering the same fate.

    --
    How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
    1. Re:Who is going to cry? by thue · · Score: 1

      I suspect from the point of view of the mine-clearing-canine group from Canada (they were recently spotlighted in a television program on National Geographic here) - it is the cost of training the animal that is the more serious loss, than the emotional suffering the handlers may suffer from the loss of a companion. For one project they had on the order of a half-dozen animals. So, losing one in an accident would be a pretty serious reduction in force.

      As the article says (and one can guess): the rats are also lighter than dog, so they don't trigger the mines even when they step on then.

      Also, the article says that dogs have a tendency to give false results because they sense what the owner wants.

    2. Re:Who is going to cry? by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      In most of the slashdot penetrating world, we think of dogs primarily as companion animals, and find the thougt of them being blown to bits in mine clearance as "sad" (at least I certainly would)

      I think of dogs as large, smelly, filthy animals with less intelligence than a Roomba. It's no wonder that rats would do a better job -- they're more intelligent.

      Case in point: Put a dog in an enclosure with a simple latch, and it will bark endlessly to be released. Put a rat in the same enclosure, and it will eventually figure out how to open the latch.

      Another case in point: Despite outnumbering dogs something like a trillion to one, which do you see more often dead in the middle of the road?

      Yet another: Release dogs on a deserted island, and the odds of them being alive in a year's time are pretty damn low. Release rats on a deserted island, and in a year's time, their countless progeny will have driven most of the native wildlife into extinction.

      Finally, if dogs are so smart, how come rats get all the lab jobs?

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  46. Who's going to cry? by aristus · · Score: 1
    Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?

    My mother was a Gambian rat, you insensitive clod!

    --
    Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
  47. Drawback #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Here in Wisconsin last year we had an outbreak of the disease monkeypox which was traced back to some hedgehogs who had shared a cage with Gambian rats. Looks like trading one set of risks for another.

  48. Why don't they use womp rats? by The+I+Shing · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should use womp rats.

    They're not much bigger than two meters.

    So what if a bunch of kids on Tatooine don't have live targets anymore? They should be using their T16s for more constructive things, anyway.

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    1. Re:Why don't they use womp rats? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      or they could use ROUS.

    2. Re:Why don't they use womp rats? by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      I think at 30 inches long, they already are ROUS'es.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
  49. RTFA by Tesko · · Score: 0

    At three pounds, they are too light to detonate mines accidentally.

    Quoted directly from the NYT article.

  50. Crispin Glover might.... by telstar · · Score: 1

    I know most people are saying PETA might care ... but don't forget Willard!.

  51. Added Bonus... by Dolentron+3030 · · Score: 2, Funny

    If the rats do get killed by the mines it'll give the troops a nice break from their MREs.

    1. Re:Added Bonus... by robert0122 · · Score: 1
      give the troops a nice break from their MREs.

      They should stampede a herd of cows through the mine field instead.

    2. Re:Added Bonus... by cr00ked · · Score: 1
      They should stampede a herd of cows through the mine field instead.

      They probably shouldn't try that in India...

      --
      I am neither insensitive nor a clod!
    3. Re:Added Bonus... by robert0122 · · Score: 1

      Good point. In certain countries, maybe stampeding herds of pigs through mine fields would be extra effective?

  52. Re:why train when.. by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    that would be unethical (rolls eyes)

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  53. New prison parole scheme for lifers by Gothmolly · · Score: 2, Funny

    Any prisoner for life can apply - you just have to run through a field potentially filled with landmines. If you make it, you're free. If not, well, too bad.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:New prison parole scheme for lifers by garyok · · Score: 1

      Trial by ordeal is actually a very old way of determining justice (after all, what are witches made of?) Not that I'm against it or anything - although one of those mines might be a claymore with my twitchy finger on the button waiting for rapists and stuff. Just because they think we're being fair with them...

      --
      One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
  54. "who's going to cry" by hyperstation · · Score: 0, Troll

    killing is wrong. rat, dog, human - it doesn't matter.

    especially for frivolous and deadly activites like landmine detection.

    1. Re:"who's going to cry" by orrigami · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, lets leave these extremely dangerous explosives in the ground so we can mame samll children and adults. Killing for the sake of killing is wrong but don't call landmine detection frivolous. Anything that could saves lives, I just don't consider frivolous.

  55. I for one... by bcmm · · Score: 0, Funny

    I for one welcome our new Gaint Rat overlords...

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  56. Slashdot "Scoops" by Giant+Panda · · Score: 1

    Does Slashdot get all or most of its "stories" from Wired and The Register?

  57. Sounds like a shortlived career to me: by Borg453b · · Score: 1

    *squeek!* *squeek!*
    God job, cheesefoot!
    *Ka-Booooom!*

    --

    - Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
    1. Re:Sounds like a shortlived career to me: by Borg453b · · Score: 1

      a pseudo-tag (meant to indicate the trainer) and poor spelling ruined that joke :P

      --

      - Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
  58. Stuart Little just got drafted! by Libertarian_Geek · · Score: 5, Funny


    Or...
    Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering? Pinky: I think so Brain, but I'd rather go hump a landmine.. Narf! {BOOM!!!}

    --

    www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

    www.fairtax.org
    1. Re:Stuart Little just got drafted! by LaBlueCow · · Score: 1

      This... is... just... WRONG! LOL - I don't think I'll ever get the Narf - Boom image out of my head :)

      --
      [SQL Error ID 10-T: This sig. is above your current threshold.]
  59. RATT detectors by dirtyuser · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I for one welcome our new Gambian Rat Overlords.

  60. Beats the heck out of mine-clearing robots by Jim+Morash · · Score: 1

    There goes all that DARPA funding.

  61. RTFA - No exploded rats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sarcasm aside:

    Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?"

    Is answered in the NYT article:

    Rats are abundant, cheap and easily transported. At three pounds, they are too light to detonate mines accidentally.

    So, now PETA can stop worrying. The rats are not in harms' way.

  62. Why not drop rocks on the minefields? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Can't the military just tell everyone to leave for a minute, then drop a hailstorm of rocks over the minefield and set them all off? Sure, they might not *all* go off, but if a rock from 20,000 feet doesn't set it off, how could a person be expected to?

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:Why not drop rocks on the minefields? by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 2, Informative

      Too many non-native rocks are bad for the environment, you fool!

      Besides, aren't rocks people, too?

    2. Re:Why not drop rocks on the minefields? by Jim+Morash · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could just strafe the minefield with machine guns from a helicopter.

    3. Re:Why not drop rocks on the minefields? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's see:
      this article suggests that there are 868,000 acres of farmland in Egypt alone!

      How many rocks does it take to clear a single acre?

      I'll leave the math as an exercise.

  63. There's a solution to that problem... by Libertarian_Geek · · Score: 1

    Feed them Acme iron pellets. It will increase their weight + make them more attractive to armor detecting mines.
    With the a bonus: When all of the mines are cleared, you can retrieve your remaining rats with your trusty ACME XXX Large HorseShoe Magnet.

    --

    www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

    www.fairtax.org
  64. 100% failsafe mine detection is already possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's called teamwork and C-4.

    You use mine detectors to locate potential mines.
    You detonate a shaving of a C-4 brick over
    the 'susptected' mine.

    No mine? small bang. Mine? small bang with a large
    woofer kick.

    Accident rate? 0%

    Problem? F'n dorkos get upset because we don't attempt to kill ourselves defusing it and finding out where the F' it came from.

    Fuck em. 100% NO-accident rate is worth it in my book.

  65. Buzzing bees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    I still like the idea of using bees to detect mines. Apparently they have a better sense of smell than dogs or rats, they are cheap and easy to train, and they produce honey which can then be used in baklava.

    ------------
    Free mobile porn

  66. Take this a step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That means the Gambians themselves wouldn't set them off as well due to the famine conditions they live in.

  67. Who's going to cry...?! [Excessive Trolling] by r0d3nt · · Score: 1

    !
    Me that's who!!!
    I love rats, especially the Gambian Giant Rats, and just the thought of them scurrying to their potential deaths apalls me. Have some tact in your posts rikomatic, not everyone believes that rodents are vermin and not worth more than a mine detection "device". Let's take you favorite animal/pet and put it in harms way with a comedic comment and see how you like it...

    --
    You are not root, go away.
  68. You know... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    The whole idea seems somewhat childish in a twisted sense. Yet if it keeps people from tripping over the mines then I'm all for it. Not like there will ever be a rat shortage or love of rats.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  69. Who's going to cry? by ZipR · · Score: 1

    The rat is, as it streaks toward heaven in a billion tiny pieces.

  70. Completely unnecessary by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Run a reomte controlled Hum-Vee in front of the convoy. We can confiscate them from rich spammers. More people would probably cry for the Hum-Vee.

    --
    What?
  71. Cry?? by Tokerat · · Score: 1

    Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?
    Hell, I'm going to cheer and place bets on how long the next one will last!
    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  72. Is Belgium where by LoneWlf · · Score: 1

    The ROUSes and therefore the Fire Forest originate?

    The princess bride was a better story than the article turned out to be. It turns out that it takes 2 observers and a rat to locate the mines and they have to section it off into lanes first. Not the safest procedure on planet earth. but then, the rats are the ones supposedly risking their necks.

    Its rather interesting that in the article they talk about the rats like they're some time of machine that must be 'recalibrated' for each mine field.

    Oh well, fun stuff.

    --
    -LoneWolf-

    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

  73. Why rats, let's use Bunnies! by BRSloth · · Score: 1

    It doesn't even need training. All you need to do is:

    - Go to the Corley Motors Stadium
    - Ask the guy in the shop about the shirt in his back
    - While he is not looking, grap the little bunny in the outside
    - Blow the bunny in the minefield and get the batteries
    - Return to the shop, ask again about the shirt
    - While the guy is not looking, put the battery in the radio controlled car
    - Move the car inside the stadium
    - When the guy goes after the car, grap as many little bunny boxes as you can
    - Go back to the minefield and drop the boxes
    - See the little cute bunny blowing up and paving you a safe way

    [Damn, I NEED a new Full Throttle!]

  74. Ben! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe no one referenced good old Ben! What do they make you do?

  75. I'm actually flattered by blunte · · Score: 0, Troll

    I now realize that I do have a moderator fanboi out there somewhere. This person clearly waits with bated breath for me to post so they can -1 me.

    So my PETA response landed at 12:22 /. time, and the only prior PETA comment was a 12:19 /. time. Sadly, that previous message didn't exist in the comment list when I made my post.

    Mine being the second PETA post at the root level clearly warrants the use of a mod point to mark it Redundant. In fact I cannot think of a more practical use of mod points but to go hunting for similar obviously karma-whoring theft of other people's previously-invisible ideas.

    Cheers, fanboi.

    But that brings an idea to mind. What would happen if I intentionally created a fodder post on each article, then waited but 5 minutes to make my serious post? Would the perhaps multiple blunte fanbois burn their mod posts on my feint? That would be a sad shame.

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
  76. Re:Who's gonna cry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is very on topic and I am glad someone had the courage to say it.

  77. Re:Who's going to cry...?! [Excessive Trolling] by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

    Since my favorite pet is anything that's well done, that works fo rme!

    Frankly, you can have all the stupid deer that keep eating our plants are running into our car, and the stray dogs and cats in the area, and train them for this purpose, too.

    If you can get the birds that keep nesting in the eaves, so much the better.

  78. They do exist! by John+Harrison · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I witnessed one swimming in an open-air sewer in Brazil. It took the firefighters over an hour to get it in a cage. It weighed over 150 pounds. In case you wondering they are called capivara, though the spelling varies.

  79. Excuse me by Rayonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe I'm seeing things, but did you just try to back up your argument with anecdotal evidence from The Simpsons? And then you got modded up as "Insightful"?!

    Sir, you are clearly a better Slashdotter than I.


    (P.S. - I'd imagine the rats would be sterilized.)

    1. Re:Excuse me by Inda · · Score: 1

      I was hoping to see Rat Boy. Imagine how I feel.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  80. Don't joke about these things! by TXP · · Score: 1

    It's nothing but a joke until someone takes you seriously! Next thing you know you have a group of people called PETA.

  81. Oh, *mine* detection by gwernol · · Score: 1

    ...I read the headline as "Trained Rats for Mime Detection" which sounded about right; no human should have to suffer such an indignity.

    Damn you, Marcelle Marceau, you are not trapped in an invisible box.

    --
    Sailing over the event horizon
  82. Douglas Adams would be worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those white mice may get angry!

  83. Rodents of Unusual Size by korc · · Score: 1

    Hey - they're probably already used to dangerous places to live....

    on the other hand, I vote we send these guys in.

    --

    korc

  84. Re:why train when.. by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    u mean to tell me that putting dogs through mentally and physically grueling years and years of training is ethical? Or that there aren't enough seeing-eye dogs for the blind is ethical?!

    Screw that...do it on a big boat in the middle of the pacific (in international waters).

  85. Rats vs. dogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?

    That's "specieist" of you.

  86. smart creatures by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I saw a docu on national TV on this.
    They were training the rats. They had to stop at dishes with TNT traces.
    The trainers gradually reduced the amount of TNT. It was reduced so far that it was undetectable, yet the rats still stopped.
    The bastards no longer reacted on the TNT, but at the smell of the guy who filled the dishes every day. They had to be retrained, wasting a few months.
    But, hey, you can't blame them taking the easy road.

  87. Re:Who's going to cry...?! [Excessive Trolling] by CaptainSuperBoy · · Score: 1

    So that means you're volunteering to go find land mines? If not: shut up.

  88. Unholy army of the knight by genner · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else think that using rats for military purposes sounds like a half baked plan to take over the world, cooked up by a super villain from a poorly wrriten cartoon. "Go my rat army, kill kill!"

  89. Oh the humanity (or ratity, whichever) by eclectus · · Score: 1

    If we're trying to be more humane, shouldn't we use These Folx instead?

    Hey, it was better than a lawyer joke...

    --
    This signature is a waste of 42 characters
  90. Thank god, IANAL ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If rats work well, maybe they could user lawyers. After all, there is stuff even rats won't do...

  91. Insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only on Slashdot could a post about super intelligent rats be considered "insightful" ...

    Or maybe the mods just have a perverse sense of humour?

    1. Re:Insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe people are just irritated by the fact that "funny" doesn't change your karma. So they mod it something else, instead.

  92. I thought it said MIME HUNTING RATS... by sharrestom · · Score: 1

    And to thing I wasted all that time looking for a PayPal account to donate to.

  93. I've always liked... by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    the old "Wizard of Id" cartoon in which a group of protesters are imploring the king to give up animal testing.

    His response was to ask for volunteers to take the animals' places.

    myke

    1. Re:I've always liked... by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      In the wizard of id, likewise:

      Guard: Your Majesty, animal activists are at the gate making demands again...

      King: Sighs... Oh, all right...

      King: ... release the dogs.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

  94. That's Inhumane! by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why don't they use lawyers and politicians? There'd be a lot less liklihood of protesters...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  95. Rats get the mines, snakes get the... by smoon · · Score: 1

    First we use rats to get the mines
    Then we use giant snakes to get the rats
    then mongoose to get the snakes
    killer bees to get the mongoose
    venus flytraps to get the bees
    agent orange to get the venus flytraps
    mines to stop the paramilitaries using agent orange

    Whoa - a complete cycle!

    --
    "But actually trying to use m4 as a general-purpose langage would be deeply perverse" --ESR
  96. I thought darl was a rat. Isn't he?

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  97. Your cod population? PULEAZE! by wonkavader · · Score: 2

    The seals had little to nothing to do ith your dwindling cod population. Overfishing had everything to do with it. Now kill the damn seals, take their pelts and eat them -- I have no problem with that. But making a scapegoat of something -- lying to others and yourselves, not listening to the obvious truth and blaming your sins on Elvis, space-beings, Canada, rock-music or seals? Now that's abhorrent.

  98. Let's don't by Kjella · · Score: 2, Funny

    Aww, I think they're cute. Any chance of training Darl instead?

    ...and say we did, and send him out there anyway.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  99. spammers by Scott+Richter · · Score: 1
    I'm sick of this anti-rodent bias in humans! "Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?" says the poster, and not a one of you will disagree with him, will you?

    I say we use a bunch of spammers, solve two problems in one. Oh wait. Shit. I mean, not me.

  100. Does anyone cringe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they read this: In most of the slashdot penetrating world

  101. One twist...make 'em hunt AND detonate. by chadjg · · Score: 1, Funny

    It seems to me that the areas that are most heavily mind also grow or have easy access to heroin. I say we use one problem to solve another. Why not get a bunch of rats, and make them into a bunch of raging crack whores. during training the lab techs could mix small amouns of the explosive they are trying to clear in with the drugs they get as a reward for doing a job. Then you haul a bunch of these rats into the target area, wait till they are really jonesing for a fix and let them go. It might be good to tell everyone to stay under cover first though. Like the above and the article points out, the rats may not set off the mines by walking on them, but would they if they started clawing at them thinking that somebody hid a dime bag inside? I know this sounds terribly bloody minded, but it seems like a good choice on ethical and rational grounds. And, I admit, it would be fun to see the PETA freaks explode in rage.

    --
    Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
    1. Re:One twist...make 'em hunt AND detonate. by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      We don't we just string the PETA freaks out on the dope and send them into the minefield? That way, you clear the mines, and you get to see the PETA freaks explode, if not in anger.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  102. Blame the Military/Industrial/obediant Complex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We would not be in this situation if the imperialistic morons who we let rule us world-wide who like to start wars to sort out all the messes they create and get all the suggestible populations of the world to blindlly/obediantly follow them around, then I guess we will have to force small creatures to get blown to bits trying to find these mines.....Do you give a rat's ass about such things, if you don't, then I guess some rat will somewhere?

  103. Russian frint WWII by Skiron · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is not so really new.

    The Russians trained dogs to feed under tanks. They starved them for days, then let them free with their food to be found under tanks.

    When the Germans came, the dogs were loaded up with anti-tank devices, triggered by a lever on their backs. After a few days of no food, the Russians let them free in the German occupied terrority. Of course, the dogs ran straight to the German tanks looking for, and expecting food **BANG**

    After a few weeks of this, the Germans were so shit scared of this 'terrorist' activity, they used to shoot any dog on sight, taking no chances, so slowly the Russians use for the dogs faded.

    Then the Russian boffins discovered that mice used to nest in the tanks (nice and warm) and used to strip electrical cabling to make their nests - very shortly rendering the tank useless until repaired (very difficult). They bred and released thousands of mice to attack the German tanks in this way.

    The Germans fed-up of of this type of terror attack, struck back by dropped cats from aircraft to combat the mice attack, and that worked very well...

    then the Russians had a brain wave, and brought out the 'retired' tank dogs to get the cats.

    The full circle!

    Amazing, but true.

    Nick

  104. Why it wasn't signed by Synn · · Score: 1

    Mines are a key part to defending S Korea, specifically in a 2.5 mile wide 150 mile long demilitarized zone. Clinton put in place a policy to restrict mine usage only to Korea by 2003 with plans to sign the treaty in 2006 if a viable alternative could be found for the Korean DMZ. Honestly though, I have no idea if the current administration has held to that.

    But the US also uses "smart mines" which automatically disarm themselves, although they're still only 99.99% effective.

  105. Who's going to cry?!?! by tbase · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?"

    I was raised by giant Gambian rats, you insensitive... oh nevermind. I'm calling Peta, the People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

    --

    666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
    1. Re:Who's going to cry?!?! by Grrr · · Score: 1

      I'm a friend of rats (Norwegian), you insens -

      (sigh)

      <grrr>

  106. All par for the course in western society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "The morality of a nation can be judged by the way society treats its animals. " - Mahatma Ghandi


    And here's a summary of extracts from the Bible discussing the special relationship Jesus had with all animals.

  107. Re:why train when.. by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    Thats why I placed the "roll eyes" comment. It was sarcasim.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  108. Aw! by r0wan · · Score: 1

    Obligatory "aaawwwww, isn't it CUTE!"

    30 inches though. That's one very large rat.

    Am I the only one that smells a giant Gambian rat rescue set-up a mile away?

    --
    If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
  109. Morocco offers US monkeys to detonate mine by JamMasterJGorilla · · Score: 1
    My job is getting out-sourced by the rats... We need to form a union.... Morocco offers US monkeys to detonate mine
    Published 3/24/2003 6:43 AM

    RABAT, D.C., Morocco, March 24 (UPI) -- A Moroccan publication accused the government Monday of providing unusual assistance to U.S. troops fighting in Iraq by offering them 2,000 monkeys trained in detonating land mines.

    The weekly al-Usbu' al-Siyassi reported that Morocco offered the U.S. forces a large number of monkeys, some from Morocco's Atlas Mountains and others imported, to use them for detonating land mines planted by the Iraqis.

    The publication quoted a highly-informed source as saying, "that is not a scientific illusion but a well-known military tactic."

    Copyright 2001-2004 United Press International
  110. Perfect job for Spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    After reading the various replies, it is obvious that there is a small percentage of people who would actually regret the loss of a rat.

    We should train Spammers instead! Certainly no one would miss them. In fact, we could outfit them with lead boots for extra fun.

  111. Originally they were going to use Seagulls by aapold · · Score: 2, Funny

    But they got too many false positives. Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine!

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  112. self awareness by Psymunn · · Score: 1

    not sure how you do it with a dolphin but self aware test is normally performed by marking a dot on the animals forhead then showing it's reflection a selfaware animal will realise that the reflection is it and thus, notice it has a dot on it's forehead not sure how you'd gage a dolphins self awarness

    also, i assume this has more to do with an animals understanding of reflections not their inability to determine they exist (but psychologists think otherwise)

    --
    The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
    1. Re:self awareness by jnicholson · · Score: 1

      I would think this test would also be biased against animals that don't use sight as their primary sense. Obviously, it won't work on bats. But there may be other animals who rely much more on smell, who will not consider the question of whether the reflection is 'self' or 'other', because it patently isn't there.

      --
      "Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
      -- Nick Davies
  113. Poor Rats... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    Please dont harm them, there are better animals who can do this job. Politians, CEOs, Lawyers... Ok, all of these species are less intelligent, but they are perfectly suitable for doing this job.

  114. semi OT: Re:why train when.. by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    'twas referring to the mod who overrated my post.

  115. I wish I had mod points by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    Screw PETA, kids avoid getting blown up while playing soccer etc beacuse of stuff like this.

    You just turned the "for the children" argument AGAINST the left!

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  116. Re:Who's going to cry...?! [Excessive Trolling] by Arathrael · · Score: 1

    It's not remotely unreasonable for someone who doesn't personally want to go and find land mines to express an opinion about using rats to find them. Unless you can demonstrate that it's a clear choice between volunteers or rats. Which of course, it isn't.

    So, if you want to post something which holds some semblence of actual reasoning, go ahead. If not: shut up. :-)

  117. ...who's going to cry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?

    We, the Gambian Rat lovers! You insensitive clod!

  118. trained mines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I could use some trained mines for rat detection in my apartment.

  119. Re:Rodents could be sentient. by GodotJr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Rest assured that that connection would cease to be there if it doesn't find the mine carefully enough. At that point it would fail the sentient test and become merely "sent'.

    --
    History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes quite often. -- Mark Twain
  120. Re:Your cod population? PULEAZE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American .. I could have blamed terrorism.. Would that have made sense?

  121. Yes, lets finish clearing all the landmines away.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps another good idea would be to STOP USING FUCKING LANDMINES

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  122. Why not use bulldozers? by rnelsonee · · Score: 1
    Does anyone here know why people don't just use heavy machines to just drive over minefields? I would think a specially-built machine, much like a bulldozer could just run over the mines (like with a heavy front end that could absorb shock/shrapnel, with the cab and driver 10 feet back behind lots of plexiglass and steel). Run over the field enough, and you'll have a clean minefield.

    My only guess is that the mines are too powerful. But anti-personel mines don't generate that much force (they are designed to injure, not kill, as to get more people off the battlefield). Even the larger ones... it seems like if we just built a large machine with the driver secured behind some protection (hell, make it remote control), we could just blow them up....

    1. Re:Why not use bulldozers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the article: "Armored bulldozers work well only on level ground."

      I googled around a little and came up witha typical story: Mines in Zimbabwe

    2. Re:Why not use bulldozers? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      From the article itself:
      Mozambique -- Just about every method of detecting land mines has a drawback. Metal detectors cannot tell a mine from a tenpenny nail. Armored bulldozers work well only on level ground. Mine-sniffing dogs get bored, and if they make mistakes, they get blown up.

      ----

      The armored bulldozers also do a number on anything else on that area of ground, and require a fair amount of logistical support (they're heavy and use lots of fuel.)

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    3. Re:Why not use bulldozers? by tiger99 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You can indeed use armoured bulldozers in complete safety as far as anti-personnel mines are concerned, and it is in fact done. (I have seen it on TV so it "must" be true, IIRC after the first war with Saddam.) But, apparently, some mines are at least semi-intelligent, the bulldozer may pass over it once, twice even, but after a while the next thing to be detected, quite possibly a person, will activate it. Some ignore heavy things altogether. The clever ones presumably have some kind of electronics, so the battery will run out eventually, but if they work mechanically with some kind of ratchet wheel or similar, they might be operational for a long time. It makes me sick that portions of industry in civilised countries were designing things like that, optimised to kill innocent people long after the wars are over.

      To be sure of getting all of them you have to either detect them reliably (often no metal parts, which makes it a million times more difficult) or disturb all the soil, damaging crops, trees etc. Footpaths may be mined, they may run through trees, across hillsides, and so on, where it is impracticable to use a bulldozer.

      In the case of the bigger mines, you could in theory build a very robust machine, and be willing to repair it quite often. It could run up and down all day automatically, using GPS. It would be much less stressful to its operators, I have heard that operating an armoured bulldozer leads to lots of nervous breakdowns because of the frequent random explosions. I think that might have been on TV some time after Mrs. Thatcher's Falklands war.

      If people do have new ideas about this, they should perhaps communicate them to the proper authorities, it really does seem to still be a major problem.

      We still occasionally find one of Hitler's bombs in the UK, I know it is a slightly different scenario, but they usually do appear to be still dangerous after 60 years. There was an evacuation somewhere a few weeks ago while the thing was made safe.

      I also saw something else on TV a few years ago, again probably in Kuwait, which seemed to detonate an entire minefileld at once. IIRC it was a British invention, likely the US will have it also. Can't remember how it worked, whether it was EMP, or sonic, or what. All I remember is seeing a vast set of almost simultaneous explosions. I think it might not have been totally reliable, IIRC it missed a few.

      I think that maybe you asked the question because it does not seem to be done, and I suspect that the answer mainly involves money rather than impossible technology.

  123. This would be really great if.... by DieByWire · · Score: 1

    Darl were Gambian.

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
  124. No, probably a native African mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read up on the Mozambique civil war. Both sides laid mines:, the Marxist Frelimo government and the Renamo rebels. Renamo was supported by the white governments of South Africa and Rhodesia.

    See where the misinformation begins?

    The other country mentioned in the NYT article is Afghanistan. Guess which large imperialist country invaded Afghanistan and scattered millions of mines in it? The Soviet Union.

  125. vegetarian life == healthy by adamgeek · · Score: 1

    1: we dont need animal flesh to survive. i've been veg*n for more than 5 years, and i'm perfectly healthy. checkout the lists of vegan/veggie bodybuilders, marathon runners, etc etc. it's EASIER to survive on plants and animal flesh, but not necessary. and, if you want to go for the long term numbers, i'd be willing to be that vegetarians live much longer lives (aggregrate) than meat-eaters (think McD's big mac and it's 5869495 grams of fat).

    2: PETA fanatics don't blow people up. PETA might be out on a limb sometimes (i agree with some of what they do, and other times i think their tactics are mismanaged at best).. but they arent murderers (afaik). I think you're thinking of ELF, which has a more "hands-on, burn-your-house-down-with-you-in-it" type approach.

    1. Re:vegetarian life == healthy by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
      2: PETA fanatics don't blow people up. PETA might be out on a limb sometimes (i agree with some of what they do, and other times i think their tactics are mismanaged at best).. but they arent murderers (afaik).

      As far as criminal acts go, the problems isn't what PETA does as what it doesn't do - find me a statement when they publicly decried the actions of any of the violent extremist animal-rights group unequivocally.

      Here's a hint - you can't. They won't directly support them, because they're afraid of legal consequences.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    2. Re:vegetarian life == healthy by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      ELF is inextricably tied with PETA via the president of PETA. Therefore ELF = PETA since PETA endorses their acts publicly - but not to the general public.

      (saw that on 'Bull Shit' on HBO - so it must be true)

      Also, the argument about vitamin B12 not being available except through animal flesh is correct.

      So, while it is correct that you can survive as a vegetarian, it is also correct that you will do damage to yourself if you don't get vitamin B12 - which entails killing an animal - even if you are using vitamin supliments it equates to the same thing; you survive in a healthy state because an animal died.

      As mentioned elsewhere, and I would amplify, we should treat our animals with the reverence they deserve as we are stewards of the land: take what you need and no more. This is something that is central to Native American culture, and something Americans of European descent should take to heart. Disregard for the ecosystem is bad, but so too is dogmatic disregard for the reality of nature and the functioning of ourselves within nature.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    3. Re:vegetarian life == healthy by Gleef · · Score: 1

      B12 is available in eggs and milk. You can obtain both of these products without killing a single animal.

      The big B12 problem is for Vegans, who will not eat any animal product, including eggs and milk. Vegans with a self-preservation streak generally make sure that some ingredient they regularly eat (often their bread) is fortified with B12. They conveniently ignore the fact that the B12 fortification is, itself, an animal product.

      --

      ----
      Open mind, insert foot.
    4. Re:vegetarian life == healthy by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      An egg is an embyonic chicken - so in essence by consuming the egg you are killing the chicken. I will concede milk.

      However, most of the 'nutball' (aka Vegan?) cases are the zealots we are talking about - the ones who hypicritically avoid 'all animal and animal products' - but then allow themselves to intake B12, knowing its probable source (I never saw B12 specified as 'derived from milk', 'egg' or any other designation - so, more likely than not it was derived from whatever the cheapest method was for the bakery - probably animal byproducts).

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    5. Re:vegetarian life == healthy by kmudrick · · Score: 1

      First off, it's fairly impossible to avoid coming in contact with non-vegan stuff in most people's lives.. A good 99.9% of the vegans I know realize this, and strive to to the best they can, to minimize the most amount of suffering as they possibly can. Perfection is pretty impossible to achieve in anything. Would a Catholic not consider themselves religious anymore if, for instance, they had to miss church on Sunday because they were hurling their guts up do to illness? Would they give up completely because of something like that? Anyhow, back to the off-topic-ness at hand.. B12 - it can be from a source most vegans feel comfortable with, for instance, nutritional yeast.

    6. Re:vegetarian life == healthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An unfertilized egg will never become a chicken, dipshit.

    7. Re:vegetarian life == healthy by Gleef · · Score: 1

      kmudrick wrote:
      First off, it's fairly impossible to avoid coming in contact with non-vegan stuff in most people's lives.. A good 99.9% of the vegans I know realize this, and strive to to the best they can, to minimize the most amount of suffering as they possibly can.

      That is a very noble cause. Although I think it naive to put that goal in front of all others, it's certainly a goal that should be a higher priority in most people's minds.

      That being said, how do you get from that cause to "no products originating from animals", which is the definition of Vegan that I get from most sources. Mother's milk is certainly an animal product, and although mothers of early teethers might disagree, its extraction is generally not considered to be suffering.

      Similarly, I can see how you would want to avoid the products of the big chicken and dairy farms, those animals are suffering. On the other hand, how is harvesting eggs from a free range chicken with plenty of space and food suffering? How is milking the family's pampered pet goat suffering?

      Anyhow, back to the off-topic-ness at hand.. B12 - it can be from a source most vegans feel comfortable with, for instance, nutritional yeast.
      Nutritional yeast does not generate B12. The best it can do is gather it from the medium it grows in. So again you're back to where the B12 comes from.

      Would a Catholic not consider themselves religious anymore if, for instance, they had to miss church on Sunday because they were hurling their guts up do to illness? Would they give up completely because of something like that?
      I'm not Catholic, but I would hope not. That, however is not a good parallel to the question that was in my mind initially. We're not talking about an occasional lapse or accident, we're talking about a diet/philosophy that, by some interpretations, prevents its practitioners from getting what they need to survive.

      A much more extreme example, but more in line with my question, would be the Breatharians, who encourage their practioners to not eat at all. They disagree, but to my eyes, this philosophy directly endangers the lives of its practitioners. If you eat, you are insufficiently enlightened in the eyes of the Breatharians.

      Yes, the Vegan/B12 issue is much much more minor, but still troubling to me in the exact same way. If, in order to be a "good Vegan", you must deprive yourself of a nutrient essential to life, then, in my opinion, being a Vegan is unhealthy. I'm not convinced that this is or isn't the case, but much of what has been discussed here and elsewhere makes me wary.

      --

      ----
      Open mind, insert foot.
  126. I HATE mine sweeper... by Dareth · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have always hated mine sweeper. I say let the rats have it. They must be better than me at guessing what all those numbers over the squares mean!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  127. Obligatory Futurama Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Bender: Who wants dolphin? [Everyone gasps]
    Leela: Dolphin? But dolphins are intelligent.
    Bender: Not this one. He blew all his money on instant lottery tickets.
    Leela: Oh. That's different. Pass the blowhole.

  128. I know! by Best+ID+Ever! · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You shoot the hostage in the leg. No, wait...

    1. Re:I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 Funny!!! Mod points!! Mod points!! My kingdom for Mod points!!!!

  129. No rats died in the production of this article by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In fact, Apopo uses rats, in part, because they are lightweight and very unlikely to set off landmines. (Otherwise native wildlife would routinely set off mines.) It would not be a very effective solution if they spent 1/3 of the animal's life training it and then sent it out to be killed the first time it found a mine. The rats that they train have a natural life expectancy of around 8 years - and the handlers want them to live as long as possible to maximize the time and effort. There is even an alternative method they are investigating which involves filters - the rats don't even go near the suspected areas. I can't see much that PETA could complain about here.

    --
    I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
    1. Re:No rats died in the production of this article by Arathrael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, the article does mention rats dying:

      'The first batch died en route after being accidentally left for two days on a broiling Johannesburg airport tarmac.'

      That sort of negligence is something that certainly (in my opinion) merits complaining about. But it's also not something that's inherent to using the rats for mine detection.

  130. Trained rats can be dangerous.... by tiger99 · · Score: 1
    Maybe! Have you ever read a book called "Willard". Don't remember the author, it was set in Edinburgh in maybe the 1930s. Worth a read!

    Seriously though, I know that animal rights activists will be furious over this, but certain humanitarian issues do have to be tackled, and this may work.

  131. Re:100% failsafe mine detection is already possibl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > You use mine detectors to locate potential mines.
    You detonate a shaving of a C-4 brick over the 'susptected' mine.

    Read the quoted reference: http://www.llnl.gov/str/Azevedo.html . Your 100% drops quite a bit. Not quite 'failsafe' if all mines aren't detected, is it?. Or maybe you meant failsafe for the *minesweepers*, not for the folks who may live there afterwards?..

  132. PETA Will complain, of course by olivercromwell · · Score: 1

    You can bank on it. They will complain about any use of any animal. No matter what the underlying use of the animal may be. Anfd yes, that includes saving human lives. You see, in the eyes of groups like PETA, Earth First, The ALF, animals have the same, exactly the same, rights that you and I enjoy. Some are even so extreme in their beliefs that they will risk human lives and welfare to protect the lives of animals. They are all NUTS.

  133. New Mime Bits by Rick.C · · Score: 1
    So now we'll have:

    Pulling in a 30-in rat by the tail
    Running away from a rat - against the wind
    Stuck in box with a ferrocious rat
    Stuck in an enormous rat trap
    Nibbling cheese - preening whiskers
    Following an imaginary maze

    You know, mimes have WAY too much time on their hands.

    --
    You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
    "Math in a song is good."-Linford
  134. How Appropriate by Laebshade · · Score: 1

    Hrm, New York Times is hosting a news article about giant rats...

    Coincidental? I think not.

  135. b12 comes from bacteria by kmudrick · · Score: 1

    Wrong wrong wrong. I'm quite sure the b12 in my nutritional yeast and the b12 in my soymilk are not "itself, an animal product." B12 itself is not inherently manufacturered by either plants or animals - they come from bacteria. Animal foods (meat, etc) get b12 from the bacteria in the food those animals eat or from the bacteria in those animals' intestines. Similarly, the fortification of soymilk or nutritional yeast (or a bunch of other vegan products) originally comes from bacteria of some sort.. But to argue that bacteria is a sentient being (which would make your original statement valid) seems.. off.

    1. Re:b12 comes from bacteria by Gleef · · Score: 1

      I never argued that bacteria was sentient, just that B12 was an animal product. If the B12 supplement you get is produced by bacteria, then the question remains "is bacteria animal". Clearly, your opinion is no.

      Where on earth did you pull "sentient being" from?!?

      --

      ----
      Open mind, insert foot.
  136. Photo by jafiwam · · Score: 1

    From Fox News. The story related to a monkey-pox outbreak spread by Gambian Rats that were caged with groundhogs (and later sold).

    Gamgian Rat

    Sorta cute if you like rats.

  137. not so new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i saw that about 2 years ago on german television. It was an feed about the "academy" that trains the rats... Back then it was so horribly inefficient:

    1. take a 3x3meter field.

    2. Put about 10 small wooden posts on 2 sides of the field.

    3. put some strings between each 2 posts.

    4. take the rat, attach a string with a hook to its neck.

    5. attach the hook to one of the strings above

    6. have a buddy standing at the opposite post

    7. have your buddy offering some rat-food to the rat to motivate her moving along the string

    8. wait until the rat has successfully crossed the field

    9. check if the rat has found anything of interest

    10. do not touch it... could be a mine!

    this takes about 1 minute per string x10 per field xN per size of area...

    maybe their have enhanced their technique by now but i doubt it...

    it's not like you throw a big box of rats from a plane and wait for them to clean entire landstrips... you have to have at least 1 person to monitor each rat, a person who trusts his rat!

  138. Re:Your cod population? PULEAZE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    perhaps when militant extremist seals kill thousands of your fellow citizens. Oh I sorry, I'll need to translate it to Canadian:
    blah, blah, blah, blah, Hoozer...

  139. Instead of using BELGIAN rats... by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 1

    ...use Indian rats! They'll work for less, and they were undesirable people in a previous life!

  140. MONKEYPOX by sapbasisnerd · · Score: 1

    Uhmm... Them rats is just trying to improve their public image. IIRC it was a shipment of Gambian rats that brought Monkeypox to the US (and thence to Richardson's ground squirrels aka prairie dogs and thence to humans).

  141. Original text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop messing with the submissions, CmdrTaco!

    Here's the original:

    "The dangerous profession of anti-personnel mine detection is getting a surprising new tool: Gambian negroes (NY Times reg). Some resourceful Belgians have figured out how to train these 1.8 m simians to hunt out landmines. They are cheaper and work harder than dogs and are more reliable than metal detectors. Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?"

  142. Animals sometimes benefit by GQuon · · Score: 1

    You do realize that large mammals, including endangered species, are killed and maimed by mines?

    Excellent point. Animal testing sometimes also benefits other animals.

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  143. Hipporite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You eat vegetables and other plants every day, don't you? Do you ever consider that they, just like the jews, are alive? I have heard the cries of carrots voilently uprooted with their siblings, chewed or boiled while still alive. Just because you can't hear them speak, doesn't mean they're not sentient, etc. . . .

    1. Re:Hipporite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I am not a vegetarian at all, I had not realized my comment made me seem like one.

      And yes I do feel the pain of the vegetables.

  144. Anti-tank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IIRC, the US wouldn't sign, because the treaty would make these things illegal too:
    - Anit-tank mines with anti-tampering devices which could be set off by a person.
    - Anit-personell mines which explode after some hours.

    I hoped they would sign, too.

  145. Re:100% failsafe mine detection is already possibl by zpok · · Score: 1

    the problem is you're trying to find "suspected" mines. That's cool, but doesn't clear all mines in a given area, only the ones you suspect are there.

    Better to unleash a few well trained rats.

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  146. Bardot's power of discrimination by geoswan · · Score: 1
    About 20 years ago Bardot flew to Labrador, for a photo-op, to protest the traditional hunt for baby seals. The babies have a white pelt, and are very easy to catch, because they don't know how to swim. The mothers give birth on ice floes, so they can be caught on foot. They are harvested by being clubbed on the head, so as not to damage the pelt.

    Anyhow, the embarrassing moment came when Bardot said to the press who had accompanied her, something like, "This hunt is so cruel. I know, I held one of the little darlings in my arms."

    What everyone was embarrassed to say was, "Um, excuse me. Miss Bardot, that wasn't a live baby seal, that was one that had been stuffed by a taxidermist."

    So, if she can't tell a live seal from a stuffed one, it wouldn't surprise me if she couldn't tell a dog from a rat.

  147. Reminds me of mechanical bunnies in Full Throttle by gades · · Score: 2, Funny

    *Mild spoiler warning!* ... Which you had to use to clear the minefield in front of the Vulture's hideout. Cute, yellow, mechanical bunnies handled by a grizzly biker. LucasArts was ahead of its time on that one!

  148. but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought "Belgians" was bad enough! ...arg, don't get to use that one often enough.

  149. I agree. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    But if they were stopped tomorrow, the world would still be polluted with already deployed landmines.

    1. Re:I agree. by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      If you stopped dropping crumbs on the carpet you would still need to vacume.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  150. I had to say it... by jht · · Score: 1

    Why not use SCO employees instead? Nobody'd be as attached to Darl as they might get to a lab rat. And some lawyers have redeeming values.

    Not many, but some...

    Anyhow, I doubt there's anyone at SCO who rates above rats on the cuddly scale.

    --
    -- Josh Turiel
    "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
  151. well put. by adamgeek · · Score: 1

    thank you, kevin. very well put.

    for me, being veg*n (or any form of strong belief) is about finding a middle ground you're comfortable with. nothing in life is black and white (well, very little).. so most of what we (read: i) do is trying to navigate the gray area as best i can. if you wear shoes or comercially produced clothes or drive a car or do anything but essentially live in a commune, you can never be 100% vegan. do what you can, so that you can live your life and be comfortable with who you are.

  152. Mine Vs. Rat by NIK282000 · · Score: 0

    If all you wanted was to cause rodents to explode on mines I can think of more amusing ways of doing so. Examples -Rat golf -Rad lawn bowling -Rat crochet (sp?) -Rat shotput -Rat cricket Or just plain old throwing rats at where you think mines may be, as it re-orients and runs its bound to hit a mine.

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  153. Because ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    then you'd get lawyer recursion as each lawyer's lawyer argued for a motion to appeal the motion filed by his predecessor for *each* lawyer being sent into the minefield.

    Then we'd run out of stack space and the universe would collapse. Simple really.

    =)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  154. eggs by Gleef · · Score: 1

    Lodragandraoidh asserts:
    An egg is an embyonic chicken - so in essence by consuming the egg you are killing the chicken.

    You are mistaken, an egg is not an embryonic chicken. The chicken eggs you buy in a store are unfertilized. They are not embryos and, since they had already left the chicken before collection, have absolutely no chance of turning into a chicken no matter what is done with them.

    On rare occasions, a quality control error occurs, and you actually do get a fertilized egg, which is an embryonic chicken. I have observed this twice in over three decades. I've seen more car accidents than fertilized eggs sold for food.

    --

    ----
    Open mind, insert foot.
  155. Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry? by Sv1ad · · Score: 1

    Me for one. Why not use something no one will miss - like corporate lawyers.

  156. Say hi to John Travolta for me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't make it to this week's Scientology meeting!

  157. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you heard about the new German microwave ovn? Seats eight!

  158. Somebody train Darl by nicotinix · · Score: 1

    to find those land mines.....

  159. Would this be... by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

    a biowarfare arms race? :P

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  160. Not just de-mining... by chizz · · Score: 1

    Ordinary domesticated rats have been trained to go through stud walling and tortuously complex runs following their owners' tapping on the outer plasterboard and pulling with them a trace string which is then used to pull in a UTP / Telephone /Mains /antenna/ wtf cable. simplifies a complex expensive and time consuming process.

  161. Re:Who's going to cry...?! [Excessive Trolling] by Eccles · · Score: 1

    I love rats, especially the Gambian Giant Rats, and just the thought of them scurrying to their potential deaths apalls me.

    As stated from the article, one reason to use the rats is because they won't set off the mines. I suppose there's potential death from predators in the area, but...

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.