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?"

103 of 456 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    8. 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.
  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. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    3. 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.
    4. 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!
    5. 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?"
    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

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

      Ever heard of a *land* mine?

    11. 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.

    12. 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
    13. 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.

    14. 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?"
    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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"

    19. 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...

    20. 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.

    21. 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.
    22. 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.

    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.

    26. 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)
    27. 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.

    28. 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.

    29. 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.

  4. reg free by Coneasfast · · Score: 3, Informative

    reg free version

    --
    Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
  5. Google links by Albanach · · Score: 3, Informative
  6. 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.
  7. 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 MrRuslan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Especially SCO lawyers...

    2. 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

    3. 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.

    4. 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...

    5. Re:Use Lawyers Instead by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm willing to risk it

  8. 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.
  9. Obligatory Princess Bride quote by Plaeroma · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  10. 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!"
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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!"

  16. Somebody has to say it... by iabervon · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  17. 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.

  18. 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.
  19. 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 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.)

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

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

  21. 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?

  22. 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
  23. 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?
  24. 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.
  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.
  28. Re:Foreing species by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    um have you heard of the concept of sterilization?

  29. 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
  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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?

  36. 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.

  37. 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!

  38. 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.)

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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?

  42. 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.

  43. 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
  44. 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

  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. trained mines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I could use some trained mines for rat detection in my apartment.

  48. 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
  49. 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.
  50. 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
  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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!