Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Proof That Nature Hates A Fraud

Posted by timothy on from the type-r-sticker dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Scientists have known for years that insects and animals use distinct markings as status badges. Now, by staging wasp fights, researchers have learned that cheaters never win. Wimpy wasps painted with the markings reserved for a leader get beat up. Even if the fakes win, they still get harassed afterward. The study leader likened it to what might happen to a 97-pound weakling who walks around wearing a black belt. Sooner or later ..."

84 comments

  1. Uh oh. by deemaunik · · Score: 3, Funny

    So my plan to get the Alpha Beta Letterman's Jacket and replace my Lambda Lambda Lambda one will fail? Oh noes. I'm doomed!

    1. Re:Uh oh. by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I think that they'd all see you stumbling around until you put your taped together glasses on.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
  2. Ermm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The study leader likened it to what might happen to a 97-pound weakling who walks around wearing a black belt.

    Erm, whether or not you are a 97-pound weakling has very little to do with how well you fight, or how much damage you can do, or especially about whether you deserve that black belt or not. It is also a poor analogy to what's going on here.

    1. Re:Ermm... by nharmon · · Score: 1

      Body weight and strength have a lot to do with how well you HAVE TO fight.

    2. Re:Ermm... by Rene_Daley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Duh. Yes, a person's weight and strength directly impact his/her effectiveness as a fighter. This is precisely why boxers, wrestlers, and other martial artists compete against people in their weight class. All other things being equal, if you put a bantamweight boxer in the ring with a heavyweight boxer, 99.9% (pulling this stat from a place where the sun doesn't shine) of the time the heavyweight will win (the other .1% involves a heart attack). Sure, a 97 pound weakling with a black belt might be able to beat the fat kid that everyone remembers from high school (or is that the average /. reader, is there a diff?). That does not justify your statement that weight/strength "has very little do with how well you fight." If everything other than wtrength/weight is equal, strength/weight plays a direct role in how dangerous a person is. There's a reason you gave your lunch money to the bigger kids -- they were bigger and more dangerous! Catch a clue.

    3. Re:Ermm... by FCAdcock · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Completely wrong. As with ev erything else in life, skill and will are what determine the winers of fights, not size/mass. If size and weight were the determining factors of fights, boxers would never actually need to box. They would just weigh in and the heavier person would win. Instead of staying in shape our boxers would look like sumo wrestlers. This isn't to say that a larger person dosen't have an advantage, but that advantage is easily countered with training and skill. As a martial arts instructor and a 15-year student of martial arts I can tell you that with propper training someone my size (130Lbs, 5'-9") can easily beat someone much larger than myself. (Have been in a few fights with people who exceeded 200+lbs 6'-6"+ and easily won.) I've also been beaten by people who were 50 years my senior. It's all in the skill. And no, I never gave up my lunch money.

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    4. Re:Ermm... by Rene_Daley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You deliberately mischaracterize what I wrote. I never claimed that strength/weight were the only determinative factors. I stated that strength/weight had a direct relationship to a person's effectiveness as a fighter. If a 97 pound weaking with no training, and a 197 pound strongman with no training were involved in a fight, you can say goodbye to the 97 pound weakling. You indicate that you have been in, and won, fights with people significantly larger than yourself. You never indicate if these people have the same training you do. As I stated in my original post, all other things being equal, strength/weight directly impact how well a person fights. Bigger people hit harder. Bigger people can take more physical abuse. On the con side, bigger people get tired faster (it takes a lot more energy to fight when you are big). Answer me this, if strength/weight do not matter, why is it that women are abused by men much more often than vice versa. Strength/weight do matter. So does training. So does natural aptitude.

    5. Re:Ermm... by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      No, the people who I have had to fight did npt have my level of training. If they had, I'd have shot them and saved myself the trouble. I've never once met anyone who has told me that they were beatten up by a blackbelt when they didn't start the fight themselves. I know that there are bad apples among us, but it's a rarity. Virtually all of the blackbelts that I've met have been extremely non-violent people.

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    6. Re:Ermm... by DeltaSigma · · Score: 1

      But all other things can't be equal if strength/weight differ. For instance, it's reasonable to assume that the lighter of two trained fighters would be more agile. This isn't going to help him much in the boxing ring, but does help quite a bit in most of the realistic places an average person is likely to get in a fight.

      Boxing works as a sport delimited by weight class precisely because all other variables are the same. The ring is always the same size, the same shape, etc.

      Freestyle fights are difficult to call because there are so many variables one must account for in any given conflict.

      I'd have to agree that boxers pitted against each other from a different weight class in a standard boxing ring would often see the heavy-weight winning.

      Outside of that though, environment can play a big role, as can technique.

    7. Re:Ermm... by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

      At first glance, I thought exactly the same thing. One of the advantages of martial arts training is its ability to compensate for things like size and weight. I've known girls who were half my weight that I wouldn't mess with.

      But as I was thinking about it, I realized that there were other things to be considered. One is speed, which I think should be included with s&w as a critical component. Also, martial arts is a compensation for lack of some or all of those three factors. This is what equalizes the physical differences between people when they're fighting.

      The parent poster is right, though, in thinking that this is much like boxing. Or perhaps, in a more limited context, martial arts competitions. There are rules in place to prevent unexpected or unorthodox maneouvers, and the combatants are (one hopes) roughly similar in skill level. And let me tell you, if two opponents are identical in any three of skill, size, weight, or speed, the fourth factor will cast the deciding vote in the victory*. If I'm told I'm going to fight a guy who's as skilled in karate, as fast, and as heavy as I am, but I have a choice whether he's 6'6" (2m) or 5'4" (1.63m), I am certainly going to choose the smaller guy, because I will have an obvious advantage.

      Tying this all back to the bees... The bees only know a couple of moves. They're like boxers in that they have a limited number of things they are capable of doing. Wasps can't learn tae kwon do or judo. (If they could, we'd all be in trouble.) And they have relatively similar skills with their limited abilities. So this means that speed, size, and weight are major components in their battles, and more often than not, the bigger guy is going to win.

      Now what would be really interesting would be to take a wasp who has legitimate leader markings from a colony of wasps bred to be much smaller than their normal cousins, and put him in a fight with a non-leader from a colony that's been modified to be bigger than normal. Or vice versa - take a runt from the big tribe, paint him as a leader, and let him loose on the smaller tribe. There may be more to this than markings...

      *There are other factors which can decide the outcome, such as determination or desperation, but they are not as quantifiable and are therefore harder to evaluate. They can compensate somewhat, but only to a point.

    8. Re:Ermm... by Rene_Daley · · Score: 1

      I agree, environment has a significant impact on the outcome of a fight. The extreme example would be in a body of water -- the better swimmer has an enormous advantage. But, you should watch more boxing. There is no standard ring size. The size of the ring is typically a big item in negotiations in headline fights. Brawlers typically want small rings, whereas boxers prefer large rings. You are also right that there are innumerable variables that go into a person's effectiveness in fighting. However, if you remove all of the variable except strength and weight, then you are left with the inevitable conclusion that size/weight have a direct correlation to a person's effectiveness in a fight. I wrestled in h.s. and college (once again, very set rules and environment). I sometimes defeated people bigger than me. Occasionally I lost to people smaller. But I generally had more success against people smaller than me and less success than people bigger than me. I've never had to use my training in a real world situation, for which I am very thankful. Whenever two grown men are involved in a fight, someone will be hurt.

    9. Re:Ermm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of immediately taking offense to a statement, why don't you people relate it's meaning to the article?

      "Wimpy wasps painted with the markings reserved for a leader"

      This indicates that when a fake wasp fights a real wasp, he's probably going to get his shit kicked.

      "what might happen to a 97-pound weakling who walks around wearing a black belt.".

      This indicates that when a fake black-belt fights a real black-belt he's probably going to get his shit kicked.

      What don't you people understand about that?!? Stop fucking arguing about it!!

    10. Re:Ermm... by ggy · · Score: 1

      No, the people who I have had to fight did npt have my level of training. If they had, I'd have shot them and saved myself the trouble.

      Ehum? Am I the only one who thinks this is ironic? You've spent how many years training, and when you finally have a fair fight you'd shoot them? Where's your sense of pride?! :)
      (Okay, so you might be intelligent and I would've probably done the same thing, but that's a whole other issue...)

      I've never once met anyone who has told me that they were beatten up by a blackbelt when they didn't start the fight themselves. I know that there are bad apples among us, but it's a rarity. Virtually all of the blackbelts that I've met have been extremely non-violent people.

      And this is another argument for the parents, if you walk around with a fake blackbelt and without the training, and someone decides to try to beat you up. Who would win?

      It's up to the fighters, but if one of them really had a blackbelt (and your level of training), I'd sure as hell know who I'd bet on!

    11. Re:Ermm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Ehum? Am I the only one who thinks this is ironic? You've spent how many years training, and when you finally have a fair fight you'd shoot them? Where's your sense of pride?!

      I lost all hope for a fair fight the first time I took a fist to the face. Why fight fair when you can just win outright?

      Pretty much, there is no fair fight, if I find out that someone is as skilled as me in one area I change tactics to have the advantage. If you allow them to keep up with you, you loose. So, if you come at me with a blackbelt, I'll shoot you in the knees...

    12. Re:Ermm... by Retric · · Score: 1

      In a real fight most people end up injured. While I only have 2years of training in KENPO I have "owned" people with far more training that where either smaller than my 6'2'' or slower than I am. I have fast reflexes and tend to go with the flow in battle, which helps, but all fights lead to injury. Which is the best reason to avoid fighting, sure I can win the average bar fight hands down but a little bad luck and we all go down. Hell I remember one linebacker who only landed one jab to my ribs (seemed like a good idea to get him over extended and I 'knew" it would be ok.) but damm that hurt for days.

      PS: Ok yea once I got in a huge argument with a friend of my and he end up pulling out a sword and threatening me so I felt the need to umm aggressively defend my self while humiliating him. Neither of us got hurt but I did restrain him on the floor in such a manor that I could snap his neck had I so chosen. But that's my point once you can demonstrate you are someone not to be fucked with there is little point in beating some one up for the hell of it.

    13. Re:Ermm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My shotgun can beat any 300lb gorilla!

    14. Re:Ermm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's my point once you can demonstrate you are someone not to be fucked with there is little point in beating some one up for the hell of it.

      There is NEVER a point in beating someone up "for the hell of it!" Why do people WANT to hurt others? It's called walking away...

      That being said, the few times I have fought were when there were either multiple people or weapons in my way keeping me from just walking out. That's when people get hurt...

      -
      Forest C. Adcock
      2nd- TaeKwonDo
      3rd- Kyusho-Jitsu
      3rd- Shinjuki-Jin jitsu
      2nd- Shaolin Chin-Na

  3. weakling by chocobot · · Score: 1

    I know some 97 pound black belts who can kick your ass through the room. The small ones often are faster, and some compensate their lack of weight with aggressiveness.

    1. Re:weakling by Planesdragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know some 97 pound black belts who can kick your ass through the room.

      And when they meet a 194 lbs black belt, they probably get thrown in turn. "All else being equal, the stronger man wins."

      A true "black belt" wouldn't walk around with the belt showing in any case; doing so only invites aggrivation, and gives away the small man's most important method of defense: underestimation.

    2. Re:weakling by fourtwo · · Score: 5, Funny

      But now that this news is out there, maybe a real blackbelt will wear his belt to advertise the fact that he is not a fraud. Then when he is attacked by someone who assumes that he is a weakling impersonating a blackbelt impersonating a weakling impersonating a blackbelt, he can use his new method of defense, "misunderestimation."

    3. Re:weakling by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      I know some 97 pound black belts who can kick your ass through the room.

      And when they meet a 194 lbs black belt, they probably get thrown in turn. "All else being equal, the stronger man wins."

      This is not obvious to me. As the previous poster pointed out, small fighters are _fast_. While the smaller black belt would be toast if the heavier one managed to grapple, the heavier one will have a hard time successfully counterattacking as long as the lighter one is on their toes.

      Strength matters, and reach matters, but skill matters considerably more than either.

      Unfortunately none of the footage from tournaments our school has attended is online, or I'd link a few video clips as examples. Skill is very rarely equal, making the other factors less relevant.

    4. Re:weakling by chocobot · · Score: 1

      yepp, exactly my opinion. And a person trained in fighting will in most cases win against a person without training, regardless of weight (to some degree). People without fight training (or maybe dancing, too?) have no idea how long their arms reach or how to dodge an attack.

    5. Re:weakling by Planesdragon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Strength matters, and reach matters, but skill matters considerably more than either.

      Very true. Which is why I didn't say "green belt" or "random punk." When our meter of skill is "black belt", we can assume identical values for skill given identical variables.

      If the smaller man is more skilled, or actually is stronger, the larger man is out of luck. But I think a 97-pound strong man would have to be less than four feet tall (i.e., REALLY small) to have a greater lift/weight ratio than the 194 lbs man -- and if you're measuring unadjusted dead lift and the 194 lbs. man is fit, the 97 lbs man is going to be noticably shaped well beyond the human norm.

    6. Re:weakling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Large != slow.

      You've been playing too many fighting games.

    7. Re:weakling by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately none of the footage from tournaments our school has attended is online, or I'd link a few video clips as examples.

      I would like to point out that tournament fighting has absolutely nothing to do with real-world fighting.

      In a tournament fight, a 97lb man punching a 194lb man in the stomach counts as a point. The 97lb man can easily with the bout with a few solid connections.

      In a real-world fight, a 97lb man punching a 194lb man in the stomach will probably hurt his hand, inflict very little damage to his opponent, and be summarily pummeled.

      I am in no way saying that a little guy can't kick a big guy's ass. But if the two are equally skilled, the little guy is probably going to take a severe beating, at least outside of the artificial rules of a tournament. Furthermore, all of the real-world fights between martial artists that I have seen tend to involve very little "art" after the first few seconds...

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    8. Re:weakling by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      If two fighters are of equal skill, the smaller one is at a disadvantage. That's why competitive martial arts have weight classes.

      Small fighters may be fast, but in most cases it takes more than speed to oversome the weight and reach advantage a larger opponent has. Since this discussion is about fighters of equal skill, the small guy _is_ at a disadvantage.

    9. Re:weakling by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      Very true. Which is why I didn't say "green belt" or "random punk." When our meter of skill is "black belt", we can assume identical values for skill given identical variables.

      Um, black belt generally represents the beginning of serious training, as opposed to an endpoint. Depending on how high the school sets the bar, getting to black belt takes 3-6 years or so. That leaves another few decades to continue to improve one's technique.

      Even among the shodans at our school, there is a very wide skill variation.

    10. Re:weakling by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      Large != slow.

      You've been playing too many fighting games.

      The last fighting game I played was "killer instinct". I can do the Cranky Kong rant about bit-planes too, if you like.

      On the other hand, I watch sparring pretty frequently (and spar myself, but I'm not nearly good enough at it to use my own approaches as examples). For smaller people, speed and maneuverability win. For large people, capitalizing on longer reach and effectively countering the small person's attacks wins, because they aren't going to out-race or easily out-maneuver the small guy.

    11. Re:weakling by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      And when they meet a 194 lbs black belt, they probably get thrown in turn. "All else being equal, the stronger man wins."

      First, "black belt" represents a large range of skills. A new shodan (first degree black belt) might only have been training for five years, while another person with the same color belt may have been training for forty years. Despite the mystique we've associated with it, a black belt just means competence in the basics.

      I have a photograph of me with Kaicho Tadashi Nakamura, founder of Seido Karate, taken when I was a shodan with about eleven years training. (It took me a long time to get there.) In the photo we're both wearing black belts. He would have been 53 at the time, while I was 26, and he's about a half-head shorter than me. Then or now (he's now 61 and I'm 34 and sandan), he could tear me up into little pieces without working up a sweat.

      Second, while being bigger gives certain advantages, it also gives weaknesses. Everything else being equal, bigger people have a higher center of gravity and are eaiser to unbalance. They run into the mathematics of the cube vesus the square: their knees are proportionally weaker, having to support more weight per unit cross-sectional area, and they have a harder time breathing under extertion as their lungs have less surface area per unit of body mass. (That's actually a fractal, not a square, but the point holds.)

      They're slower to react, having more momentum to overcome and also a farther path for nerve impulses to travel to activate muscle contration. Their vital target areas are larger, and their longer limbs provide more of a level for joint lock techiques. (As a 5'7", ~150 lbs karate student who often gets matched with larger sparring partners, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this.)

      Third, strategy, guile, and "fighting spirit" play a much larger role in a real confrontation then either size or physical fighting technique. "It's not the size of the man in the fight, but the size of the fight in the man," as the cliche goes.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    12. Re:weakling by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Um, black belt generally...

      Which is why it's a horrible phrase to use to measure skill, and a rather foolish proclomation of said ability. But it's what the other guy started with, so rather than bicker about definition I left it there.

      If you took a black belt from a belt-factory and put them up against a green belt from a rigorous, classical, high-bar school, the green-belt may very well wind up winning the majority of matches.

      (And if you grabbed a real 97-lbs weakling whose idea of martial arts is Soul Calbur, he might actually kill a 300-lbs ultra-fit black belt. The UFBB would be more likely to win, but nothing's certain.)

    13. Re:weakling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they are equally skilled, outside of a tournament, and one is bigger than the other, doesn't mean the bigger guy would win. From the streets fights I have seen the biggest factors I would say in who wins the fight are: tenacity and pure psychoses.

      I've seen little guys beat HUGE guys, both can fight(although perhaps they were closer in weight than I would think: but still quite a size difference). Why does the little guy win? Because he's a pure psycho. It's like his adrenal gland produces PCP as well. You know how people on PCP can be shot multiple times, have their legs broken and still be willing to fight the cops trying to apprehend them? That's what these people are kind like(obviously they're not superhumans): completely immune to pain and no fear of being killed or killing others. Like, it doesn't matter how big you are, if you're not a psycho too, and some guy just jumps on you and starts biting your face with complete animal savagery, you're so fucked man.

    14. Re:weakling by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      I would like to point out that tournament fighting has absolutely nothing to do with real-world fighting.

      Tournament sparring at tournaments is typically non-contact. Practice sparring at the dojo is "light contact", for varying values of "light" (that at one point involved me landing in a weapons rack a few feet away, giving me a healthy respect for kicks). Clean footage of that would be harder to dig up, as less of this was filmed.

      In a real-world fight, a 97lb man punching a 194lb man in the stomach will probably hurt his hand, inflict very little damage to his opponent, and be summarily pummeled.

      All I can say is, I'm 160 lbs, and have had little girls half my weight hit me hard enough to give me pause. See my other response in this thread for a longer discussion on this.

      I am in no way saying that a little guy can't kick a big guy's ass. But if the two are equally skilled, the little guy is probably going to take a severe beating, at least outside of the artificial rules of a tournament.

      I'd actually expect the little guy to block, counterattack, and then run like heck :). If it was tooth and nail between two equally skilled opponents... I'd perhaps give better odds for the big guy, but it would by no means be a sure thing. And, per my previous comments, equal skill is a very unusual situation even among black belts (perhaps especially so).

      Furthermore, all of the real-world fights between martial artists that I have seen tend to involve very little "art" after the first few seconds.

      Fair enough, though arguably those first few seconds are pretty important.

    15. Re:weakling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Otherwise known as the "Napoleon complex". Also known as "small penis syndrome".

    16. Re:weakling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nice. I know some 97 pound weaklings who would get their asses kicked if they aggravated someone by wearing a black-belt.

    17. Re:weakling by s0l0m0n · · Score: 1

      When our meter of skill is "black belt", we can assume identical values for skill given identical variables.

      You can't assume that fairly. Not all black belts are created equal. I might get a bit of flak over this, but not all martial arts, or martial arts teachers are equal. Put a good Penchak Silat (my personal favorite) fighter up againts your standard Strip mall McDojo Tae Kwan Do blackbelt, and see who wins.

      Additionally, there is a big difference between a fighter, and a martial artist. A good fighter takes a lumping and keeps getting back up. A lot of martial arts students can't take one good punch, much less the heavy barage that I would drop on you if you steped up..

      Strength matters, skill matters, but strength of will wins fights. The wasp with the correct markings knows that it is in the right, and that goes a long way toward winning a fight.

    18. Re:weakling by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1
      For large people, capitalizing on longer reach and effectively countering the small person's attacks wins, because they aren't going to out-race or easily out-maneuver the small guy.

      I still disagree with your characterisation of the large as "slow". I am six foot seven, and I assure you, quite light on my feet. Part of this is innate, and part of this is training, and will thus vary by school, but I think it would be a serious risk to make assumptions.

      If you study in a very technique oriented school such as I do at the moment, you're educated from a pretty early period that reach and strength are not be relied upon, because no matter how big you are, there is always someone out there who is bigger. Flexibility, lightness and adaptability are first priority for all students, no matter in which direction their natural gifts lie.

      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    19. Re:weakling by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Third, strategy, guile, and "fighting spirit" play a much larger role in a real confrontation then either size or physical fighting technique. "It's not the size of the man in the fight, but the size of the fight in the man," as the cliche goes.

      What part of "all else being equal" didn't you understand?

    20. Re:weakling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would explain how my 5'1" 92Lbs wife was able to accidently crack my ribs with an errant kick. I am 6'0" and 245Lbs with a 35" waste. No I do not float in water.

      A better measurment would be the fact she can break a 2x4 with a heel kick. I'm sure a tall persons legs would be a wonderful target.

    21. Re:weakling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sorry, that never happens.

      The only way a 97 pound weakling can beat a 300 lbs of pure muscle is in an honest fight.

      By honest fight, I mean one in which the 97 pound weakling's best assets are not taken away by arbitrary rules.

      As a human being, the 97 pounder's greatest asset is the intelligence that gives them the ability to use tools. A great tool for a 97 pounder to use against a hulking behemoth would be a 12 guage shotgun.

      This is why I advocate requiring all schoolchildren to pack heat or be expelled. Bullies really do deserve to die, a slow painful wasting death, and then be brought back to life and killed gruesomely again. 10 or 11 resurrections and breakings on the wheel, and then I might be moved by the pleading eyes of their corpse to have the mercy not to resuccitate them for yet another bone crushing session.

  4. hello! by bairy · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    off topic I know who cares..

    That site has appaling html coding, rendering in firefox is even worse than /.

    --


    Get paid to search..It's geniune and
    1. Re:hello! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can reflow the text content and make slashdot look correct again my upping and then reducing the font size. Use ctrl+the scroll wheel on your mouse.

  5. If this is true.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then how the hell did Bush get back in???

  6. Star bellied sneeches had bellies with stars by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...but the plain bellied sneeches had none upon thars.

    --

    -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    1. Re:Star bellied sneeches had bellies with stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your a star bellied sneech
      you suck like a leech
      you want everyone to act like you
      kiss ass while you bitch
      so you can get rich
      while your boss gets richer off you
      well you'll work harder with a gun in your back
      for a bowl of rice a day
      slave for soldiers till ya starve
      and your head is skewered on a stake
      well now you can go where the people are one
      now you can go where they get things done
      what you need my son
      what you need my sooooon
      is a holiday in cambodia
      where people dress in black
      a holiday in cambodia
      where youll kiss ass or crack
      --------------------
      Those lyrics are from memory. Haven't listened to that song since I was 17. I am now 34 years old. I haven't thought of my punk rock youth in over a decade. What has happened to me?

  7. Only a matter of time... by nekoniku · · Score: 3, Funny

    Coming soon to ESPN2: Extreme Wasp Fighting!

    --
    "It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
    1. Re:Only a matter of time... by vasqzr · · Score: 1


      Coming soon to ESPN2: Extreme Wasp Fighting!

      I would gladly watch that instead of 'Celebrity Poker'

    2. Re:Only a matter of time... by cephyn · · Score: 1

      As long as its extreme...screw that mundane wasp fighting show!

      --
      Moo.
    3. Re:Only a matter of time... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Didn't "Extreme WASP Fighting" describe the Jerry Springer show before it went pussy?

      Or would insect fighting be something like Pokemon? BEEDRILL vs. BUTTERFREE at the same level, which would win?

  8. If that's true... by Scaba · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cool. Does this mean we'll be rid of Dubya before 2008?

  9. This is idiotic by itwerx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole premise of this article is silly. They're assuming that A - those markings are the only signals and B - that they can reproduce them well enough to fool the other wasps.
    Hello?!? McWasp?!? (Er, McFly!)

    1. Re:This is idiotic by RobertB-DC · · Score: 2, Funny

      The whole premise of this article is silly. They're assuming that A - those markings are the only signals and B - that they can reproduce them well enough to fool the other wasps.

      Also the article inadvertenty noted another problem:

      Assuming the honest wasps weren't just reacting to the odor of Testor's, there must be some way they sleuthed out the imposters.

      They were joking, but think about it -- we know that insects see a very different range of colors than we do. Did they make sure that the paints they used were exact mimics of the natural colors in *all* wavelengths? Or do both colors look like the wasp equivalent of this or this in the infrared?

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    2. Re:This is idiotic by itwerx · · Score: 1

      Hrm, I suppose I should have said "experiment" rather than "article" :)

    3. Re:This is idiotic by KWTm · · Score: 1

      "Idiotic"? Tell me about it.

      1. Wimpy wasp gets beaten up by bully wasps.
      2. Wimpy wasp gets painted.
      3. Wimpy wasp gets beaten up by bully wasps.

      Can we redirect our scientific research to something more practical, like the use of Mexican jumping beans as a method of interstellar travel?

      --
      404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
      [GPG key in journal]
    4. Re:This is idiotic by Forbman · · Score: 1

      It could be a conflict of things. Perhaps the dominant wasps also have "dominance" pheremones, and by painting geek wasps to look like dominant wasps, the resulting discordance within the wasp community with whatever other signalling mechanisms they have simply caused the conflict.

      There are different ant species that get tricked by some spiders (behavior, pheremone or just physical similarity)... There are others that know when ants Not From This Cluster are dropped in, and they quickly dispatch the outsiders. And then there are fire ants...

  10. so many unanswered questions by joejor · · Score: 1
    Perhaps a kind entymologist can answer me these questions three:

    • how do true dominants get their markings? are they simply pigments in the chitin (implying genetic pathways with perhaps environmental causes to expression) or were they earned like battle scars?
    • did they test how two true dominants reacted against each other? (the article only mentions putting the fake war-painteds against true dominants) one would think that the loser would still be harassed regardless of markings being fake or real
    • did they play the Star Trek fight theme when they staged their bouts?
  11. The ultimate zoology nerd prank... by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Putting "kick me" signs on animals backs.

    1. Re:The ultimate zoology nerd prank... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a classic Larson cartoon.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  12. Black Belts by Ralman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, I wear a black belt, a black leather belt. It is the only color belt that goes with my all black outfit.

    Hey a guy has got to do something to scare and itimidate the other coworkers away so I can read slashdot.

  13. Natural Loophole ? by Striker770S · · Score: 1

    how do they find out that the fake wasp was being picked on by the wasps? I mean its not like they get up and start cursing him off or anything, or is there something i dont know about wasps? And how do the wasps know the fakes when we see politicians and believe what bullshit they make up. i say we fight the politicians and have scientists looking at us and see if any of the people make fun of the fake. it could have the same results.

    --
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye
    1. Re:Natural Loophole ? by Forbman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, if you go into a commercial chicken house, and paint red spots on a couple of chickens, those chickens will get pecked to death (oddly enough, they don't do it if they're coverd with shit). With my own chickens, they seem to like pecking at my preety, shiny wedding ring. It's not bad when they're 3 weeks old, but by the time they're 8 weeks old, they're big enough that it starts to hurt.

      Our sheep, we tried putting coats on them this summer. Well, we didn't get them all coated. The ones that were coated were ostracised by the rest of the flock... But once we got them all coated a couple of weeks later, they all seemed to realize quickly that they all had coats on, and they adjusted soon enough amd were back to behaving normally.

  14. This rocks! by PrvtBurrito · · Score: 2, Funny
    Wasp fights, as a scientist, I went in to the wrong damn field.

    BUT, a movie quote does come to mind:

    some dude: I could beat you in a fair fight.
    capt sparrow: That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?

    --
    Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
  15. Likened it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would more liken it to what might happen to a 97-pound weakling who walks around, get abducted by aliens, anally probed, painted with a black belt, and thrown into a gladiator rink with ninjas. Scientists are some sick fucks.

  16. Legal? by Spudley · · Score: 3, Funny

    Staging wasp fights? I can't believe that's legal.

    I mean... they banned cock fighting, bear baiting and dog fights years ago! How come wasps don't get protection?. :D

    Ah well... I guess even entomologists need the excitement of work place betting occasionally. ;)

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
    1. Re:Legal? by jlapier · · Score: 2, Funny

      those WASPs voted for a war president, let them duke it out....

    2. Re:Legal? by tepples · · Score: 1

      they banned cock fighting, bear baiting and dog fights years ago!

      Then how can Nintendo sell Pokemon video games? Shouldn't Pokemon, as a glorification of criminal animal fighting (though Nintendo officially denies this), be rated M just like the GTA series?

  17. I want the vids! by Wwolmack · · Score: 1

    C'mon people, its GIANT insects (zoomed in) FIGHTING!
    This beats rubber monster movies, wrestling, and mechs fighting anyday.

  18. pheremones et. al by MankyD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Aren't there things other than markings that might distinguish a leader? Chemical scents and flying patterns and what not. Does the fake even know that the scientists have made him a leader? If not, how is he to try to assert himself?

    --
    -dave
    http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
    1. Re:pheremones et. al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      off topic? wtf? mod this parent up. it has everything to do with the article.

    2. Re:pheremones et. al by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Does the fake even know that the scientists have made him a leader? If not, how is he to try to assert himself?

      He almost certainly doesn't know, but the point of dominance markings mirroring a wasp's eagerness for dominance would most likely be to prevent wasps from engaging in unnecessary violence. That is, a reluctant wasp sees a dominant-marked wasp and knows not to mess with him, while an aggressive wasp sees a non-dominant-marked wasp and knows there's no need to vie with him for dominance. That leaves only dominant-marked wasps competing with each other, and judging from the fact that aggressive wasps still harass falsely dominant-marked reluctant wasps, I would conjecture that aggressive wasps harass other wasps based on a combination of the target's markings and aggressiveness, and will take repeated opportunities to defeat what they perceive as both an easy and valuable opponent.

  19. Larger = Better fighter by jgardn · · Score: 1

    The smaller fighter is always at a disadvantage. I remember sparring with my Tae Kwn Do instructor. I am about 6'4" and 230 pounds - not a small person. He was about 5'4" and roughly half my weight.

    First, he couldn't get close enough to get a good hit on me. I could kick at him from a much farther distance. He had to leave a lot of room between myself and him if he wanted to catch his breath.

    Was I slower than him? No, not really. I was bigger, but I had a lot more strength as well. My feet and fists could move at least as fast as his. My clothes snap just as much as his does when we punch or kick.

    Second, he had to charge at me when he wanted to attack. This left plenty of time for me to get in a defensive posture, or to prepare to sidestep and counterattack. Or, I could attack him during his charge.

    Third, the sheer mass of my body left his attacks wanting. My forearm weighed enough that I could stop his strongest kicks before they reached my body. My attacks could not be repelled. When I put my weight behind an attack, his only option was to dodge it. Sure, he was fast, but not that fast. And one good knock and he would've been done.

    Now, I'm going to tell you a secret about big guys. In genereal, they are really docile and kind, and really like to avoid fighting or any kind of physical confrontation. Little guys have to be punks in order to get respect. They have to go 100% full strength into any physical confrontation if they expect to survive. Big guys generally start off about half strength and only notch it up to full strength when they are seriously threatened.

    I'll tell you why this is. I can't tell you how many times I have hurt people accidentally, just screwing around. Ever since elementary school, I had to be very careful about how I used my size and weight. My friends who were little knew that they could go full-strength on my and I wouldn't get hurt.

    Now that I am full grown and have children and a wife, I have to be very very careful not to hurt them. Imagine what would happen if I accidentally knocked one of them - either I didn't see them or I tripped and fell into them. I could easily send them to the hospital.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    1. Re:Larger = Better fighter by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      First, he couldn't get close enough to get a good hit on me. I could kick at him from a much farther distance. He had to leave a lot of room between myself and him if he wanted to catch his breath.

      I'm puzzled as to why he didn't block or dodge your kick and move in to counter before you recovered from throwing it. A smaller person is going to have a lot of trouble throwing the first technique against someone who has longer reach, so reacting to attacks (and ideally, provoking attacks that leave your opponent exposed) is the lion's share of the smaller person's strategy.

      Was I slower than him? No, not really. I was bigger, but I had a lot more strength as well. My feet and fists could move at least as fast as his.

      Same speed, and longer distance, means more travel time. Ditto with the "same acceleration" scenario if you assume the same strength to weight ratio instead of the same speed. Square/cube law means that it's hard for the larger person to have the same strength-to-weight ratio as the smaller person, meaning generally lower acceleration, and an even larger time difference (as well as a time difference even for moving the same distance, and for doing things like changing the direction your body is moving). Exceptions exist - level of physical conditioning varies as greatly as skill level between arbitrary individuals - but if you can throw techniques as quickly as your instructor, or change direction as quickly, it represents a very unusual case. Everything I've seen among the people who train at my own dojo bears this out.

      Third, the sheer mass of my body left his attacks wanting. My forearm weighed enough that I could stop his strongest kicks before they reached my body. My attacks could not be repelled. When I put my weight behind an attack, his only option was to dodge it. Sure, he was fast, but not that fast. And one good knock and he would've been done.

      This is why "strength on strength" techniques are generally discouraged in favour of deflection and evasion techniques, even against an opponent who doesn't out-mass you, as I'm sure you're aware. For a few weeks my regular training partner was a young lady two thirds my weight, who nonetheless could block (sincere) punches and kicks from me without an unmanageable amount of effort.

      I've also been hit enough times by people smaller than me to have a healthy respect for their power, but I'm perhaps a bad example, as in sparring I seem to have a knack for leaving myself exposed. For a more general argument, consider a sledgehammer. It only weighs 8 lbs, and it moves slower than a punch, but you still wouldn't want to get hit by it. The same applies to techniques thrown by most of the black belts I know (of all sizes); enough parts are moving, in the right direction, that that technique will hurt.

      A small person won't take a large person down in one shot, while the opposite could still happen, but the large person is still going to have considerable trouble landing that one shot, and can easily leave themselves open in the process.

    2. Re:Larger = Better fighter by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      Um, disrespect not intended twards either you or your instructor, but if your instructor couldn't beat a student, he has no place being an instructor.

      As I said somewhere above, the only thing that matters is training and skill. Forget size all together. As with spoons, "there is no size".

      Through skill all other factors are neutralized. By being able to tell when and where to strike, anyone can beat anyone else hands down. Smaller people can beat someone vastly larger, and larger people can beat everyone in the room.

      Case and point: Kyusho-Jitsu teaches propper use of pressure points to control and defeat opponents. Pressure point fighting is actually easier aginst larger opponents due to the size of those points. Larger people = larger targets obviously. With the use of pressure points along the arm, readily avaliable as a target in a fight, you can render an opponent unconsious virtually 95% of the time with one single strike. INSTANTLY! (when someone punches at you, they open these targets)

      Another example is simply in the training it'sself. How many fights do most people get into? Even people who regularly get into fights have nowhere the experience taking punches as most martial artists. Simply put, we've been in more fights than most people will see in the course of their entire lifetimes. We've been in more fights with our friends than most people will ever see in their lifetimes...

      experience and training win hands down.

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    3. Re:Larger = Better fighter by Retric · · Score: 1

      Same speed, and longer distance, means more travel time. Ditto with the "same acceleration" scenario if you assume the same strength to weight ratio instead of the same speed. Square/cube law means that it's hard for the larger person to have the same strength-to-weight ratio as the smaller person, meaning generally lower acceleration, and an even larger time difference (as well as a time difference even for moving the same distance, and for doing things like changing the direction your body is moving). Exceptions exist - level of physical conditioning varies as greatly as skill level between arbitrary individuals - but if you can throw techniques as quickly as your instructor, or change direction as quickly, it represents a very unusual case. Everything I've seen among the people who train at my own dojo bears this out.
      What your forgeting is that larger people dont' need to fully extend / use full force. Think of it this way my arm weighs 50% more than you if I acselerate at the same speed as you well my blow would have 50% more kenetic energy than yous so I can either drop blows that are 50% harder or use less of my rang and hit you just as hard but with less aceleration time and and still endup with your level of power.

      This is why people thought of me as having being realy fast. My hands where never moving as fast as thers where but I was acselerating almost as fast so I could hold my arms out further from my body and giving me less time between punches. Then again I could still utalise an off balance aponent to hit harder in a real fight but when when sparing I did not have to move my arm much before somone would sit up and take notice that I had made contact.

      A small person won't take a large person down in one shot, while the opposite could still happen, but the large person is still going to have considerable trouble landing that one shot, and can easily leave themselves open in the process.

      This is the the basic falicy shrue you could take them down in one blow that you would have trouble landing but if you can hit them 5 times in 3 seconds and send them to the mat why would you need to use more force than that. Be faster than they can be and you will not need to hit harder than they do.

  20. Believe it not! by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

    Master Yoda has the Force, you should doubt it not.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  21. Been there by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just before my first day at Junior High, my older sister told me to put a big-ass comb in my pocket. This was a status symbol back then.

    But, people kept grabbing the comb and tossing it all over the place. I couldn't do anything about it. I was not strong enough (back then) and did not have enough buddies to help. The fact that I could not get the comb back was an ad for further abuse. No more status combs for me.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Been there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just before my first day at Junior High, my older sister told me to put a big-ass comb in my pocket. This was a status symbol back then.

      But, people kept grabbing the comb and tossing it all over the place. I couldn't do anything about it. I was not strong enough (back then) and did not have enough buddies to help. The fact that I could not get the comb back was an ad for further abuse. No more status combs for me.

      Did your sister apologize for that practical joke?
      And being the nerd I am... is she available? (for purely scientific reasons of course)

  22. I'm a King! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
    I'm a King, Peachy!

    "'A god can do anything,' says I. 'If the King is fond of a girl he'll not let her die.'
    'She'll have to,' said Billy Fish. 'There are all sorts of gods and devils in these mountains, and now and again a girl marries one of them and isn't seen any more. Besides, you two know the Mark cut in the stone. Only the gods know that. We thought you were men till you showed the sign of the Master.'

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  23. Looks like shit on FF by danieljpost · · Score: 1

    Yep, it looks like this site was tested on IE only.

    I officially don't like that site now.

    --
    We must drive a sword through any hypothesis that is not strictly necessary.
  24. Ya know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did they play the Star Trek fight theme when they staged their bouts?

    they had to, at least once.

  25. So nature hates a fraud... by __aavljf5849 · · Score: 1

    ...after he has been outed. We also know that nature likes frauds that get away with it. Just like people, then.

    Proving the obvious sounds like a good job. Or a good fraud...

  26. other way around? by 1nv4d3r · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do 'leader' wasps that are painted to look weak still get respect?

  27. beer-quiche game by k2enemy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    sounds similar to a frequently used pedantic game in game theory called the beer-quiche game. basic idea is that a wimp can send a signal of being tough by drinking beer rather than eating quiche (which he prefers) in order to avoid getting beaten up.

    as always, google has more info

  28. Already Been Done.. by LoserMLW · · Score: 1

    This is news? Bumfights proved this same theory a year or so ago... and it was MUCH more entertaining.

    --
    - LoserMLW
    --
    "Common sense is not so common." - Voltaire
  29. This experiment proved nothing by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    accept to get paid to carry it out. I though in the insect world, body language had as much to do with it as pheromones and looks did. I mean, the painted wasps had no idea they had "royal" markings, so how can you expect them to act dominant if their role is normally subordinant? If the painted wasps could have mimiced movements of the dominant insects then the results may have been different.

    However the conclusion that cheaters in nature dont prosper, what about the thousands of plants animals and insects that mimic other species, because that species is poisonous? EX: Coral snake and a Milk snake, the latter is non-venomous, but keeps from bieng eaten by animals and other snakes because it mimics a poisonous snake. Seems to me that is more than prospering from cheating.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!