Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Develop Remote Controlled Pigeons

Many readers sent us links to the story about Chinese scientists developing pigeons whose flight can be controlled remotely. The best coverage may be Wired's, both because they link to the English language version of the original Peoples Daily Online release, and because of the (disturbing) photos. The birds can be commanded to fly left, right, up, or down. Reader KDan writes, "A number of obvious uses jump out to me... the remote-controlled pigeons will finally allow us to create an efficient implementation of RFC 1149 and RFC 2549."

238 comments

  1. RFC 2549 by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Funny

    Packet storm!

    Routing to the max.
    If you set the evilbit can you make your pigeon crap on specified targets?

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:RFC 2549 by Mr.+Hankey · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. The line eater also takes on an entirely different meaning in this implementation.

      --
      GPL: Free as in will
    2. Re:RFC 2549 by MindKata · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "crap on specified targets"

      Why stop at crapping on targets?. I bet the American security services are worried. Now there's a real risk of using one of these Pigeons as a remote spying device. Imagine an innocent looking pigeon sitting on a window ledge, but really its fitted with a microphone and remote control. It would be ideal for spying.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    3. Re:RFC 2549 by Amphetam1ne · · Score: 3, Funny

      Be sure to implement suitable anti-virus to prevent transmission of Avian Flu.

      --
      I only buy pepper spray that's been tested on anti-vivisectionists.
    4. Re:RFC 2549 by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Nothing that can't be handled by a Phalanx CIWS! Just modify it to target birds.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    5. Re:RFC 2549 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, that just causes it to drop packets...

    6. Re:RFC 2549 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gentlemen Break out your pellet and shotguns.
      Let's blast some yellow birds

    7. Re:RFC 2549 by bazorg · · Score: 1

      a tennis racket?

    8. Re:RFC 2549 by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Maybe the avian flu will become the first biological virus to attack digital packets carriers then...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    9. Re:RFC 2549 by FernandoBR · · Score: 0

      Nah, I'd prefer to use sharks with lasers for that.

      --
      -x- Sorry my bad English. I'll have him tarred and feathered. -x-
    10. Re:RFC 2549 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey China now that you stuff birds ?

        Stuff your mind controlled pigeons up your ARSE

    11. Re:RFC 2549 by Exocrist · · Score: 1

      They don't look so innocent with that hole in their heads with the computer chip sticking out.

    12. Re:RFC 2549 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone see the Weird Weapons on WWII on Discovery (or possibly History) channel? This so brings to mind the US's attempt to attach napalm to bats and drop them out of bombers.....

    13. Re:RFC 2549 by kabocox · · Score: 1

      "crap on specified targets"

      Why stop at crapping on targets?. I bet the American security services are worried. Now there's a real risk of using one of these Pigeons as a remote spying device. Imagine an innocent looking pigeon sitting on a window ledge, but really its fitted with a microphone and remote control. It would be ideal for spying.


      This is an intel nightmare. Why? Because pontentially, you could use any animal other than just pigeons. Say cats, bats, or other animals that are actually native to your where your hidden base is. Remember reading how Area 51 was supposed to be wired up to where any human approaching it was found and a squad of MPs sent out to send them away? Well, with this tech in existance, places like Area 51 should have their MPs shoot to kill any and all wild life until better countermeasures come along. If the Chinese can do it, we could do it, but to defend against it, you'd have to ID and track every native critter around your base. Any non-native critter should be ID'd ASAP and shoot and then disected just to see if this tech was in the critter. If nothing is found, just burn it. If something is found, ID the tech and try to back track where the animal came from.

      I could see them starting off with large critters, and then working their way down to small bugs. We'd have to defend against both in expectation of the tech advance.

    14. Re:RFC 2549 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure that a pigeon (or even a large flock of them) would even a) show up as a target on a Phalanx RADAR set or b) show up at all?

    15. Re:RFC 2549 by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      Remote-controlled implants probably will not improve an animal's ability to get past a fence. Anything small enough to crawl through gaps in a chain-link fence will probably not have the range to get in and out of a base. And I would guess that the native bird population near Area 51 stays away pretty well. Any bird getting too close could be shot down. I think the "better countermeasures" you are looking for have been around a very long time. Great Wall of China, anybody?

    16. Re:RFC 2549 by pklinken · · Score: 0

      Finally:
      Stop that pigeon!

    17. Re:RFC 2549 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easier to just place radio frequency sensors around the base and prosecute anything that is transmitting. Or simple metal detectors.

    18. Re:RFC 2549 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they should just try keeping windows and doors shut instead of trying to nail every sparrow that flies in.

    19. Re:RFC 2549 by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      "General Chin, the top of President Bush's head is in range. Shall we have Heroic Pigeon #2459 unload its payload?"

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    20. Re:RFC 2549 by NonViviDaSola · · Score: 0

      The cockroach carrying the microphone and camera could in turn be carried to the fence by a pigeon. :)

  2. yaaay! by apodyopsis · · Score: 2, Funny

    I want simple controls:-

    left, right, forward and of course.... fire!

    get them to eat berries first for a full on multicolour pebble dashing.

    and wait until my neighbour is washing his car.

    (of course a small head mounted camera with crosshairs target scope would be good as well :-)

    ah, delight.

    1. Re:yaaay! by Quzak · · Score: 1

      B A Start

      --
      Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
    2. Re:yaaay! by zCyl · · Score: 1

      I want simple controls:-

      left, right, forward and of course.... fire!

      Heheh. Now I'm imagining a wiimote pigeon. :)
    3. Re:yaaay! by refitman · · Score: 1

      No, the correct controls are up, down, left, right...FIRE

      --
      First God made idiots. That was for practice. Then He made Jack Thompson.
    4. Re:yaaay! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      (of course a small head mounted camera with crosshairs target scope would be good as well :-)

      You're targeting camera may need to be closer to the, er, "payload delivery end" of the bird for higher accuracy. ;-)

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:yaaay! by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      No no no! Down, Down-right, Right and FIRE. Hadoken your enemies with a pidgeon! 'Course, the Hadoken comes in the form of fecal matter...

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  3. I'm interested. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, when will these be compatible with sharks?

    1. Re:I'm interested. by krunchyfrog · · Score: 0

      Only when lasers will work underwater.

      --
      printf($randomline(sigs.txt) \n "-- "$randomline(authors.txt));
      -- myself
    2. Re:I'm interested. by LordOfTheNoobs · · Score: 1

      Actually it's the "when will this be compatible with the people" part that is unsettling. / probably not // Imperius Curse ?

      --
      They're there affecting their effect.
  4. Chinese conspiracy! by oddmake · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now,Communist Party of China can control Google remotely!

  5. Am I the only one... by commisaro · · Score: 4, Funny

    Am I the only one who immediately thought of the Homing Pigeon bomb from Worms Armaggedon?

    1. Re:Am I the only one... by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Two words: bird flu.

    2. Re:Am I the only one... by exell · · Score: 1

      nope. I was just about to post that and noticed you already had ;) Good ol homing pigeon, almost as humorous and devastating as the exploding granny and the holy hand grenade... almost ;)

    3. Re:Am I the only one... by frying_fish · · Score: 1

      No not at all, I also thought of the homing pigeon bomb from the worms games.

      Seems a possibility now.

    4. Re:Am I the only one... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      Two words: bird flu.

      Of course the bird flu. That's what birds do! A whole flock of them flu over my house this morning.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Am I the only one... by rentmej · · Score: 1

      This was originally tagged "Off Topic", but they failed to remember history and the use of animals to wage war. Theoretically, this could be used like germ warfare of dumping plague rats on a ship, but with even more control.

      My personal favorite is project X-Ray from WWII. Here the US military figured out how to deliver thousands of bats to Japan, with each bat carrying an incendiary bomb.

      Now, they had no direct way of controlling where they went, they just used the bats instincts to their advantage.

      1. Drop a couple thousand bats in an area during the day
      2. Bats look for nice dark places to hide (i.e. under roofs, in attics, etc)
      3. Timed bombs go off and start a firestorm
      4. Profit! I mean Victory!
      --
      0100001001100101011010010110111001100111 0100100001110101011011010110000101101110
    6. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no

  6. Flap flap flap flap flap... by BigJim.fr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone who has played Worms is well aware of the weaponization potential of the homing pigeon. The future battlefield will be a bed of feathers...

    1. Re:Flap flap flap flap flap... by Elminst · · Score: 1

      Sounds rather comfy...

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    2. Re:Flap flap flap flap flap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American scientists are now at work developing the ultimate weapon in response: The Concrete Donkey!

  7. Now it all makes sense by GapingHeadwound · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Remote controlled pigeons caused yesterday's international market crash that originated in China

    1. Re:Now it all makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Refering to John Titor?

      I know the guy who fake him.

  8. If this was invented in America by Profound · · Score: 2, Funny

    Each pigeon would cost 2 million dollars and cities with many statues would be labelled as an imminent threats.

  9. Philip Reeve by aiwarrior · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Am i the only one that can see a potential weapon rather than an rfc? A fantasy writer called Philip Reeve already imagined such creatures in uses such as scouts or units of attack( imagine an army of pidgeon coming towards you ) Surveilance, and bioweapon delivery could also be a use for this enslaved beings

    1. Re:Philip Reeve by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Give them a particularly nasty lab-developed strain of bird flu, then fly them into Tibet or Taiwan. What are the odds?

    2. Re:Philip Reeve by bjourne · · Score: 1

      Tibet has more Chinese than Tibetan inhabitants. Second, what are the odds that a bird flu virus that mutates so that it can infect from human to human would spread all around the world and include China? Those odds are pretty high.

    3. Re:Philip Reeve by Alicat1194 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Something similar was devised during WWII, but using bats instead of pigeons (and without quite the same level of control). Check it out here.

      --
      You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
    4. Re:Philip Reeve by KDan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, the bird flu aspect is the least important. Flocks of RC pigeons can do all sort of nasty stuff - most obvious (which I actually had in my story submission but which the /. eds removed) being to take down a plane or attack groups of people with lots of small explosive charges.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    5. Re:Philip Reeve by tb()ne · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much C4 could be stuffed inside a pigeon and it still remain capable of flight. Even if only a little, 50 pigeons would make a nice cluster bomb.

    6. Re:Philip Reeve by kabocox · · Score: 1

      No, the bird flu aspect is the least important. Flocks of RC pigeons can do all sort of nasty stuff - most obvious (which I actually had in my story submission but which the /. eds removed) being to take down a plane or attack groups of people with lots of small explosive charges.

      Um the pigeons just want us to think that. In reality, if it was found out that birds were that kind of threat, we'd remove all flying wildlife from the US. It sounds difficult. I think we could do it in a very short amount of time if we actually needed to though. We'd setup wind farms on borders to kill birds and bats. We'd then have unrestricted hunting on birds that wouldn't kill as many as we'd hope though. (The modern hunter makes sure to obey hunting rules to conserve and maintain the prey population. It'll go against their nature to attempt to exterminate all birds.) Cities would be the most difficult places to exterminate them though. You'd have populations complaining about preserving the native wildlife each time you tried it. There would have to be a couple of bird related events to scare monger the general population and then there would be massive demand to do something though.

      The insect populations would really love us for removing all their predators though. That wouldn't stop us from doing something out of fear and then letting nature correct itself afterward.

  10. Oblig. by kraemate · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our pigeon overlords.. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of them.

    1. Re:Oblig. by rvw · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does it run on a penguin?

    2. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous+Know-It-Al · · Score: 1

      It will be supported in the upcoming version of the kernel.

    3. Re:Oblig. by dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      in soviet russia, pigeons home in on you!

    4. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that'd be awesome. We could have a live version of Happy Feet!

  11. Cool by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Something to feed to the acustic kitty. I wonder how soon before it is used on human?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Cool by arivanov · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Today if you want. In fact yesterday. The only reason for this to be done in China is that in any civilised country the public will torch the lab doing this and they will be right to do so. In fact this will be one of the very few cases where I will happily side up with the animal rights people.

      To the point:

      The primary sensory and locomotor areas of the brain are very well mapped (and have been so for 20+ years now). It is trivial to implant electrodes into a sensory area which will cause you extreme pain perceived to be in a specific area. From there on you just hook the unit to a set of simple inertial sensors and deliver pain until the target turns right, left or wherever the command is. Approximate complexity of this when using sensors like the ones in the IBM and apple notebooks is at the high school student project level. From there on it is only a matter of calibrating the pain feedback loops so that the target does not pass out. In fact you do not even need to implant electrodes into specific left/right locomotor areas. Just pain/pleasure in general will be enough to get the job done (and there is nothing the test animal can do about it). Also, once the target is trained the actual commands can be delivered with minimal stimulation levels.

      All I can say - this is Dr. Evil at his best and there is nothing cool, scientific, revolutionary or extremely funny in this. In fact it gives me shivers just to think about it. Vivisection at its very worst.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:Cool by MadMorf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My first thought when I heard this on BBC yesterday was, Oh great...A way to control the masses...

      An Army of remotely controlled (or coerced) soldiers that can't defect or even take a piss without the right control signal...

      Has anyone else here read "Single Combat" by Dean Ing?

    3. Re:Cool by arivanov · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is not at that level.

      It is just pain feedback (optionally with pleasure via thalamic stimulation) along with some trivial conditioning. I am fairly sure about this being so because we do not understand how a bird flies aerodynamically and do not have good enough mapping of second and higher level functions of the mammal brain to control it any better.

      This means that if this is applied to soldiers they can still do things their masters do not like, just get punished more and more if they do. Nearly impossible for an animal to override such conditioning, but achieveable for a human. Dune and the Bene Gesserit test comes to mind along with many "manhood" tests performed by South (using fire ants) and North American Indians.

      None the less, the only question I am interested is the longitude, latitude and altitude of this chap lab.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:Cool by arivanov · · Score: 1

      mammal brain. Sorry - meant to say vertebrate brain (too high blood level in the coffee subsystem).

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    5. Re:Cool by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      I dont think a bird could fly normally if it was getting pain impulses.

      If someone was pricking your left leg with a pin would you turn? You'd probably flinch or something.

    6. Re:Cool by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      More like the "zone implants" in the Gap Cycle

    7. Re:Cool by Dread+Pirate+Skippy · · Score: 1

      They train the bird to turn when it feels the pain. When it turns where they want it to go, they take the pain away.

    8. Re:Cool by bjourne · · Score: 2, Informative

      Today if you want. In fact yesterday. The only reason for this to be done in China is that in any civilised country the public will torch the lab doing this and they will be right to do so. In fact this will be one of the very few cases where I will happily side up with the animal rights people.

      The exact same of research has been done in the State University of New York. See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/05 01_020501_roborats.html/. Except the target animal was mice instead of pigeon. People were not torching that lab and they will not torch this one.

    9. Re:Cool by julesh · · Score: 4, Informative

      The only reason for this to be done in China is that in any civilised country the public will torch the lab doing this and they will be right to do so. In fact this will be one of the very few cases where I will happily side up with the animal rights people.

      This is presumably how come State University of New York no longer has a biology lab. Wait. I missed that news. Perhaps it didn't happen.

    10. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in any civilised country the public will torch the lab doing this and they will be right to do so. Well, those of you in the US should bring out the torches.
    11. Re:Cool by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      I take it you're a vegetarian or, better yet, vegan? Otherwise you're a hypocrite.

    12. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where in TFA does it state that it causes pain? Perhaps the pigeons are controlled by rewarding them with pleasure, as in the mice experiments from the SUNY? http://www.wireheading.com/roborats/ratbots.html

    13. Re:Cool by Dread+Pirate+Skippy · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I don't see it anywhere. arivanov up there seems pretty convinced that that's how it worked, though TFA specifically stated that the signals resembled the signals for movement. I was merely trying to clarify to our good friend cheater512 how pain could make something want to turn left.

    14. Re:Cool by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, something along these lines was done in Japan (or other country generally considered to be "civilized"), although the level of stimulation used was extremely low (as in, not consciously perceptible, and easy enough to consciously override, but someone not putting much effort into walking straight would wind up curving left.)

      I believe that rather than trying to use pain/pleasure to "nudge" a person, this particular approach involved skewing a person's sense of balance. Correcting the perceived (but not actual) "lean" would cause them to actually lean in the opposite direction, which would cause their path to curve slightly if attempting to walk straight.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    15. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      this kind of conditioning if introduced at an early enough age would be sufficient to turn a person into a robot. For instance if a child learned from the age of two that disobedience was quite like touching a burning stove, then disobedience becomes akin to death. I would guess that after the age of three, pain wouldn't need to be applied in most cases until the child became a teenager, then just one good blast ought to bring the kid back in line for the remainder of their lives.

    16. Re:Cool by Damastus+the+WizLiz · · Score: 1

      Key word was Civilized.

      --
      I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
    17. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent was talking about civilized countries, I guess you missed that too.

    18. Re:Cool by Veliena · · Score: 1

      Thank you for making this post. I'm sad I had to scroll more than halfway down a large page of comments to find someone fully addressing what I personally find horrific about this article.

    19. Re:Cool by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      But that wouldnt really make it fly normally via a joystick.

    20. Re:Cool by Dread+Pirate+Skippy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I would assume it's deeper than that. But I would also assume they could add enough variation in the signal they send that the animal could differentiate between the signals for different directions. I dunno, the article was very vague about the whole thing. I guess it's possible they just hooked electrodes up to the brains and monitored the signals getting sent when the bird flew in a given direction on it's own, then just reproduced them and pumped them in there strongly enough to override any the bird itself is trying to send. But, I could be completely off base here, seeing as I'm not a neurologist.

    21. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You recall correctly. Living in Japan, I personally tried this system at an NTT tech fair. It only had a minor effect on me, but I did feel it. My friends reported a stronger effect.

      http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn7829.htm l

  12. Stop the pigeon by BetterThanCaesar · · Score: 3, Funny

    We'll have to get the best of help! Somebody call Dick Dastardly and Muttley!

    --
    "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
    1. Re:Stop the pigeon by gkhan1 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ruff, ruff, ruff! *cough* *cough*

  13. US Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To counter this potentual Chinese threat the US today announced its intention to have a fully functional remote controlled 'Dastardly and Mutley' by the end of the year.

  14. A few questions by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2

    What happens on up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right?

    Will we see a Pokemon-genre game where you breed pigeons?

    A shame we will never know what this feels like for the pigeon. Is it really being forced to turn left against its will, or does the pigeon experience it as a sudden desire to turn left?

    In the TNG canon, did the Borg originate with pigeons?

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    1. Re:A few questions by julesh · · Score: 1

      A shame we will never know what this feels like for the pigeon. Is it really being forced to turn left against its will, or does the pigeon experience it as a sudden desire to turn left?

      If it's anything like the way they did something similar to rats before, they do it by stimulating an impulse that has previously been trained to make the animal turn in a desired direction -- i.e., more like the sudden desire thing. They could, theoretically, break the training. In practice, I doubt it happens much (at least with rats -- I've kept the suckers. They're *stupid*).

    2. Re:A few questions by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Is it really being forced to turn left against its will, or does the pigeon experience it as a sudden desire to turn left?

      Were you forced to make that post against your will, or did you feel a sudden desire to post tenuously-connected comments?

      BEGIN free_will_debate

  15. Finally! by tehSpork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    RFC 2549 combined with this routing upgrade should finally get me an Internet connection that is faster and more reliable than Comcast Cable! Granted that this isn't exactly a very high standard, but it's a start!

    So, when will I be able to sign up for IPOP in my area (IP Over Pidgeon)?

    1. Re:Finally! by PatPending · · Score: 1

      How about IPOOP instead?

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  16. This sounds horrible by gnool · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This sounds horrible. I find the idea of overriding another animal's free will very disturbing. The words "won't someone please think of the pidgeons!" come to mind, but we humans are animals after all. I would definitely not want this kind of mind control implemented with humans, and I don't want it implemented on any self-aware being.

    1. Re:This sounds horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This sounds horrible. I find the idea of overriding another animal's free will very
      > disturbing. The words "won't someone please think of the pidgeons!" come to mind, but
      > we humans are animals after all. I would definitely not want this kind of mind control
      > implemented with humans, and I don't want it implemented on any self-aware being.

      That implies that Pigeons are in self-aware, and there is considerable evidence to the contrary.
      It's generally held that the IQ of the average pidgeon is on-par with a slice of damp bread.

      Hence any PC network using them would have to be composed entirely from "Dumb terminals".

    2. Re:This sounds horrible by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I would definitely not want this kind of mind control implemented with humans

      I doubt the Chinese Government sees it the same way. Imagine the benefit to the efficent movement of commuters, especially when there are distracting demonstrations slowing people down and wasting their time. Crowd dispersal with the press of a button.

    3. Re:This sounds horrible by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      You know what, I think alcohol is about to become technologically obsolete...

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    4. Re:This sounds horrible by julesh · · Score: 1

      This sounds horrible. I find the idea of overriding another animal's free will very disturbing. The words "won't someone please think of the pidgeons!" come to mind, but we humans are animals after all. I would definitely not want this kind of mind control implemented with humans, and I don't want it implemented on any self-aware being.

      This is almost certainly not taking over the pigeon's "free will" (if it ever had any such thing), at least not to any greater extent than a normal training program would.

      When this kind of result has been achieved before (in rats), the method used is that a neuron is connected to a computer that can cause it to fire. The rat is then trained (through classical Pavlovian conditioning) to perform some specific action when that neuron fires.

      This overrides an animal's free will to no greater extent than teaching a pet to perform tricks does. It's just more efficient. And almost certainly wouldn't work an anything approaching the intelligence of a human.

    5. Re:This sounds horrible by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      I agree with the sentiment, but in fact I'm pretty sure that if pidgeons could talk they'd report the remote control directions as being due to their own free will, just as hypnotized humnan subjects "programmed" to stand up/open the window/etc on cue have in experiments reported their actions as being of their own free will (or rather offerered explanations of their own behavior - I wanted to stretch, it was stuffy in here, etc - when asked why they did it). Similarly humans report reactions (e.g. take hand away from something hot, swerve to avoid an accident) that from neural propagation times we know never involved rational thought as being of their own free will, and again offer explanations of why "they" did it.

      Free will is an illusion/misnomer... trivially obvious unless you think there's somthing supernatural going on in the brain vs a bunch of neurons at work, but still a powerful subjective feeling. People's explanations of their own "free will" decisions and actions are essentially an after the fact rationalization of what they did/thought - giving a causal explanation based on the fictitious "self" that we invent to explain our own actions as opposed to the mechanical "my brain did this/that, based on the neural connections I've built up in my lifetime of experience" which is the truth.

    6. Re:This sounds horrible by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 2, Funny

      > This sounds horrible. I find the idea of overriding another
      > animal's free will very disturbing.

      Oh... You are NOT going to like being part of Corporate America after college.

      --
      Ask me about my sig!
    7. Re:This sounds horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I find the idea of overriding another animal's free will very disturbing.


      Yeah riding horses is just plain mean.

      And the government makes me walk my dog on a leash! How dare they?! He has free will! He should be left to interact with the environment however he pleases.

      ...

    8. Re:This sounds horrible by apt142 · · Score: 1

      Free will is an illusion/misnomer...

      The very serious problem with this is that you essentially give people no accountability for those actions. Because then those actions are ultimately nobody's fault. While I'm not judging your claim, it does bring to question the survival of society. Society as we know it is founded on the concept that we can change our behaviors and are responsible to do so. The acceptance of such a theory on the population at large would be devastating.

    9. Re:This sounds horrible by gnool · · Score: 1

      I should hope so, I'm from Australia! Oh wait...

    10. Re:This sounds horrible by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Well, it's either true or not, so not much point arguing the undesireability of it! I don't think that this belief would in fact change anyones behaviour (it doesn't change mine!), since the illusion of free will is so strong... you may intellectually accept that whether you are going to acccept that donut is predetermined (or at least determined by your brain), but in the end you'll still have the feeeling of having chosen or rejected it based on desire (i.e "free will")... Apathy already exists, but someone with the intellect to truly believe that free will is an illusion is more likely to be the type of person to make their own decisions and therefore live/experience their life as if they had free will!

      If the judicial system ever came to be based on the idea that people's actions are a function of who they are rather than chosen in the free will sense, then it probably would really make much difference.. this is already they way the criminally insane are regarded, and all it means is that we lock them up in mental institutes (on the assumption they are "broken" and can't be fixed) rather than prisons (where we believe the punishment will make them change their chosen ways).

  17. A dangerous arsenal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can go up, down, left and rigth.

    But if they can go up up down down left right left right B A start, this could turn out to be far more dangerous than anything else we've seen in their arsenal.

  18. Whats the application? What about ethics? by Qbertino · · Score: 0, Troll

    Must we do everything that we can do? I scares me a little seeing a lack of ethical concerns here on subjects like these. The chinese didn't develop these pigeons. Nature and evolution did. The chinese opened their heads and stuck wires into them. NO big deal and nothing really scientific.
    This sort of 'research' goes to show that some areas of modern science are even more bogus, bizare and pointless than some obscure spiritistic variants of alchemy from the old days. If I'd be in charge these scientists would lose their funding, their job and their accreditation all at once.
    Unethical bullshit pseudoscience not very far from what the Nazi KZ Doctors did to the people captured in the camps, that's what this is.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by linvir · · Score: 1

      Forget Jake, it's Chinatown.

    2. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by kan0r · · Score: 1

      Seconded. But sadly in china, ethical values don't seem to matter that much.

    3. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      not very far from what the Nazi KZ Doctors did to the people captured in the camps

      Nazi KZ Doctors???

      Pigeons are not people....

      Repeat that a couple of times, please, perhaps it will sink in.

      A lot of this un-ethical kind of stuff is going on in your backyard university lab probably, it's just not in the news. Russians tried to do the same with dolphins and other animals, Israelis do this with monkeys (see hear ). You should go tour your local pig farm and see how those animals are treated.

      Just because these are Chinese scientists, i.e. foreigners (and of course, probably commie terrorists, right?) that we are all appalled.

    4. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if pigeons are not people, it's probably still along the same lines the old indicator of a murderer killing and mistreating animals as a boy.

    5. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by TapeCutter · · Score: 0

      "Seconded. But sadly in china, [western] ethical values don't seem to matter that much." - Fixed.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      "Seconded. But sadly for humans, ethical values don't seem to matter that much."

      When you fix something, do it right ;).

    7. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a lack of ethical concerns here on subjects like these.

            Don't worry, the pigeons have all signed informed consent forms - see the peck-marks? Our lawyers also told them that eating the birdseed we provided implied their agreement to the experiment. And they ate it.

      The chinese opened their heads and stuck wires into them. NO big deal and nothing really scientific.

            Right, I mean, I read your articles about how the pigeon brain works. This was a totally unneccesary experiment, since we had that knowledge already. Why do we need more "proof"?

      If I'd be in charge these scientists would lose their funding, their job and their accreditation all at once

            I wouldn't be so fast to cut the funding of a group who can control animals remotely. Have you never seen the movie "The Birds"? Maybe one morning you'll be pecked to death by 2000 angry pigeons...

      not very far from what the Nazi KZ Doctors did to the people captured in the camps

            Umm, sticking electrodes into the brains of birds, with proper aseptic and anaesthetic techniques (after all, you want a functional bird at the end of it in order to get useful data), is not quite the same as dunking people in ice water just to see how long the average survival time is...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      it's probably still along the same lines the old indicator of a murderer killing and mistreating animals as a boy.

            Please provide links to prospective clinical studies that prove this?

            That claim is a neat chunk of misinformation possibly of the same magnitude as Linus Pauling's (completely false) claim 30 years ago that Vitamin C cures the common cold...

            MOST children are cruel to/kill animals in their childhood. Not all of them turn out to be anti-socials.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by linvir · · Score: 1

      "Seconded. But sadly for everything in the known universe, ethical values don't seem to matter that much."

      We can keep doing this all day if you lot don't stop being so half-arsed about it.

    10. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'd be in charge these scientists would lose their funding, their job and their accreditation all at once.

      Right! Where can we vote for you as Dictator of the World?

    11. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Funny

      "We can keep doing this all day if you lot don't stop being so half-arsed about it."

      I know, adding a symetrical cheek to make it a full-arsed Universe is a GoodIdea(TM), but I don't think we can streach the budget enough to afford such a radical change. For a start, just think of how many god years it will take to test the whole Universe for the absence of ethical values. And who's going to do the documnets, sacred texts don't write themselves you know.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do not use any of these words to describe what goes on in China. Thank you.

      "ethical concerns"
      "modern science"
      "accreditation"

    13. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pigeons are not people....

      Come on now, give them some slack, will ya? They gotta start somewhere.
      These technologies from Chinese scientists are truly exciting! Even though these are non-humans for now.

    14. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but how long until China does this to a human? I'm sorry but I see them already getting ready to test it with people in the not to far future. Think about it if you are worried about people learning what you don't want them to, or about them standing up to the goverment what better way to control them than being able to flip a switch and use a remote to make them do what you want. I mean come on do you really think it would be beyond them? Hell do you think it would be beyond the US to do it if they thought they could get away with it?

    15. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me:

      "All life is sacred"

      Sometimes, through various reasons such as the need to eat or expansion (due to our population as a whole needing to survive), we need to kill other things. All well and good if it's for a sufficient purpose (such as we'll die if we don't). That's nature. The wolf kills the deer else the wolf dies.

      Nowhere in any fucked up universe do we need to do things like this to any lifeform. It's unethical, and wrong.

      Torturing anyone is wrong. Even if they're "terrorists". Yet the US Govt do that. Torturing other creatures for no other reason than "fun" is wrong. Yet the Chinese Govt (who are funding this sick idea) are doing it. Doesn't mean it's right.
      And for the record I deplore anyone doing anything like this to any animal, be it equine, cetacean, primate or avian.

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
    16. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by Qbertino · · Score: 1

      Is the comparsion with KZ Doctors to far fetched? Is it really? Maybe there is one because it has a strong emotional conotation - which critics to the comparsion here have fallen prone to just as much as I have when using it. Yet the question remains unanswered: Must we do everything we can do? Must we put electrodes into the inards of animals and sends signals through them to see what happens? Why don't the scientists use their own brains? Newton used his own eye to - extremly successfully - find out more about the way we see and the guy who proved that ulcers are caused by bacteria successfully proved so by drinking moldy boullion in front of an atourney. Before that he was considered an unscientific moron.

      Be it that the geeks 'in-defence-of-anything-called-science' gene kicks in when you mod me down as overrated or read the Nazi comparsion - I get that. But mod me down all you want - there *is* a lack of ethics in modern science and I'd go so far as to say that this electrodes-in-animal-brain thing is the corpus delicti proving that fact. In my book science and ethics and at least an ongoing discussion about ethics belong together.

      If they don't belong, then there really is even a smaller difference between this study and Dr. Mengele and his studies than the critics to this comparsion or I would have care to think.

      My 5 cents. Opinions please.

      --
      We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    17. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by Qbertino · · Score: 1

      You got a point there.
      We need a funny/insightfull combo mod. :-)

      --
      We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    18. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by lxt518052 · · Score: 1
      They gotta start somewhere.

      Of course the Chinese must be on something.

      In other news, some Chinese scientist has built a humanoid robot and western conpiracy theorists are accusing China of prepare an attack of the clones!

      Carry on with your imagination.

      --
      People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.
    19. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by dapsychous · · Score: 1

      Granted, most children are mean to animals at one point or another, but SEVEN puppies just for one /. post? SEVEN? You're definitely training to be a serial killer or something.

    20. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      And we don't even want to mention kittens...

      Oh the horror! Won't anyone think of the kittens!?

    21. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by kan0r · · Score: 1

      Hm.. Eastern religions in general [Buddhism, Hinduism etc.] seem to value animal ethics much more than western religions. So what is your statement based on?

    22. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by jarn · · Score: 1

      I think perhaps of all the answers I've read so far, yours is the most disturbing. Life is precious. This is fundamental. Pigeons, pigs, people, dolphins, whatever.

      Life is precious, and we are all one. Repeat that a couple of times, please.

    23. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      Repeat that a couple of times, please.

      I did, and therefore since all life is precious, we decided to stop using live mice at our heart research laboratory and switched to live humans. In order to save countless of rodents that we kill every month, I invite you to take their place. As you say, we are all one, so in studing _human_ heart disease we would rather prefer to work with humans. Give me you address and phone number so we can invite you to our lab, aneasthesize you, then cut your heart out and attach it to a machine and pump artificial blood and drugs through it.

      Yes, I actually do work in such a lab...

      Yes, the lab is _not_ in China, Afghanistan, or some other "terrorist laden country", we are right here in the heartland (pun intended) of America, right in your backyard. It will make it really convinent for to come to us.

    24. Re:Whats the application? What about ethics? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      You just demonstrated my point, different cultures have different ethical/moral priorities.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  19. RFC 2549 cannot be fully implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The QoS level "Concorde" is not available anymore.

  20. In Soviet Russia...... by BadMuN · · Score: 3, Funny

    pigeons control YOU.

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia...... by Anonymous+Know-It-Al · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm a russian pigeon, you insensitive clod!

  21. What should by the100rabh · · Score: 1

    Hello hello....Which side should I go...Left, right or straight..SOS..Help help

    Sorry Chinese instruction are not processed

  22. Dr. Evil asks... by jcr · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Are they going to have frickin' "Lasers" on their heads?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  23. Finally by spvo · · Score: 1

    Google will finally be able to implement their pigeon ranking system.

  24. Obvious use: intelligence gathering by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This might be the ultimate spying device: hook up a tiny camera or mike to a pigeon and command it to fly to the window of an embassy, the Pentagon, etc.

    Of course, political assassinations via C4 bombs delivered by pigeons might be a possibility, too. Or, biological/chemical agent delivery to otherwise protected areas...

    I am having some tiny chills running down my spine.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Obvious use: intelligence gathering by jigyasubalak · · Score: 1

      But of course! This is slashdot. Nobody would think of spying, say, Jennifer Aniston in her bathroom with an X10..bah!

      --
      The best planning can be done after the project completes.
    2. Re:Obvious use: intelligence gathering by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      This might be the ultimate spying device: hook up a tiny camera or mike to a pigeon and command it to fly to the window of an embassy, the Pentagon, etc. Of course, political assassinations via C4 bombs delivered by pigeons might be a possibility, too. Or, biological/chemical agent delivery to otherwise protected areas... I am having some tiny chills running down my spine.
      Have you checked your electrodes?
    3. Re:Obvious use: intelligence gathering by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      I predict a wave of spy photos of statues, downtown window ledges, trees over park benches, my car's hood, etc.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  25. Denial of service... by T0mWil5on · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Hitchcock-style!

  26. brain-computer interface by wlodek_j · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is another step.
    Ugly and non-ethical, yes, but most details on animal experiments are like this one.
    Always wanted brain implant? - well, some research must be done.
    Like it? No? Me either, but at the end people will forget all ugly parts and will use direct brian computer interface.

  27. I need more remote control by Centurix · · Score: 1

    Remote control meer cats would be ace. There would be one button to make it pop up out of a hole, hours of fun!

    --
    Task Mangler
  28. They had it coming! by FredDC · · Score: 1

    The pigeons had it coming... If they had been equipped with UAC in the first place:

    Do you want the Chinese to control your movement? [A]llow [C]ancel

    --
    09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
  29. Free will is an illusion anyway ... by BayaWeaver · · Score: 1

    This sounds horrible. I find the idea of overriding another animal's free will very disturbing.
    Free will is an illusion anyway, even in humans. So if the pigeon doesn't have free will to begin with, that's not a problem, right? We are just substituting one set of commands for another. It's just that the new commands are not in the animal's interest. In fact, nature has done this before. Many parasites are known to influence the behaviour of their hosts.
    1. Re:Free will is an illusion anyway ... by duffel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Free will is an illusion [typepad.com] anyway, even in humans.


      That's ridiculous. The point of free will is not how you arrive at a decision or how you rationalise it, but rather that you can make the decisions at all. It doesn't matter how your brain goes about it.

      What matters is that there is a process in the brain that makes decisions, and they're messing with it.

      And free will and consciousness being illusions are just catchphrases. In order to be subject to an illusion, you need consciousness in the first place, and I don't think that consciousness could exist without the capacity of controlling your thoughts (free-will style).
    2. Re:Free will is an illusion anyway ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free will is an illusion anyway, even in humans

      You're completely right, I mean if I implemented such a device on you, and made you work for me so I never have to do anything myself, it'd be completely ok right? After all, as a human you have no free will. What if I got a group of humans to do my bidding for me? they could sure work my plantation fine, and they have no free will anyways, I'm just replacing one set of commands with another.

      Even if the entire fate of the universe could be predicted with the right formulas (and scientific evidence points to the universe being truly random at subatomic levels), even if consciousness was nothing more than an illusion, even if free will was an illusion, even after all that, how much of an illusion was it last time you felt happy? or laughed at a good joke? or yelled "fuck" after accidentally hitting yourself hard on something?

  30. PigeonRank! by cyrax256 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now Google will finetune PigeonRank to perfection!

  31. Lets put a chip in the head of those scientists by Tomis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Great. Not only are they torturing these creatures in order to do their evil bidding. But now people are going to go around slaughtering pigeons to prevent being spied on.

    How about we put chips in the heads of those so-called scientist to control their movement against their will, and see how they like it. They'd probably change their minds about this being such a great idea. Oh wait, they can't change their minds because we've taken away their free will by putting a damn chip in their brain!

    "Science" gets less ethical every day.

    1. Re:Lets put a chip in the head of those scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said their bidding is evil? They might be planning to use these pigeons to deliver food aid and medicines to trapped mountaineers for all you know. Just because something has an evil application, doesn't mean there's no good application...

  32. Hey, pigeons ain't people, bud. by Weezul · · Score: 1

    Dude, these pigeons are treated better than that hamburger you ate for lunch. And your hamburger had considerably more capasity for emotion & suffering. So, if you ain't vegetarian, you have no room to talk.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  33. Do it, bitch! by thetroll123 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't underestimate the value of a bird that can be commanded to go down at will...

    1. Re:Do it, bitch! by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      Or a flock of them flying straight in the jet engines of your enemies fighters.

  34. Welcome to The Far Side by LaTechTech · · Score: 1

    I blame Gary Larson.

    --
    I want my! I want my! I want my Eee PC!
  35. Bogus? Bogus! by Dobeln · · Score: 1


    "It scares me a little seeing a lack of ethical concerns here on subjects like these. The chinese didn't develop these pigeons. Nature and evolution did. The chinese opened their heads and stuck wires into them. No big deal and nothing really scientific."

    Just "sticking wires into them" would have been unlikely to produce very cool results, aside from croaked pigeons. And that's where the science part comes into play.

    "This sort of 'research' goes to show that some areas of modern science are even more bogus, bizare and pointless than some obscure spiritistic variants of alchemy from the old days."

    This is either a deeply dangerous experiment for mankind OR completely bogus, pointless, etc. Pick one - you can't have both.

    "If I'd be in charge these scientists would lose their funding, their job and their accreditation all at once.
    Unethical bullshit pseudoscience not very far from what the Nazi KZ Doctors did to the people captured in the camps, that's what this is."

    Re-read the story, the subjects were "pigeons" not "people". Frankly, if the Nazis would have stuck to abusing pigeons, not many people would have given a damn.

  36. Avian carriers by kyoko21 · · Score: 1

    I remember reading those RFCs when they came out. Ahh.. the good old days when packets were sent over Avian networks... :-/

  37. Pigeon Overlords by RancidMilk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I for one, welcome our remote controlled pigeon overlords, and the gifts they will shower over us and our cars.

  38. .sig: "GPL: Free as in will" by Morosoph · · Score: 1
    Poor metaphor, I'm afraid. GPL is more external freedom, and social freedom. BSD, if anything, is closer.

    More accurate: "Free as in Market" <- Good for libertarians.
    Better still: "Free as in Speech"

    Or as another .sig almost has it:
    BSD: Liberté
    GPL: Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité

  39. Or... by -noefordeg- · · Score: 1

    What if you had 10 pigeons fitted with nuclear devices?...
    Now -that- would be scary.
    Maybe fitted with nuclear weapons AND microphones... =/
    -Pigeons of Death, able to record your screams of fear and anguish!

    1. Re:Or... by MindKata · · Score: 1

      "nuclear option pigeons"... etc..

      That's a great idea, but I think a critical mass maybe a bit heavy for the poor old Robo-Pigeons. Maybe they could just use some smaller explosive payload, to create more targetted Robo-Assassin-Pigeons. Then they just need to land them near their targets.

      (Maybe they could use birdseed or bread to give it an additional partly self guided operating mode).

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    2. Re:Or... by GTMoogle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, you need 10 kg of plutonium for critical mass. I'm not sure what would be harder, having them live long enough to reach the target, or getting them all to crash into each other at the same time.

    3. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? No quips about how much could a pigeon can carry? Would it be an African or European? If one could carry as much as a coconut, perhaps 10 could carry a plutonium pit? Oh yeah, an African pigeon, maybe, but not a European pigeon. I wonder where the Chinese get them.

    4. Re:Or... by dargon · · Score: 1

      the 10kg needed for critical mass might be too much for a pigeon, but I'm fairly sure that there are bigger birds out there that wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm also fairly sure that most birds have a very similar brain structure so adapting the technology to effect something such as a Steller's Sea Eagle probably wouldn't be an enormous challenge. Now, please give me my tinfoil hat, the radio waves hurt.

    5. Re:Or... by tsa · · Score: 1

      No, I want pidgeons with freakin' "lasers" attached to their heads!

      --

      -- Cheers!

    6. Re:Or... by hrmot · · Score: 1

      What if you had 10 pigeons fitted with nuclear devices?...

      US pigeons go up to 11.

    7. Re:Or... by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      See, the parent poster knows it's not a question of how 'e grips it. It's a question of weight ratios!

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  40. But have they tested these pigeons ability to... by rwyoder · · Score: 1

    ...maintain communication and navigation while crossing the International Date Line?

  41. Up, up, down, down . . . by achurch · · Score: 1

    I guess the only question is, do the birds have B and A buttons too?

    1. Re:Up, up, down, down . . . by julesh · · Score: 1

      The question is can you stop a pigeon A'ing and B'ing when you don't want it to?

  42. I wouldn't be surprised.... by sycodon · · Score: 1, Troll

    If they have been experimenting on human prisoners with this. The Chinese government has been very successful in hiding or white washing their atrocities. Some day we will find that Hitler had nothing on the modern day Chinese government.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:I wouldn't be surprised.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a troll, a vild concern. We DO have some knowledge of what North Korea gets up to, and it isn't funny.

    2. Re:I wouldn't be surprised.... by Belgarath52 · · Score: 1
    3. Re:I wouldn't be surprised.... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Actually not.

      I am not calling the Chinese government a bunch of Hitlers. I am saying that we will probably find that the atrocities committed by that government are worse than those committed by the Nazis.

      This is different than calling Bush a little Hitler, as many here like to do.

      In fact, they are at 35 million murdered and counting (http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocidetable2005.ht m)

      Make no mistake, the current government may not be as bad as the times of the Cultural Revolution, but the attitudes and mechanisms that enabled the previous atrocities are still in place. Just look at Tiananmen Square.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  43. Great, another WMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try stopping a few flocks of these loaded with bird flu or worse.

  44. antipersonnel by mattr · · Score: 1

    How horrible and obvious to everyone now. Should have been obvious for a long time considering the work done on remote control of cockroaches. My first thought was C4 to office windows, another poster mentioned.

    There was a story a few days ago about light winged army bots that are useful in Iraq. If the other side adds pigeons we may need to have a large number of armed bots to secure a periphery around troops distant enough to keep them safe. This reminds me of Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age (sounding less like fiction every day) in which cities are ringed by clouds of tiny winged bots (aerostats) that act as an immune system against invading bots.

    It is interesting to consider that even without a traditional war, the combination of diffusion of low-cost high tech before cultural polarizations are wiped out (personally I expected that "wiping out" long before the Gulf War) could drive a decentralized arms race on a progressively smaller scale.

    It also seems likely that attacks will be made by robotic or live drones before any realistic defense, active or passive, is implemented. Surely the idea of a secured zone breaks down in a skyscraper jungle with broad access from above, and one could never be safe unless the defensive periphery could be shrunk and mobilized to follow you.

    This is just another step toward that scary future when the people who got bullied might still want revenge and they get the means to do it. If I wanted to protect my troops I'd start working on a cheap laser or phalanx style miniaturized robotic defense to take out anything small flying nearby.

  45. Prejudice, prejudice, prejudice. by lxt518052 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    That's how it works.

    1. Make a judgement that someone is unethical based on one's own perception.
    2. Reinforce the perception with extreme or individual incidents that are in line with that judgement.
    3. Dismiss evidences that contradict the judgement or undermine the credibility of it.
    4. When the position is not defendable in a debate, use unsubstantiated claim or cite anecdotal evidence.
    5. Repeat 2-4 as necessary.

    --
    People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.
    1. Re:Prejudice, prejudice, prejudice. by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.

      Best quote I've seen in a while. Mod parent up!

    2. Re:Prejudice, prejudice, prejudice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Make a judgment that someone is unethical based on one's own perception.

      You mean like you're doing by implication, using that list? :-)

      (Sorry, but the way you wrote that was far too generic and could be applied to most anything.)

    3. Re:Prejudice, prejudice, prejudice. by lxt518052 · · Score: 1
      This is slashdot. I have to be keen. You know how easy I could be modded down if I was any specific. ;-)

      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=224072 &cid=18143822

      --
      People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.
  46. Sure, but can they fly by RandoX · · Score: 1

    Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right?

    1. Re:Sure, but can they fly by RancidMilk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you can forget increasing the number of lives they have until the they have B, A, Select, and Start buttons.

  47. head mounted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why is the targeting camera head mounted...?

  48. Japan China and weird weapons of WW-II by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Japanese in the WW-II tried to use bats to carry bombs . Another great idea they had was to release hot air balloons filled with incindiary devices and release them into the jet stream. Two or three such bombs actually reached US mainland, and the fact was classified to prevent panic in USA. Finally when they carried tiny airplanes with bombs in their submarines to attack US mainland, they tried to bomb the forests. The Japanese military high command had such exaggerated reports of US and its forests, they believed that if these forests were set afire, it will burn the whole damned continent! So I am not surprised the Chinese are innovating trying to use piegons.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Japan China and weird weapons of WW-II by frogstar_robot · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was the US that researched the bat bomb. It showed early promise but was back burnered by the A-Bomb.

    2. Re:Japan China and weird weapons of WW-II by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  49. Ya know... by GReaToaK_2000 · · Score: 1

    I agree and am concerned for the pigeons that are being opened up like this. I am also concerned about the diabolical possibilities for this.

    BUT

    There is an up side. If the pigeons were controlled in a city, they could be "potty trained". Meaning, a city wide computer system could track them and force them to put their droppings in one location. That excrement could then used by chemical companies. Of course if this system were hacked they then could be forced to put their droppings on a person, place or thing... Oh well, there's always something bad that can be done with a good.

    Additionally, I say do this to cats... They never listen anyway... :-D Yes, I am a cat owner, I just wish i could get the two of them to go to the bathroom in the toilet... Oh well..

    ~GO

  50. Mod parent down as Over-rated by ubuwalker31 · · Score: 1

    First of all, there is nothing unethical about animal research, unless you are a part of the PETA animal rights brigade. Second, to compare this to what the nazi experimentation on Jews in WWII concentration camps dehumanizes the victims by comparing them to animals.

    The practical applications of this scientific breakthroughs, frankly, are huge. Imagine someone who can't walk because part of their brain is damaged, can now possibly be healed, by application of these electrodes. Dogs whose rabid behavior which can't be controlled, can now be effectively managed without putting them down, etc.

    Go take your medieval view of science and shove it.

    1. Re:Mod parent down as Over-rated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to compare this to what the nazi experimentation on Jews in WWII concentration camps dehumanizes the victims by comparing them to animals.

      Perhaps instead of dehumanizing and loweringlowering the value of human life, the comparison actually serves to raise the value of animal life and to somewhat "humanize" them. Increasing ones respect for animals and their welfare doesn't automatically or inherently lower ones respect for humans, ya know. The only thing you have proven is that you dehumanize animals.

  51. have you ever read WE3 by mu22le · · Score: 1

    well you should, the whole idea is strikingly similar, even in the graphical description.

    The WP article is here: We3.

    IMHO it's one of the best Grant Morrison comic.

  52. LOR Author. by Cragen · · Score: 1

    Yeah, another guy named Tolkien also had this idea. (After the Fellowship is formed, Gandalf and Crew have to hide to avoid flocks of crows. Apparently, the Fellowship's new coats were not very bird-crap-repellent.)

  53. Combine with bird flu!! by jlebrech · · Score: 0

    Remote Control + Pigeon with a bad cough = WMD.

  54. Analog by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

    I remember reading in a 1970s-era issue of Analog a story about a couple men who developed a way to control a gigantic floating octopus-cattle by applying electrical current to its brain. Interesting to see something similar actually happen.

    (No, I wasn't alive when the magazine was published...my step-dad had a huge collection of Analog magazines.)

  55. Potty Pigeon! by frogstar_robot · · Score: 1

    All they have to do is wire up the sphincter and they can play Potty Pigeon for real. Infect the birds with something and it doesn't even have to be a joke.

  56. "Chinese remote controlled pigeons are .. by Hohlraum · · Score: 1

    the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face."

  57. The "disturbing photos" from the source? by ebonum · · Score: 1

    Here is the real story.

    This one is from the Peoples Daily Online. Not sure if the is "the" original version.
    http://env.people.com.cn/GB/5421217.html

    Here are some more stories with pics.
    http://www.hf365.com/epublish/gb/paper2/20061101/c lass000200003/hwz821613.htm
    http://www.news365.com.cn/wxpd/sm/smxw/200702/t200 70227_1305979.htm

    It seems to indicate that the unit weighs 10 grams and is powered by the pigeon.

  58. More weight! by nastro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remote controlled pigeons are fine, but they have one drawback -- they cannot carry beer.

    I'm still waiting on my remote-controlled beer fetching attack monkey. Keep at it, scientists!

  59. Coincidence? by codemoose · · Score: 0

    That's funny, I know someone who had a similar notion about genetically-modified birds. Unlike the Chinese, he had a use in mind. Maybe not a practical or realistic one, but a use, nevertheless. The City of Chicago seems to like having bird doo on their statues, though, because they never responded.

  60. Military Skeet Shoot by bigkahunafish · · Score: 1

    And you thought all those times of practicing skeet shooting would never pay off....

    --
    Eat a Chicken, You know you want to.
  61. Moral core by zuiraM · · Score: 1

    I quite agree with the parent poster.

    The problem is with the "moral core" concept. Basically, humans tend to seperate beings into two groups, with one being "protected" by the moral code, and the other not being protected. Shifting the boundaries between these two groups is an important part of getting soldiers to fight, and the critical component in allowing genocide to happen.

    Most people tend to put animals outside their moral core. Familiarity and empathy extends some limited protection and benefit to household pets in most cases, but even these are not usually part of the moral core.

    The scary thing isn't that they are doing the same *things* as the Nazis, but rather that they are doing so based on the same *line of thought*.

    Off-topic, I wonder how many intelligent sadists fly under the radar by seeking out positions such as these, where they can cook up some flimsy excuse to perform legally sanctioned torture for very little real benefit. I mean, sure, the pigeons can probably be used for something (e.g. delivering a small payload, or performing inconspicous reconaissance), but the technology to do these things, including inconspicous reconaissance, is probably available in China without resorting to this.

  62. Smithers, Do my worst, eh? by vorlich · · Score: 1

    Release the flying monk... Oh well, back to the drawing board.

    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
  63. Militarization by ebonum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know, there might be something to the conspiracy theories on this one. Have you ever been to Shanghai? It's a really big city. 20+ million. Almost no pigeons. Can you think of any major western city without pigeons? It's not coincidence. The survival rate of a nice pump, juicy pigeon isn't that good in China. I'm a local, I know. The point being is that this has absolutely no practical use internally whatsoever. No sane mad scientist would every build a Franken-pigeon for use in China. Half would be eaten before completing their first mission. Therefore, it must have been designed for deployment outside China.

  64. Propaganda. Propaganda. Propaganda. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 0
    Gee! China in the news. Again. With a creepy story about mutilating pigeons to control their minds. How peculiar.

    What COULD it mean?

    Okay. Two things.

    First of all, the Americans, Germans, Russians, and heaven knows who all else have been deep into mind-control work since the forties and have not let up since.

    The CIA's experiments in radio control of the brain are based on the development of the EEG in the 1920's. In 1934, doctor's Chaffee and Light published a pivotal monograph, "A Method for Remote Control of Electrical Stimulation of the Nervous System". Work along the same lines allowed Dr. Jose Delgado of Cordoba, Spain to climb into bull-ring and, with the push of a button, trigger an electrode in the head of a charging bull and stop the beast in it's tracks.

    Further groundbreaking advances were made by L.L. Vasiliev, the famed Russian Physiologist and doyan of parapsychology, in "Critical Evaluation of the Hypnogenic Method". The article detailed the experiments of Dr. I.F. Tomashevsky in remote radio control of the brain "at a distance of one or more rooms and under conditions that the participant would not know or suspect that she would be experimented with...One such experiment was carried out in a park at a distance," Vasiliev reported, and "a post-hypnotic mental suggestion to go to sleep was complied with within a minute."

    Some solid reading on the subject of the development of mind control through history can be read here.

    Mind-controlled animals are not news. It's old. The only reason this is surfacing now is to mold public awareness.

    Secondly. . .

    China is being lined up to stand in as the new villain. The power-monsters in Washington made a lot of money in Iraq, raping the public purse; when the news headlines declare how many hundreds of billions of dollars it costs to be at war with Iraq, where do we think all that money goes? Into the sand? Into vapor? Nope. Yet, that's what everybody generally feels, that the money just goes away in the Middle East somewhere, but that's totally wrong. Nearly ALL of that money goes into the pockets of a small number of American industrialists. That money isn't lost. It's simply just been transferred from the public purse and into the bank accounts of the men who make bombs and guns and tanks and boats. War is wonderfully profitable!

    So when the fun and games tie up in the Middle East, where is the next cash cow going to be? --After Iran and Syria, I mean. It's going to be China. A nice big cold war with china, so that billions more dollars can be raped from the American public and given to a small number of men with cigars.

    The media is manipulated. --I've been hunting around for a story I read a couple of days ago, (and cannot find. Phooey), where an ex-secret services chief was commenting loudly that the propaganda build-up with regard to Iran was nearly identical to that used to pull us into war with Iraq.

    I did however run across this story which illustrates the point.

    I wonder what kind of "Bad Bad China" story will pop up next? Stay alert!


    -FL

  65. Duck Hunt 2? by Skythe · · Score: 1

    They ought to bring out a sequel to duck hunt; except this time you control kamikaze pigeons and must fly them into the evil capitalist americans.

    *Ducks*
    Actually.. scuse' the pun

  66. Beta by chkMINUS · · Score: 0
  67. No, it's not ! by BayaWeaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's ridiculous. The point of free will is not how you arrive at a decision or how you rationalise it, but rather that you can
    This is neither a ridiculous nor trivial idea. There's a vast body of work in philosophy and brain science that tells us that it is so. While our intuition says it ain't so, history has shown that intuition isn't very good when it comes to the profoundest truths. "That's ridiculous!" was most probably the first response to the person who declared that the earth is not flat. Think also of the how our intuition fails us when it come to biological evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics.

    And free will and consciousness being illusions are just catchphrases.
    Catchphrases? Hardly. The idea has been a subject of much serious debate and study for a long time.
    1. Re:No, it's not ! by duffel · · Score: 1

      Apologies for the length of this post.

      I admit that "That's ridiculous" was a bad choice of words... perhaps I should have phrased it better... "I disagree strongly with this" or something akin to that. But just because I prepended my argument with it doesn't mean you should reject the argument itself. In any case, that first bit wasn't meant to be an argument, just a general statement of disapproval (To elaborate, I disapprove of using a column that doesn't cite its sources as a source. Considering Scott Adams occasionally makes fun of people who regard anecdotal evidence as a valid authority, perhaps he should be less quick to use it himself. I disapprove of the thought that it doesn't matter if you alter someone's brain to change their desires. And will is not entirely free if a parasite is altering your mind - that's coercion.)

      Before I go back to the main conversation, I would like to argue that evolution is a fairly clear concept, and probably the one part of the sciences that we scientists understand best. I can't tell you why there is such a thing as gravity, or where the other fundamental forces come from, or what the deal with quarks is, but I can tell you in very clear terms the logic of evolution.
      The reason people have a problem with evolution is not that it's counter intuitive but rather that it disagrees with what their foremost authority says on the subject - and they trust this authority more than they trust their capacity of reasoning. (Which, incidentally, they consider to be the gift of this infallible authority... I don't understand that part)

      The other two are conceptually difficult, simply because we generally have no experience at the scales we're talking about, where the universe behaves in a fundamentally different way. I suppose one could argue that our motivations behave differently from what we're used to if you consider the scale to be the inner workings of the brain.

      But when you go down that far you run into problems of definition. I consider the following an entity with free will:

      A complex computer (brain) in control of a body creates random scenarios of potential outcomes of actions, evaluates the amount of benefit derived from each according to a complex set of rules consisting of a hereditary and learned instruction set, picks one of the actions that it predicts to result in the highest benefit and implements it, observes the outcome of the action and based on the amount of real benefit the action brings, and how well the scenario matches reality, it modifies both the learned instruction set for evaluating benefit and the circuitry by which it functions, working as a complete unit, without the interference of another entity to whom this definition applies.

      Now one can argue that there are no random variables and so the scenarios are predefined, but that is wrong - there are random variables. (Quantum Mechanics contains true random aspects) Personally, I don't think that matters, pseudo random variables are enough for me. (A comptibilist standpoint - I think of will as no longer free if an outside entity alters it)

      Still, we are machines, but we are not bound by causal determinism. (Given identical initial conditions, the same thing does not have to happen twice. So say the laws of physics.). Logical determinism is just plain silly (I rolled a three with my die. Therefore, it must have been true that I would roll a three before I rolled it. Yeeesss.... But if there is absolutely no method of predicting what you roll beforehand, that's good enough for me. Or to put it another way, assume the universe is in a certain state, the state of the universe can't be different. Technically true, but a futile argument that you cannot justify anything with.) That is why I consider us to have free will.

    2. Re:No, it's not ! by David_Shultz · · Score: 1

      This is neither a ridiculous nor trivial idea. There's a vast body of work in philosophy and brain science that tells us that it is so. While our intuition says it ain't so, history has shown that intuition isn't very good when it comes to the profoundest truths. "That's ridiculous!" was most probably the first response to the person who declared that the earth is not flat. Think also of the how our intuition fails us when it come to biological evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics.

      You seem fairly convinced of your conclusion so I wonder whether you are even willing to consider the possibility that you are mistaken. I will write this post anyways, in the hope that you might be willing to consider my arguments and perhaps change your mind.

      You mentioned a "vast body of work in philosophy and brain science". I must point out that the body of work in "brain science" (you probably should have said "cognitive sciences"), is utterly irrelevant -this is strictly a philosophical issue. Having said that, it is worth noting that by no means is there consensus within the domain of philosophy with respect to freewill. Allow me to briefly survey the issue (while ultimately irrelevant to the truth of the matter I think I should also point out that I have roughly a solid three semesters worth of philosophy courses in my degree and no less than an A+ in any of them)

      Some people pose as a test for freewill the following: if someone, in retrospect, "could have done otherwise", then their action was done freely. This puts freewill at odds with determinism, since determinism clearly implies that a person could NOT have done otherwise. So we have a choice between determinism and freewill. Science tells us our brains are deterministic, and so we don't have freewill. End of story? Hardly. The above definition of freewill is rather naive and by no means agreed upon by all.

      Freewill is defined by others as "the ability to choose", which is not, as you mentioned in an earlier post, just a rephrasing of freewill. "Choosing" is a cognitive act which is achieved by certain information processing agents. When an agent takes in sensory information, evaluates that information, and selects one of several behavioral options, it is said to be engaged in the process of choosing. It is in virtue of instantiating this process -which can be understood in entirely deterministic terms- that a creature is said to have possess freewill. In other words, as an information processing agent navigates through its world of various sensory percepts and so on, it chooses (deterministically) which options to take, based on its cognitive architecture and perhaps some grab bag of useful heuristics -this is freewill. I am describing a compatabilist position, which is a third position on the nature of freewill. A compatabilist believes in both determinism and freewill, because they define freewill in a more sensible way (I don't want to go into the specifics of the debate on how to properly define freewill -it is long and rather boring. To make it short, just rest assured that the first definition is metaphysically bankrupt as a concept, and the second is more in line with our evidence for proposing the concept of freewill in the first place).

      Because it often comes up, I would like to briefly mention quantum mechanics -specifically quantum indeterminacy. Some people cite quantum indeterminacy as a solution to the problem of freewill -e.g. the universe is not determined after all, so is consistent with freewill! I happen to think this is a quite silly solution to the problem -as if random quantum events could somehow be responsible for freewill! Freewill is about choosing, about forging our own way forward, and randomness is no better for that than determinism. Also, this QM solution accepts the dichotomy discussed earlier -determinism versus freewill- which I have already shown is not the only way of looking at the problem -the compatabilist position offers a way out of this two sided way of looking at the problem.

    3. Re:No, it's not ! by BayaWeaver · · Score: 1

      elaborate, I disapprove of using a column that doesn't cite its sources as a source. Considering Scott Adams occasionally makes fun of people who regard anecdotal evidence as a valid authority, perhaps he should be less quick to use it himself.
      No one, not Scott Adams, not the scientists, not the philosophers, is using anecdotal evidence as authority. I think Scott Adams for all his humour, is a pretty sophisticated thinker and knows better than to do that.

      Before I go back to the main conversation, I would like to argue that evolution is a fairly clear concept, and probably the one part of the sciences that we scientists understand best. I can't
      Evolution is a fairly clear concept? But then why is it that so many seemingly educated people of above average intelligence just don't get it? It is clear enough to us but the evidence shows that in the general population, it is not.

      A complex computer (brain) in control of a body creates random scenarios of potential outcomes of actions, evaluates the amount of benefit derived from each according to a complex set of rules consisting of a hereditary and learned instruction set, picks one of the actions that it predicts to result in the highest benefit and implements it, observes the outcome of the action and based on the amount of real benefit the action brings, and how well the scenario matches reality, it modifies both the learned instruction set for evaluating benefit and the circuitry by which it functions, working as a complete unit, without the interference of another entity to whom this definition applies. Now one can argue that there are no random variables and so the scenarios are predefined, but that is wrong - there are random variables. (Quantum Mechanics contains true random aspects) Personally, I don't think that matters, pseudo random variables are enough for me. (A comptibilist standpoint - I think of will as no longer free if an outside entity alters it)
      Here's a thought experiment. Let's take Stanley, the clever robot that made it's own way across the Mojave desert and throw in another 20 years of development to make him even cleverer. Then in the year 2027, put in an algorithm that will sometimes make the new Stanley choose either of the top two optimal decisions (if they are close enough) based on the result of a random number event every time he has to make a decision. This way the robot will not always take the same exact path even when the conditions are the same. Using your arguments above, the new and very clever but unconscious Stanley will then have free will! If you still think so, then we are probably talking about two different things. Not an uncommon problem in debates about free will and consciousness, of course.
    4. Re:No, it's not ! by BayaWeaver · · Score: 1

      You mentioned a "vast body of work in philosophy and brain science". I must point out that the body of work in "brain science" (you probably should have said "cognitive sciences"), is
      I am thinking specifically of studies involving electrodes and MRI scans of the brain in action when responding to stimuli and making decisions. That to me is brain science.

      utterly irrelevant -this is strictly a philosophical issue. Having said that, it is worth noting that by no means is there consensus within the domain of philosophy with respect to freewill.
      Philosophical arguments alone will never be able to provide the answers. You'll have to study the phenomenon of decision making in the object in question. The brain, that is. Yes, I am aware that there is no consensus on the matter.

      freewill. "Choosing" is a cognitive act which is achieved by certain information processing agents. When an agent takes in sensory information, evaluates that information, and selects one of several behavioral options, it is said to be engaged in the process of choosing. It is in virtue of instantiating this process -which can be understood in entirely deterministic terms- that a creature is said to have possess freewill. In other words, as an information processing agent navigates through its world of various sensory percepts and so on, it chooses (deterministically) which options to take, based on its cognitive architecture and perhaps some grab bag of useful heuristics -this is freewill.
      As I've said in a previous post, that would mean Stanley, the unconscious robot has free will. But Stanley can't possibly have free will, can he?
    5. Re:No, it's not ! by innerweb · · Score: 1

      Why can Stanley not have free will?

      If free will is nothing more than the ability to make non-deterministic decisions, I would say that Stanley in a future version could be *given* free will. I would even say that complex rules based systems can exhibit free will as well (though we tend to call them bugs or unexpected features).

      Much of the research I have read that theorizes that we do not really have free will is based on the assumption that if we know enough about a person, their biology, their societal formation, their beliefs, etc. we can predict with great (if not 100%) accuracy their future decisions.

      Maybe that is possible. Maybe not. We have so much more we need to learn about the brain and the body. It may turn out to be that simple, in which case, the cures for all mental health issues will be at our collective fingertips and crime will become nonexistant.

      With everything I have read and coded myself so far, I am certain that the potential for that is a long way off. So, for now, we are beings of free will - in a sense. Many of us are also very easily groomed, brainwashed and messed with. It may be that to have free will, you need to have something else as well.

      Enough rambling for tonight.

      -Innerweb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
  68. Mod Parent Up by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Good points you make. Thanks.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  69. Stuff THIS! by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    but I'm fairly sure that there are bigger birds out there that wouldn't have a problem with it.

    I've always wanted an Atomic Turkey.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  70. new chinese firewall: hawks by swschrad · · Score: 1

    look, ma, it's raining bones!

    look away, child, it's a hegemonist net surfer....

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  71. Army of Flying Cyborg Pigeons by spazmolytic666 · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new Pigeon Overlords...

    --
    Help! I've fallen in a karma hole and I can't get up!
  72. input from a pigeon owner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got about 120 pedigreed homing pigeons. I belong to the American Racing Pigeon Union (www.pigeon.org). My pigeons are incredibly well cared for. Most people who race homing pigeons take excellent care of their birds.

    A couple of points about the article and the responses. First about the crapping part. Pigeons don't poop while flying. They poop while standing or on a perch, usually they turn around and back up a little and then they poop. You can tell quite a bit about the pigeon's health by looking at the poop. After a little while you get used to it and realize it's not bad at all. Pigeons are grain eaters, their poop is excellent fertilizer.

    I really don't like the idea about electrodes in the head to control pigeons. Pigeons are gentle loving animals that don't deserve to be treated like this. I also don't like the idea about using pigeons as weapons, this is just wrong for the bird of peace.

    Most of you have a picture of a pigeon in your wallet, it's on all of the visa credit cards. Pigeons (doves) are the symbol of love, peace, and the Holy Spirit in the Christian faith. Pigeons mate for life.

  73. I'm confused by lxt518052 · · Score: 1

    Could you please define the word dehumanize for me? How do you dehumanize something that is not human?

    --
    People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.
    1. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you please define the word dehumanize for me? How do you dehumanize something that is not human?

      My use of the word in that context probably wasn't technically correct(and if you look at the wording and punctuation you can see I knew this), because animals are non-human, but surely you get the drift of my message.

  74. Operation Acoustic Kitty by Warbringer87 · · Score: 1

    Meow! http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=636 Not quite the same, but about as funny, if not funnier than chinese pigeon dive-crappers.

  75. Certain words are unsuitable for some nations by lxt518052 · · Score: 1
    Thank you for your revealing post.

    It's just like the fact that the French who fought Nazi in WWII are called French resistance but the Iraqis fighting US army should not be called Iraqi resistance, only Iraqi insurgency. Of course, Chechen suicide bombers are surely brave freedom fighters. A palestinian doing the same is a terrorist.

    --
    People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.
    1. Re:Certain words are unsuitable for some nations by inquisitive_cherub · · Score: 1

      Ridiculous.

      The Nazis had designs for completely conquering Europe and becoming out-and-out occupiers. The US has no such ambitions and has publicly stated time and again that they have no interest in staying long-term in Iraq. Iraqis clashing with the US armed forces and the elected government do not deserve the positive connotation of resistance fighter... they are misguided at best, thugs at worst.

    2. Re:Certain words are unsuitable for some nations by lxt518052 · · Score: 1
      Of course this is ridiculous.

      Donald Ramsfeld must have also felt this way when his army was being attacked everywhere in Iraq. The Iraqi's really should understand the American's good intention, despite the thousands of Iraqi civilian lives killed by US invasion - collateral damage - that's unavoidable. Plus, Iraqi lives don't worth much compared to our soldiers.

      "But look what good we've done to your people. Well, most hasn't happened yet - in fact, we don't know when any is going to happen or at all - but we've helped you get rid of tyrant Saddam. Why are you people so ungrateful!"

      The US army has been there for years. If they were to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, how come there are more "misguided" than ever?

      If, heaven forbids, Iraq was full of thugs in the first place, what good had it done to "free" them from tyranny so that they could kill each other, and American soldiers as well?

      The US has no such ambitions and has publicly stated time and again that they have no interest in staying long-term in Iraq.

      Let's put the question aside what's the neo-conservatives' real intention. Do you really think the Iraqi will buy this? Has the Bush administration shown any sign of leaving? Don't forget Cheney's recent tough talk against Iran.

      --
      People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.
  76. Just Like Those Coconuts? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    I'm still trying to figure out how King Arthur got a hold of those coconuts. They were in a temperate zone! Sparrows carried them my ass.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  77. Clarification by mattr · · Score: 1

    P.S. by on a smaller scale I mean with the agents/weapons becoming progressively smaller in size. (Perhaps smaller agents in the air or on the ground will make them cheaper to deploy in quantity while evading detection better.) Which would imply that a given size (say pigeon size) will be escalated to faster speeds, and higher yields, at the same size, until a new smaller size weapon is realized in this race. Shades of Philip K. Dick.

  78. Finally... by emil10001 · · Score: 1

    Finally, we might start seeing some better ping times, and fewer lost packets for my carrier of choice! I think that google should be happy about this too.

  79. Cyborg Pigeon Slave Revolt by aapold · · Score: 1

    The pigeons of China today overthrew their human masters in a major political Coo!

    (from Miller/SNL/Ecuador sometime circa 1990)

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  80. Skinner and pigeon-controlled bombs. by argent · · Score: 1

    Running the control the other direction is actually more interesting.

  81. Errr... uhhh... by linuxg0d · · Score: 1

    Hehehehe!

    King Arthur: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?
    1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
    King Arthur: Not at all. They could be carried.
    1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: What? A swallow carrying a coconut?
    King Arthur: It could grip it by the husk!
    1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
    King Arthur: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
    1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?

    Sorry folks, it was too hard for me not to. Hehehehe!

  82. Re:.sig: "GPL: Free as in will" by Mr.+Hankey · · Score: 1

    Well, that would depend on your will, wouldn't it? Most people who choose the GPL (assuming they understand the license) want their software to remain free for their users, including derivative changes. IMO it's more free than BSD due to its protections, but I won't argue some religious war with you here. You'll need to find another sucker.

    --
    GPL: Free as in will
  83. Resident Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be possible to use these pigeons to deliver a payload for virus and or biohazards? Disregard the fact that it might sound like a retarded plot out of Resident Evil, but something like this could be perfect for depositing toxic/contagious materials into your enemy's water reservoirs or civilian population. God help us if there's a more deadly strain of avian flu or other bugs that could pass from birds to humans.

  84. More on Who's Will by Morosoph · · Score: 1
    I'm not going to go all "BSD is superior" on you; I myself prefer the GPL.

    My point is simply that free will is something that can change moment to moment, yet can also impinge upon itself, somewhat like happens to BSDed code as it goes down the line, including a choice to bind the code by contract, which is something that we can choose to do to ourselves.

    The marketplace as a whole, rather than particlar items being traded, is kept open. You have resale rights, for a start. Similarly, truely free speech can be reused, and cannot be bound in subsequent incarnations.

    Bad analogies are a pet peave of mine; I'm not saying that BSD is superior, but only that free will is a bad analogy for the mechanisms of the GPL licence. There are better analogies.

    1. Re:More on Who's Will by Mr.+Hankey · · Score: 1

      *shrug* I view BSD vs. GPL as similar to Anarchy vs. Constitution-based law. It could be argued that anarchy allows more freedom, however the law of might makes right is still fully in effect. Free will is only truly available to those who can stand and exert it. Law allows more people to exert their will, even if some freedoms might be restricted.

      The GPL likewise turns copyright on its head, allowing more people to do what they want with the software. It allows freedom of distribution for end users, while still leaving the author some extent of control over where their source goes and how it is modified WRT commercial software and its vendors (who tend to have quite a bit of legal clout.)

      Let us not however dwell upon these trifles, lest we ignore the wonder that is remote controlled pigeons. No religious war should drive us to such a travesty.

      --
      GPL: Free as in will
  85. We knew about this back in 2005 by Sigg3.net · · Score: 0

    Pigeon Awareness Program
    Courtesy of the interNet Action Against Penguins (NAAP).

    If you have any questions to any agents or unofficial members of the NAAP, please contact me. And for those "government officials" with an interest in my knowledge: I'm always told a posteriori any operation.

  86. RFC 1149 Implementation by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1

    I am surprised that this project implementing RFC 1149 has not been cited yet.

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  87. Cybernetic pidgeon questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it have enough RAM to play Halo3 at a reasonable frame rate?

    Will the bird flu virus be solved by McAfee or Symantec?

    Where will the cybernetic arms race end? They have cybernetic birds, we have cybernetic cats, the Russians have cybernetic dogs, etc...

    IMHO, if the cybernetic pigeon is running Windows, we have nothing to worry about. I can just see a cybernetic pigeon flying and then suddenly crashes to the ground requiring a ctrl-alt-del to get out of the blue screen of death mode.

  88. Why they don't use HUMANS ?! by FAB10 · · Score: 1

    Are you people completely stupid? Don't you think using animals as waepons for power hungry political leaders might be a serious problem for all of us? Besides deeply hurting ethical principles. ...why not putting electrodes in YOUR brain and give the joystick to some army leaders? Let them use humans and don't bother other species!!

    1. Re:Why they don't use HUMANS ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they might kill them

  89. they need one more electrode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to make it poo.

  90. Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha, that doesn't impress me much.

    Now if they had a remotely controlled flying cows...

  91. Tie FireBombs To Them... by littlewink · · Score: 1

    and guide them to enemy targets, among other things.

    Through their history the Chinese have done this with pigeons: you let loose homing pigeons with burning rope attached in the neighborhood of a town. They land in the barns and rooftops and burn the city to the ground.

    Only your imagination limits you: surveillance, following, selective weapons delivery. In short, anything an airplane can do except heavy delivery.

    So imagine you're a Chinese saboteur: import a bunch of cyber pigeons, and, when the Chinese start war with Taiwan, release these pigeons in Taiwan, Honolulu, the Philippines, South Korea, LA, San Francisco, DC, etc. to cause damage and confusion. There's probably little chance of being detected beforehand.

  92. Re:.sig: "GPL: Free as in will" by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

    I'd say:
    BSD: Liberté
    GPL: Égalité, Liberté

    --
    Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.