Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Create Zombie Cockroaches

Reservoir Hill writes "Zombie insects might sound like a B-movie plot device (quicktime video) but to the emerald cockroach wasp (Ampulex compressa), they're a tried and tested way to provide food for their hungry larvae. The wasp relies on cockroaches for its grisly life cycle but unlike many venomous predators, which paralyze their victims before eating them, the wasp's sting leaves the cockroach able to walk, but unable to initiate its own movement. Researchers have discovered that the wasps sting the cockroaches once to subdue them, then administer another, more precise sting right into their victim's brain. The venom works to block a neurotransmitter called octopamine with a similar action to dopamine, which is involved in preparations to execute complex behaviors such as walking. Then the wasp grabs the cockroach's antenna and leads it back to the nest 'like a dog on a leash', says one researcher. The team found that they could restore spontaneous walking behavior in stung cockroaches by giving them a compound that reactivates octopamine receptors in the insects' central nervous system. Researchers were also able to create their own zombies by injecting unstung cockroaches with a compound that blocks the receptors producing a similar effect to that of the venom."

243 comments

  1. Credit where credit is due... by bruins01 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The title should read: Emerald Cockroach Wasps Create Zombie Cockroaches, Scientists Notice

    1. Re:Credit where credit is due... by jacquesm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      as if humans would ever take the credit for things found in nature...

    2. Re:Credit where credit is due... by Plutonite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the most awesome thing I've read in some time. In highly complex behaviors like these, I often wonder how the hell the evolutionary development [of the wasp] proceeded in order for the organism to deal with its prey like that. Not just one carefully administered sting, but two, then drags it home as if it knows what it just did. Hot damn.

    3. Re:Credit where credit is due... by FredDC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The smallest creatures on this planet offer some of the most interesting behavioral patterns to study. I've always been fascinated with bees, ants, ... The solutions that nature has come up with for what appear to be impossible tasks are simply astounding!

      --
      09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
    4. Re:Credit where credit is due... by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Almost, it should be: "Emerald Cockroach Wasps Create Zombie Cockroaches, Scientists Imitate".

      From the blurb above:
      Researchers were also able to create their own zombies by injecting unstung cockroaches with a compound

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    5. Re:Credit where credit is due... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Funny
      I've always been fascinated with bees, ants

      Hawk moth pupae?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    6. Re:Credit where credit is due... by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 5, Informative

      For more insect related awesomeness the BBC made Life in the Undergrowth a documentary series presented by David Attenborough. There's some really incredible stuff in there. Wasps especially seem to have evolved lots of these rather sinister behaviours.

    7. Re:Credit where credit is due... by DerWulf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is highly complex but if you watch the video it becomes appearant that any form of sedation would have been an evolutionary advantage so the path could have been strength (wrestle the cockroach 'till it dies) > sedation > mind control. Once reduced to simple steps such complex behaviour is still awesome but less mind-boggling :-D

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    8. Re:Credit where credit is due... by olman · · Score: 1

      And chime in short lifespan + great numbers and loooooong time.

      This is just one species of wasp with one specific cocroach (works on other insects too?) whereas great many species of wasps did not make the leap from "paralyze -> chew and/or drag on your own"

      Heck, spiders have nice living food storage thing going..

    9. Re:Credit where credit is due... by porpnorber · · Score: 1

      Wow! So that proves that God is made of cake!

      Sorry, sorry.

    10. Re:Credit where credit is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought zombies are re-animated dead people.

      These poor cockroaches weren't killed, just paralyzed then manipulated. (Then eaten alive, yikes.)

      What's the definition of zombie? (Not computers but the real thing. Or am I splitting hairs?)

      Though I vaguely recall some old story with perhaps the original use of the word "Zombie", from Haiti where voodoo/santoria priests gained control of (living) people. So maybe Sam Raimi and other documentary shooters just perverted the idea.

    11. Re:Credit where credit is due... by rasputin465 · · Score: 1

      (wrestle the [creature] 'till it dies) > sedation > mind control

      well I, for one, welcome our new mind-controlling wasp overlords!

    12. Re:Credit where credit is due... by youthoftoday · · Score: 1

      we are found in nature... ?

      --
      -1 not first post
    13. Re:Credit where credit is due... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, they usually blame some deity for it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Credit where credit is due... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
      A simpler form of this behavior was observed by Charles Darwin. Wasps laying eggs on live caterpillars which were eaten alive by wasp larvae! That convinced Darwin that no moral, just, fair God would design such a system. It was one of his motivations in seeking natural explanations for behavior of animals. Darwin wanted to plug the hole, "I am bad because God designed me to be bad and sinful" defense for the sinners. Because if Paley's watchmaker God was true, then every immoral behavior is a designed behavior, specifically created by God. It is ironic that present day fundies paint Darwin in the darkest hue.

      The evolution is easily explained. Wasps sting and kill cockroaches and lay an egg on the dead roach to provide ready food for their larvae. Some wasps had less potent venom, strong enough to paralyze but taking longer to kill. These roaches would stay alive longer and provide better, less rotten bodies for the larvae. Now you can see the selection mechanism, give it a few million years and a billion generations, you can see behavior that is incredible.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    15. Re:Credit where credit is due... by jovius · · Score: 1

      I'd say it was about a chemical balance first, but the when the systems grew more complex the chemical side became just one part of the organisms, which now interact by their actions in space.

    16. Re:Credit where credit is due... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Zombie Cockroaches
      That was the name my band in high school. We used to play covers of late 60's rock. Despite rehearsing for 3 years, we never actually played a gig, unless you count our drummer's sister's bas mitzvah, and I got so nervous I hurled.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Credit where credit is due... by sorak · · Score: 1

      the path could have been strength (wrestle the cockroach 'till it dies) > sedation > mind control

      The next steps are:

      Make little hats > Wear little hats > wave little hats in air > learn to yell "yeehaw"

    18. Re:Credit where credit is due... by rograndom · · Score: 1

      Zombie Cockroaches

      That was the name my band in high school. We used to play covers of late 60's rock. Despite rehearsing for 3 years, we never actually played a gig, unless you count our drummer's sister's bas mitzvah, and I got so nervous I hurled.


      I can almost see this becoming a new meme, similar to "In soviet russia...".
    19. Re:Credit where credit is due... by leonardluen · · Score: 5, Funny

      well I, for one, welcome our new mind-controlling wasp overlords! how do we know the wasp didn't just make you type that?

      hey...ow!

      i also welcome our wasp overlords!
    20. Re:Credit where credit is due... by E++99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The evolution is easily explained. Wasps sting and kill cockroaches and lay an egg on the dead roach to provide ready food for their larvae. Some wasps had less potent venom, strong enough to paralyze but taking longer to kill. These roaches would stay alive longer and provide better, less rotten bodies for the larvae. Now you can see the selection mechanism, give it a few million years and a billion generations, you can see behavior that is incredible.


      Perhaps I'm missing something. How can a DNA mutation make the wasp know how to locate the brain and lodge the stinger directly into it? When this change happened, it would have presumably killed the roach if the venom wasn't already a dopamine analogue rather than a toxin. If the roaches were killed after this change, the venom couldn't have been changed by successive steps into a dopamine, as a small change from dead is still dead. If the venom was already a dopamine analogue before the wasp learned to inject into the brain, then how? Dopamine, at least in humans, can't cross the blood-brain barrier, so would only be effective if injected into the brain.
    21. Re:Credit where credit is due... by E++99 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of maybe just, "Scientists Observed Mimicking Behavior of Emerald Cockroach Wasps."

    22. Re:Credit where credit is due... by gripen40k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the most amazing adaptations that I have seen in nature come from Japanese honey bees and their ability to thwart attacks from hornets. Check out this, guarantee you will be amazed :).

      --
      Har?
    23. Re:Credit where credit is due... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1, Insightful
      It definitely did not happen in one generation. You could not have a mother wasp that killed and the daughter who carefully drove the roach.

      Let us start with wasps that stung a roach, killed it and laid eggs on the corpse. Some small variation in the gene that made the poison slightly stronger or slightly weaker. If it is so weak the roach took longer to die, the wasp larvae had better food so they were at an advantage. So they dominate and crowd out the wasps making stronger venom. It was probably not even the weakness of the venom, it could be amount of venom, or a tendency to seek larger roaches... anything that changes how long it takes for the roach to die. But if it reaches a stage where the roach was not even paralyzed then those genes lost the race. Thus over a long period, a species of wasp that paralyzed but not killed the roach developed.

      From this species each individual made a slightly different potion of chemicals and the one that reduced the flight instinct of the roach had better survival rate. All it takes is simple differential survival rates and such incredible developments could occur.

      Of course you don't have to believe all this explanation. You could go with a designer God who created a creature so diabolical it trained its young to eat roaches alive. The earlier speculation was that the roaches lost their fight-of-flight instinct. But now it looks like their muscles are paralyzed, but instinct is present in the brain. So the roach is being aware of being eaten alive and probably not even numbed to pain, just it is not able to run away. It makes it even more horrifying. If you want to believe in a God who could be so diabolical and evil, go ahead and believe.

      Direct result of such a micro-managing designer God is that, He designed me to believe in evolution. God is the one who is making me fight the fundies trying to inject religion into the class room. God is responsible for my strenuous opposition to Discovery Institute. You also have to excuse every murderer, rapist, child molester because, it is God who is ultimately responsible for the actions of the human machines He designed.

      After tying yourself into knots trying to find a way out using "Free Will" dogma, you will eventually long for the simplicity of the explanation of "evolution is responsible for this. We can't extrapolate any morality from this roach and wasp".

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    24. Re:Credit where credit is due... by kalirion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's that mind control step that seems the biggest leap. Are you saying that a single random mutation (or sequence of mutations on the same individual wasp) just happened to give the wasp the right venom for mind control and the instinct to sting a second time and attempt to lead the beast home for dinner? How do you subdivide that into valid evolutionary steps?

    25. Re:Credit where credit is due... by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      They developed the paralyzing strike via evolution, then they by chance stung them to death, and dragged the body home. One lucky roach managed to hit the zombification spot, instead of the regular kill spot. When they tried to drag the body home, it came easier. Those that hit the same spot time and time again, took less time to get the body home, so had an evolutionary advantage.

      Note, the insects do have a small brain, so it might have had a bit of "ah ha!" momemnt as well, intentionally trying for the zombification spot after the first random time it found it.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    26. Re:Credit where credit is due... by j79zlr · · Score: 1

      The touch of His noodly appendage works in mysterious ways.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
    27. Re:Credit where credit is due... by oni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How can a DNA mutation make the wasp know how to locate the brain and lodge the stinger directly into it?

      A common tactic among people who don't believe evolution, is to use phrases like "DNA mutation" as if to imply that there was no brain locating behavior, and then a single mutation happens and (like magic) a fully-formed brain locating behavior exists. As if this one wasp named Neo was born and he was their savior. That's a straw man. You're arguing against something that no evolutionary scientist claims.

      What scientists do say is that there is variability in every generation. Wasps don't just sting at random. In their tiny brain, they have the ability to make choices, and they prefer some things over others. Think of it this way: Your favorite flavor of ice cream is in part an inherited trait. If your mom and dad both liked strawberry, then you are more likely to prefer strawberry. There is variability in every generation, so there's a chance you like vanilla. It's not accurate to say, "omfg you have a mutation that makes you like vanilla!" In fact, it's disingenuous to say it that way. It's a straw man argument. It's just variability.

      A wasp likes to sting a roach in a certain place. In part, this is due to the fact that its parents had the same peference. Eons ago, the wasp's sting was powerful enough to kill a roach. Any location preference was ok - but, any wasps that preferred an area near the brain killed the roach more quickly, were more efficient (killed more roaches), and had less chance of getting injured as the roach thrashed around. As a result, those wasps left more offspring. Even today, there is variability. In every generation (millions of wasps) a few are born that prefer to sting the roach on its ass. Today, those wasps don't leave any offspring.

    28. Re:Credit where credit is due... by ji777 · · Score: 1

      I agree it's cool and easy to get overwhelmed, but how about:
      Sting to 'brain' = instant win
      Sedative effect allows for more efficent movement of prey away from secondary predation
      Movement of food to the nest then provides additional advantage.

      Things can be broken into smaller steps if you just think about it.

    29. Re:Credit where credit is due... by darthservo · · Score: 1
      I find it interesting that you use the term "diabolical". What makes the behavior of this wasp more diabolical than would a human slaughtering a cow to eat? Certainly you'll agree, though, that there needs to be some sort of ecological balance in place, otherwise the world would be a real mess, now wouldn't it?

      The point is there is a huge difference between instinct (a pre-programmed instruction set to influence taking specific actions in a given circumstance) and reasoning ability (or "free will"). Animals do not possess the ability to reason. For example, humans are the only species that have wondered about their origins.

      Had God predetermined everyone's course of life (essentially, with instinct), then yes he would accountable for everyone's actions and the world we see today. But he didn't. Would you like to think of yourself as a mindless robot? How about to the point of being programmed to worship God? No, the Bible shows that we have free will to bring joy to our Creator when we choose to worship him.

      As a side note, I personally don't find the explanation of evolution to be satisfying - I eat, sleep, work, and die, and maybe even reproduce. Whoopie. What do I have to look forward to? Maybe I should stop asking questions and get back to work.

      --

      Prove it.

    30. Re:Credit where credit is due... by superstick58 · · Score: 1

      It was one of his motivations in seeking natural explanations for behavior of animals.

      That doesn't seem to make sense. The following is based on my understanding of the religion which I think is consistent with any that believe the words of the Bible. Individual beliefs may vary

      Animals aren't governed by the moral guidlines that God placed on Humans. Animals do not go to heaven or hell. Animals where designed to be the dominion of humans. They have no consciousness or free will. They do what they are programmed to do and if that involves killing other creatures then there is no moral implication to that unless humans use them as a tool to kill other humans. I guess there's other grayer areas about killing God's creatures needlessly as wasting a God given blessing is bad etc. etc., but I don't know about that. My issue is that I don't see how animals killing animals can possibly seen as a way to justify they are evolved vs. created (based on text of the Bible).

    31. Re:Credit where credit is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Posting anonymously to protect moderation.

      What makes the behavior of this wasp more diabolical than would a human slaughtering a cow to eat? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it sucks more to be eaten alive than it does to be killed, then eaten.

      The point is there is a huge difference between instinct (a pre-programmed instruction set to influence taking specific actions in a given circumstance) and reasoning ability (or "free will"). Animals do not possess the ability to reason. For example, humans are the only species that have wondered about their origins. How do you know that only humans wonder about their origins? Until you learn to speak chimp or dolphin, you have no idea what they're talking about.

      Personally, I'm confused by the idea that any creator god would necessarily be a benevolent being. Why is the present situation more indicative of a kind and loving god than it is of some horror from a Lovecraft story? We have weapons that could purge the earth of all life, being controlled by some of the least fit people to do so. There is famine. There are people willing to die for the chance to kill people just because they believe something different. There is likely a trend in global temperature that may become dangerous to the planet, and it is being treated as a political football more than something to be watched and controlled. Why should anyone consider a creator to be a benevolent being, considering what they have created? I'd sooner consider the inventor of sarin nerve gas to be benevolent.
    32. Re:Credit where credit is due... by j_166 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "No, the Bible shows that we have free will to bring joy to our Creator when we choose to worship him." Its not really much of a choice though if its "bring joy to me OR experience eternal suffering and damnation". How about this: you bring me a good donut (I'll leave it up to you to decide if the donut is good or not), OR I bash your fricking teeth in with a baseball bat. Which one would you choose? Remember, the choice is totally yours. Also, remember that the conditions is that its a *good* donut. But I'm not going to tell you what the definition of good is. Ok, well, maybe I'll tell somebody to tell you, but I'm also going to make the explanation completely counter-intuitive to your every day experience. Also, I'm going to tell other people to tell you a conflicting definition of a good donut in hundreds of completely logical and credible ways. Well, what is your choice?

    33. Re:Credit where credit is due... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      As a side note, I personally don't find the explanation of evolution to be satisfying - I eat, sleep, work, and die, and maybe even reproduce. Whoopie. What do I have to look forward to?

      It is ok, if you don't find the explanation satisfying. It usually takes a couple of college level courses in biology, and some smattering of Probability and Statistics at at least AP level to grasp it. That does not mean you are a dumbass or anything. Many people don't readily grasp orbital mechanics or the Ham Sandwich theorem in Computational Geometry[*]. Given sincere study they (and you can grasp) any subject.

      Fine if you want to find meaning in life by expecting to meet your Creator after you die. The difference between that expectation and hoping to meet 72 smiling virgins is one of degree, not essence. As long as you don't pretend what you believe is science and try to sneak it into schools, it is peace! live and let live.

      [*] The Ham Sandwich theorem: If you have two pieces of bread (A and B) and a hunk of ham (H) in the middle, you can slice ALL of them into two exactly equal halves in just one stroke with a planar knife. Each piece A,B and H will be exactly split into two halves. No matter how lumpy and how irregular the bread and ham are. All you need is just one stroke. And no complicated speciality knife either, simple plane knife. Some people find it incredible that there is a branch of mathematics that can handle this problem and pose a theorem, leave alone the proof.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    34. Re:Credit where credit is due... by u8i9o0 · · Score: 1

      A simpler form of this behavior was observed by Charles Darwin. Wasps laying eggs on live caterpillars which were eaten alive by wasp larvae! That convinced Darwin that no moral, just, fair God would design such a system. It was one of his motivations in seeking natural explanations for behavior of animals. Darwin wanted to plug the hole, "I am bad because God designed me to be bad and sinful" defense for the sinners. Because if Paley's watchmaker God was true, then every immoral behavior is a designed behavior, specifically created by God. It is ironic that present day fundies paint Darwin in the darkest hue.
      For those who believe in the morally-driven God-design framework (your 'fundies'), the existence of immoral behavior is not a contradiction but a prerequisite.

      Think of it this way: Without testing morality, a person cannot be good - they would just be neutral (wouldn't know any better).
      If immorality does not exist, how then do you test morality?

      And since when does morality, justice and fairness get applied to the actions of non-humans?
      --
      This is not my sig
    35. Re:Credit where credit is due... by gknoy · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that you use the term "diabolical". What makes the behavior of this wasp more diabolical than would a human slaughtering a cow to eat?

      We kill the cow before eating it, and thus it feels no pain while we eat.
      Wasp larvae eat the roach while it is alive. (Do we even know if insects can feel pain when being eaten from the inside out? Do they have nerves inside for sensing that? I pity the researchers tasked with finding that out.)

      A more apropos analogy would be the practice of eating the brains of extremely intoxicated monkeys whilethey are still alive. Creepy stuff.

    36. Re:Credit where credit is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (Anonymously) I don't recall seeing any reports on animals actively searching for answers to their origins. However, the entire animal kingdom's collective actions show that they they simply live for the purpose of living. This is unlike humans which as the Bible says were created above animals. Even the evolutionary theory will support characteristics and mental capabilities unique only to humans.

      But, now you're getting into the meat of the Bible. You're not alone in asking why a loving God would allow pain, suffering, and death.

      The book of Genesis shows that man was created in a perfect condition. Humans had only one command - "Don't eat the fruit from this tree, but you may eat everything else." That sole command was in place so humans could demonstrate that they want to use their free will to obey God and recognize that as their creator He has the right to determine how people should live. They could, however, also use their free will to disobey and choose that they know how to better rule themselves - this is exactly what happened, through sin. Now, God could have simply destroyed the rebels and seemingly have done away with the problem. However that action would not have resolved the issue of who has the right to rule over humans - God could still be accused of not being fit to rule. So, by wisdom, God has temporarily allowed humans to rule independant from him to prove that he as Creator does indeed have the right to rule. Judging by conditions that you've mentioned, I would tend to agree with him.

      Is there suffering? Yes. But God permits it - he does not cause it (big difference). Right now, any suffering we go through can only be attributed to humans hurting themselves.

    37. Re:Credit where credit is due... by darthservo · · Score: 1

      A common misconception. The Bible actually does not teach eternal suffering and damnation.

      --

      Prove it.

    38. Re:Credit where credit is due... by darthservo · · Score: 1

      I personally don't have the hope of going to heaven, nor meet "72 smiling virgins". I do hope that I can bring joy to my God and be part of the restored earthly paradise that God originally intended.

      --

      Prove it.

    39. Re:Credit where credit is due... by Spellvexit · · Score: 1

      What I find even more interesting is the counter-evolution that some caterpillars have developed to thwart the wasps. Most of these wasps track by scent, in particular the scent of the caterpillar's feces. Some caterpillars have developed a mechanism to shoot their own feces a distance of 40 times their body length . Just pray that cockroaches don't develop a similar defense!

      --
      The moon may be smaller than the earth, but it's much farther away!
    40. Re:Credit where credit is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even today, there is variability. In every generation (millions of wasps) a few are born that prefer to sting the roach on its ass. Today, those wasps don't leave any offspring.

      But that doesn't mean they're not fabulous!

    41. Re:Credit where credit is due... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Your right, the whole hell thing isn't in the bible.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    42. Re:Credit where credit is due... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      You have the liberty and the right to lead your life according to your beliefs. Of course you recognize my right and liberty to pursue happiness according to my belief, right? You would fight this hard to defend my right to worship a tree, a snake, a cow or an idol, or none, correct?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    43. Re:Credit where credit is due... by SpaceWanderer · · Score: 1

      Never mind scientists, I wonder if the military has noticed?

    44. Re:Credit where credit is due... by j_166 · · Score: 1

      Oh doesn't it? My bad. I guess this site is quoting from some other "The Bible" then: http://www.lookup.org/hell.htm

    45. Re:Credit where credit is due... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      You don't, you divide it into 'learning' steps. This is the 'shotgun' approach. To learning. Imagine if you have a few billion of your species and everyone had to do the samething, but everyone did it different. You'd have a billion different methods. Studies have shown that bees can teach other bees where honey is by dancing. Why couldn't, on some basic level, a Wasp teach another wasp how to do something.

      If those wasps each taught 2 wasps, etc you could have taught the entire population in no time. Toss on a few thousand years of experience by how ever many wasps exist per year and you have monkeys at typewriters writing Shakespeare.

      How do we know that this development didn't happen in the last 50 or 100 years? What would be interesting is studying wasps in remote areas like Australia where they couldn't have learned from the rest of the populous.

    46. Re:Credit where credit is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that link they say "death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire" which they mean hell, along with people. How? Death (a concept) is thrown into Hell along with people (entities).

      You should look around in the Bible more. It's not only hades and gehenna that are often translated as "hell" but also sheol and tartarus.

      The Bible says that Jesus was not left in Hades, but was resurrected (Acts 2:31) out of it. (translated as Hell in many Bibles)
      Job, who was righteous asked to be put into Sheol (translated Hell)

      Plus, Revelation 20:13 says that Hades will give up those in it.

      That link says "The soul (the conscious part of us) is what goes to Hades. (Acts 2:27.)" whereas Ecc 9:5,10 plainly says the dead are not conscious.

    47. Re:Credit where credit is due... by shimage · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that this behavior is a "fixed-action pattern". I could be wrong, but if I'm not, then the behavior is hard-coded in the genes, and not learned. Capacity for learning in insects is extremely small, and wasps are fairly solitary animals (the kinds with behaviors like this, anyway), so I don't think your analogy to bees is apt. But like I said, I could be wrong.

    48. Re:Credit where credit is due... by j_166 · · Score: 1

      You are arguing semantics, based on ideas that have been translated and translated again. The bottom line is, the bible mentions that all those who don't accept Jesus or worship God or otherwise follow the 'rules' laid out in the bible, will be punished. Whether that punishment is called Hades or Hell or Damnation or "Not knowing God for all eternity" or whatever else you can semantically argue is irrelevant, the fact remains: You very clearly are punished for exercising your 'choice' to not follow the bible. I use the word 'choice' in quotes because the thesis of my argument is that its not really a choice when the alternative is a negative consequence. Its enslavement.

      "Plus, Revelation 20:13 says that Hades will give up those in it."

      Well that would be irrelevant if nobody was sent there for disobeying the word of God, wouldn't it?

      "That link says "The soul (the conscious part of us) is what goes to Hades. (Acts 2:27.)" whereas Ecc 9:5,10 plainly says the dead are not conscious."

      What does that have to do with anything? So one verse says the dead are not conscious, and a hundred others say people who die not obeying the word of God are punished in some way. You mean the Bible is self-contradictory??? Say it ain't so!!

      You could also read those 2 above sentences as complimentary to one another rather than contradictory: When you die, your body is dead in the ground and not conscious (ECC (:5,10), meanwhile your soul goes to heaven and/or hell.

      By the way, I'm not trying to say that that site I linked to is accurate or inaccurate. I personally don't care whether there is a heaven or hell. I just think its inaccurate to say that the bible doesn't mention any punishment for not following it, when it clearly does, both explicitly and implicitly. Further, that is what is reinforced by most churches I've been to, even the touchy-feely Fundie Jesus churches describe the consequences of not accepting Jesus as punishment.

    49. Re:Credit where credit is due... by Espinas217 · · Score: 1

      What I find harder and harder to understand is why with all the different life forms on this planet only one developed what we call 'intelligence'. If it's such and advantage why isn't it more widespread? What makes our biological structure so particular that only in us this trait has developed?

      --
      La vida no es una pastafrola. :wq
    50. Re:Credit where credit is due... by lessthan · · Score: 1
      I've always found the story of Adam and Eve to be vicious. I hope God isn't like that. The tree was the Tree of Knowledge, specifically the knowledge of good and evil, right? God tells the naturally curious first humans never to eat from the tree because it is wrong... except they don't know what wrong is. They haven't eaten from the tree. Also, God lets Satan wander freely in the Garden, to spoil whatever he wanted. It was like two bullies playing with a class of retards. That is not a very nice god.

      any suffering we go through can only be attributed to humans hurting themselves

      So famine, drought, and earthquakes are God's way of saying "Miss you?"

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    51. Re:Credit where credit is due... by lessthan · · Score: 1

      Mattew 5 v22 is the first I found. (KJV)

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    52. Re:Credit where credit is due... by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Apparently the anonymous post while logged in killed my moderation anyways.

      The Bible is not a scientific source of information. At best it could be considered a history, but histories with any corroborating evidence are considered suspect as far as real information goes. God created humans above the animals is therefore not an effective statement. I will admit that at a similar level of technology, humans were demonstrating a level of awareness by creating art that we have not seen yet from chimpanzees.

      Now, my reading of the Bible shows plenty of occasions where God decided to hose us. The Tower of Babel comes to mind most readily, where humans were working together, so God caused us to be stricken with a multitude of languages to limit our ability. Sodom and Gomorrah show that when we're screwing up, God generally isn't satisfied with sitting on the sidelines. Now, I suppose that it's easy to point to the fact that those cities were dens of evil that needed to be cleansed, but turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for daring to look back upon the destruction? That seems more than a little unnecessary. How about when Moses went to bring the Hebrews out of slavery in Egypt. Every time Moses went to talk to the Pharaoh, God hardened the Pharaoh's heart, and sadly was forced to keep playing with his plagues. When He was done, the Pharaoh was more than happy to let Moses leave. But then for some reason, and I can only imagine a little divine inspiration helped with this one, the Hebrews found themselves being chased by the Egyptian army. This could only end with a mass drowning of the same people who've already been plagued by locusts, darkness, murder of first-borns, rain of frogs, and a bunch of other stuff. At the beginning, sure, but it doesn't take all that long for it to turn into kicking them when they're down.

      Kind and benevolent would not be the first words I would use to describe the Christian God.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    53. Re:Credit where credit is due... by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Edit: histories without corroborating evidence are suspect.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    54. Re:Credit where credit is due... by Odinson · · Score: 1

      Yup I was amazed. Unreal. I wonder how often they spot the scout, or if there are enough of them to cook the whole invasion.

    55. Re:Credit where credit is due... by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      It's that mind control step that seems the biggest leap. Are you saying that a single random mutation (or sequence of mutations on the same individual wasp) just happened to give the wasp the right venom for mind control and the instinct to sting a second time and attempt to lead the beast home for dinner? How do you subdivide that into valid evolutionary steps?

      Almost all venoms are chemicals that interact with either neurotransmitters or the receptors for those transmitters, and neurotransmitters are actually very similar to each other. Octopamine itself is very chemically similar to many other neurotransmitters, such as norepinephrine and dopamine. (They're all just a few -OH alcohol groups away from each other.) That similarity extends to activating each other — octopamine doesn't normally occur in humans, for instance, but it has a strong enough effect on the receptors we do have that it's occasionally abused as a party drug.

      Therefore, there are likely to be many venoms that seriously affect octopamine receptors purely by accident, ones that also target other receptors. So, it doesn't have to be a single mutation (or a single generation) at all. Each small mutation in the venom DNA would, if selected for, result in (a) a possibly-small improvement in blocking octopamine, (b) a possibly-small improvement in not blocking other signals, or (c) sometimes both of the previous at once. (The mutations that weren't selected for? Those wasps couldn't feed as many offspring, so those families died out.) Thousands of generations later, the result is a venom that's pretty specific to octopamine, resulting in a non-paralyzed but docile roach.

      With regards to the wasp leading the roach back to the nest: that's really no more shocking than any other case of complex instinctive behavior, like a baby fawn standing up and walking within 20 minutes of being born. The wasp's ancestors were dragging paralyzed roaches back to the nest millions of years ago, and tugging on an antenna isn't conceptually that much different. The wasp, to the extent that it thinks at all, probably still thinks of itself as "dragging" the roach; the wasp is merely pleasantly surprised at how little effort it takes.

      The second sting to the brain is something that could have evolved before (i.e. using the paralyzing venom, it improved the odds of the roach staying catatonic while being eaten by a wasp larva) or after (i.e. using the zombie venom, it improved the odds that the roach would become and remain obedient). There's really no requirement there on which order the two evolved in, since both are separate improvements, and it's quite easy to imagine possible evolutionary progressions (e.g. single sting => multiple careless stings => two stings for less wasted venom => one quick sting to subdue, one careful sting for good measure).

      (Oh, and the roach following the pull of the antenna? That's probably a built-in instinct in the roach. It doesn't want the antenna pulled off, after all. For most insects, the antennae are the most important sensory organs. It'd be like humans flinching when we see something flying at our eyes.)

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    56. Re:Credit where credit is due... by bakker+Bart · · Score: 1

      Capacity for learning in insects is extremely small
      Seems you can do some pretty amazing stuff with little learning capacity, see http://discovermagazine.com/1996/dec/abeeseessymmetry957.
    57. Re:Credit where credit is due... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Here is a reference to Darwin being troubled by the wasp larvae feeding on live caterpillars:

      It took Darwin himself to derail this ancient tradition -- and he proceeded in the gentle way so characteristic of his radical intellectual approach to nearly everything. The ichneumons also troubled Darwin greatly and he wrote of them to Asa Gray in 1860: I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.

      Present day Christians might square it by saying the moral code is not binding on lower animals, but in Darwin's day, the reigning principle was something like Paley's watchmaker God to square the findings of science with theology. The thought of wasps feeling on live caterpillars were shocking to Darwin.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    58. Re:Credit where credit is due... by shimage · · Score: 1

      Lo and behold, at the end of that rather short article, the researcher speculates that the bees' performance is due to a fixed-action-pattern. Insects are very difficult to train, though it can be done, and only for extremely simple things (like this example, if the bees are, in fact, using a FAP).

    59. Re:Credit where credit is due... by sjames · · Score: 1

      How do you subdivide that into valid evolutionary steps?

      Start with a 'standard' stinging insect. The venom will be a toxic coctale with some neurotoxic componants. Venom requires resources to manufacture. Not all invenomations pay off. An insect that injects less venom will waste less resources in general so long as it is still effective on its prey. An insect that injects just enough to momentarily disable the prey will waste the least amount of venom if it misses on the first try. An insect that injects just enough to momentarily stun it's prey, then stings a second time will have an advantage. The second sting is less likely to miss since the prey will be disabled by the first.

      We now have an insect that stings twice with a toxic mix including neurotoxins. A wasp that makes the second sting to the brain will tend to disable the prey longer and more completely than one that makes the second sting anywhere else. So naturally the wasp evolves to sting once wherever it can, and then again to the brain of the temporarily disabled prey.

      Octopamine blocking may have been selected for before or after the evolution of brain stinging. In some insects, octopamine is important to escape behaviours (such as jumping), so blocking it is a natural benefit for a stinging predator.

      As for the specific and useful effect on a particular insect, for all we know the wasp developed it's specific taste for the roach after all the rest. We have a stinging preditor insect that stings once wherever it can, then again to the brain because that was generally advantageous. It then grabs the prey by any convieniant appendage (the antennae are a natural) and drags it home. It just so happens that this particular roach is really easy to drag home for some reason (because the sting to the brain zombifies it), so those wasps that prefer to prey on the roach have a natural advantage.

      I can't say that my suggestion is actually the way things unfolded and we may never know without a time machine, but it IS plausible and doesn't require any leaps at all.

  2. Implications? by JoeInnes · · Score: 1, Funny

    What would this mean for humans? Is it possible to do this to us? If so, this could be the new date rape drug. Oh yeah, and I suppose it needs to be done: I, for one, welcome our new zombie cockroach overlords.

    1. Re:Implications? by slyn · · Score: 3, Funny

      I for one, welcome our new nuclear blast surviving Zombie Cockroaches.

      I hear those are what "I am Legend" is about.

    2. Re:Implications? by SetupWeasel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Will Smith is not a zombie cockroach. He is a Scientologist. I may be splitting hairs here, but there is a difference.

    3. Re:Implications? by MindKata · · Score: 1

      "What would this mean for humans? Is it possible to do this to us"

      I was thinking that, could it be done? ... but then thinking about this line from the article, "administer another, more precise sting right into their victim's brain" ... it reminds me of watching Big Brother & other reality shows.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    4. Re:Implications? by scooter.higher · · Score: 1

      No...

      He killed a giant cockroach in a movie.

      He turned down the other roach:

      http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2006/12/01/will_smith_turned_down_tom_cruise_s_invi

      --
      Ramen
    5. Re:Implications? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      Is it possible to do this to us? If so, this could be the new date rape drug.

      No, it doesn't work on humans.

      However, if you were to find an attractive female cockroach...

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    6. Re:Implications? by vegiVamp · · Score: 2, Funny


      You might do better to welcome your new emerald wasp overlords. If you're able to do so, that is.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    7. Re:Implications? by rucs_hack · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, this buggers my zombie plan

    8. Re:Implications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he doesn't get the antennae until OT7.

    9. Re:Implications? by nem75 · · Score: 1

      Will Smith is not a zombie cockroach. He is a Scientologist. I may be splitting hairs here, but there is a difference.

      No, he just defends the beliefs of a personal friend of his (Cruise). Which still, as he states, are not his own. The claims of him having been "converted" (since Scientology is no religion but a "religion" it's impossible to write the "converted" without the quotes) came from an unnamed source.

      I may be splitting hairs here, but... well, you know.

      P.S.: yea, off-topic. So was parent. Sue me. Or us. Or him.

    10. Re:Implications? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Yes but we don't have antennae do we?

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    11. Re:Implications? by JoeInnes · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about the exact same combination of chemicals, but it'd surely be a relatively trivial matter (in medical terms) to get a needle into a brain, and administer a drug. Some kind of hallucinogenic, possibly, would have the effect of separating the mind and body?

      Perhaps medically induced schizophrenia could cause a catatonic state (and incidentally protect the mind from the shock of being severed from the body), and an intelligent choice of drug to split the higher brain functions off from the body? I'm not a physician, but the theory seems okay to me?

    12. Re:Implications? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      For god's sake, PLEASE don't tell my ex-wife about this, it'll make her even more efficient.

    13. Re:Implications? by muridae · · Score: 1

      Speak for your self.

    14. Re:Implications? by DrWho520 · · Score: 1

      Well, I for one, welcome out Zombie Cockroach Riding Wasp Overlords. Let me know how it is in the pit of despair.

      --
      The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
    15. Re:Implications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I think comparing the two is an insult to the zombie cockroach community!

      [Not sure how to properly cite Firefly]

    16. Re:Implications? by theskipper · · Score: 1

      Sue me. Or us. Or him.

      Okay.

    17. Re:Implications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it possible to do this to us? If so, this could be the new date rape drug.
      No, it doesn't work on humans.

      Actually, for a significant fraction of the human population, it is already possible to lead them around by their 'antenna' without the need to resort to injecting neurosuppressive toxins; they will voluntarily shut down higher brain functions under the correct stimulus.

    18. Re:Implications? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The claims of him having been "converted" (since Scientology is no religion but a "religion" it's impossible to write the "converted" without the quotes)

      Excuse me, how do you figure? Scientology is not a "real religion"? I firmly disagree.

      The only thing different about Scientology compared to other religions is they're a little more up-front about asking for your money.

      Otherwise, it's a religion like any other. Prophets: yep, L. Ron was a prophet. Belief in supernatural: yep, body thetans. Creation mythology: yep, Xenu and the Galactic Confederation. Belief based on faith instead of evidence: yep, blind faith is the only thing that would get anyone to believe that we're infected with body thetans from people killed by H-bombs in volcanoes 175 million years ago, and just like Christianity, Scientology's creation mythology directly contradicts geological evidence for the age of the earth.

      So how is Scientology not a "real" religion?

    19. Re:Implications? by shadow0o0o · · Score: 1

      I don't know how seriously you were asking this question, but this probably works specifically on roaches because their legs are somewhat autonomous, but still controlled by the brain. So really I would guess it's the sort of situation where if the brain is not sending the legs commands, they can be manually directed (e.g. like being towed by a wasp). Now whether it would work on Humans is another story. While walking is mostly a passive brain activity, the brain is still required for walking to happen. If a Human were dosed would this, I would imagine something bad would happen aside from inability to walk, probably collapsing to the floor and the lungs ceasing to function. However, TFA did mention it only inhibited "complex" actions, so maybe breathing isn't considered "complex" (NFC to be honest).

      However, if you wanted to make someone a zombie (at least temporarily), you wouldn't need to get them stung by a wasp in the cerebral cortex! There's a popular drug used for both date rape and robberies in South America known as "Devil's Breath"; usually some mixture containing Scopolamine. It basically puts you into a waking sleep where you are extremely complacent and easily influenced into doing things, with no memory of anything you did. Of course, these effects are only obtained in extremely high doses. So, there's also a pretty good chance it will just kill you instead.

      When you see a wasp sting someone with this, then get's them to rob a bank, we're all fucked.

    20. Re:Implications? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      There is???????????? Coulda fooled me.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  3. First thing I thought of was: by xx01dk · · Score: 1, Funny

    the executive branch of our government for some reason...

    Yup, mod me down for that one, I deserve it.

    --
    There is simply too much glass..
    1. Re:First thing I thought of was: by Misanthrope · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't blame me I voted for zombie Lincoln.

    2. Re:First thing I thought of was: by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Strange. First thing I thought of was the Daily KOS. To each their own, I guess...

    3. Re:First thing I thought of was: by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      I was thinking: "Scientists Shown Way Behind Legal System"

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    4. Re:First thing I thought of was: by bakednoodle · · Score: 1

      no one can stop time Lincoln!!!!.................. no one!

  4. Eh? by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Scientists create Zombie Cockroaches"

    Yes, and then we elect them. Wake me up when the system changes.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Eh? by PietjeJantje · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ford Prefect, talking to Arthur Dent about an immense robot that came from a flying saucer (destroying a huge area including Harrods), and said "Take me to your Lizard.":

      "It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see ..."

      "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

      "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and
      coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced
      down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so
      straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders
      are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the
      people."

      "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

      "I did," said Ford. "It is."

      "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse,
      "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"

      "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got
      the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government
      they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they
      want."

      "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

      "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

      "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

      "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong
      lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

    2. Re:Eh? by rasputin465 · · Score: 1

      mod parent up

      +1 quoting-perhaps-my-favorite-Douglas-Adams-passage

    3. Re:Eh? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Exactly. How I miss Douglas Adams.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:Eh? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Hey, were Douglas Adams and David Icke pals, by chance?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  5. Deja Vu by SetupWeasel · · Score: 5, Informative

    I can't believe I remembered this.

    1. Re:Deja Vu by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      that's very impressive. is that a general thing or just this once ?

    2. Re:Deja Vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOBODY forgets zombies. They're just too awesome.

    3. Re:Deja Vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe I remembered http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/04/1649211

      Now if we could just take a thin slice of your brain and wire it up to slashdot, you could be *the* master dupe preventinator.

      How 'bout it? Just a thin slice! A mere cross-section...

    4. Re:Deja Vu by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      This dup was prepared and submitted by a group of zombie cockroaches.

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
  6. A new degree of Slashdotting... by AlXtreme · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Linking a 40MB quicktime movie from Slashdot somehow doesn't seem like a very smart idea...

    For the wasp this looks like a very useful move. Why haul your food when it can walk for you?

    --
    This sig is intentionally left blank
    1. Re:A new degree of Slashdotting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused. Is slashdot the wasp or the food...?

  7. Actually that's how the political system works too by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why rob people (which is a risky business when robbing men and women) when they can raise people as zombies, so they bravely volunteer themselves into servitude via taxation and voting for fixed choices. Top that off with voluntarily putting their young through zombification processes known as "free public schooling" (which isn't free but the zombies don't know that, so don't tell'em.)

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  8. slashdotters arrested by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, large hordes of nerds are being arrested all over the planet while injecting nubile females with what appears to be insect venom. Natalie Portman in intensive care after a severe allergic reaction.

    1. Re:slashdotters arrested by sowth · · Score: 1

      ...and Paris Hilton was standing on top of a huge phallic symbol yelling: "Hey guys! Why didn't you pick me?!?" The nerd who captured Nicole Richie was found hours later, his brain encrusted with neurosyphilis. Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears were found in a closet "lezzing out" with some butch roaches. When prompted for a statment, they replied "this doesn't mean we're gay. They're not even the same species as us."

  9. Re:Actually that's how the political system works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then one of those zombies discovers the huge plot and posts a breathtakingly trollish version of it on a public forum and ruins it for everybody. Somebody get me a glass of water.

  10. Zombies? by killmofasta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ok. Let me see? Which are the Zombie Cockroaches, and which are the scientists? Is there are demonstrateable diffrence? Are they both vying for press? Didn't Mabel, the cow, see little diffrence betweem the Pigs and the Humans in the end of "Animal Farm"

    Must favor "unreasonably huge subsidies to the Zombie Cockroaches planet."

    With Hunger, Global Warming and catostrophic ozone loss affecting the lives of billions, dont you think the scientests/Zombie Cockroaches have something better to do? Hmmm?

    1. Re:Zombies? by dltaylor · · Score: 1

      Science, some of it very, very old already did: it's called birth control. Can't get it practiced where and when it's needed most, though.

    2. Re:Zombies? by StuckInSyrup · · Score: 2, Informative

      With Hunger, Global Warming and catostrophic ozone loss affecting the lives of billions, dont you think the scientests/Zombie Cockroaches have something better to do? Hmmm? Oh, I love comments like this.
      "You are studying cockroaches, hm? Interesting. But MILLIONS are starving, are you going to feed them with cockroaches? Forget about your work, do something, HUMAN LIVES are on stake" ...and so on.
      You know, there is this thing called fundamental research. You never know when data like this will be useful.
      --
      Ni.
    3. Re:Zombies? by iainl · · Score: 1

      Yes, they've got something far better to do. Whine about stuff on Slashdot.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    4. Re:Zombies? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      With Hunger, Global Warming and catostrophic ozone loss affecting the lives of billions, dont you think the scientests/Zombie Cockroaches have something better to do? Hmmm?
      Are you sure that you're not a zombie cockroach?

      Seriously, you're right. I think it's very unfortunate that there are some very intelligent people starving in the third world, while mindless overfed idiots like you continue to lead a carefree existence. If there were a God, he'd have switched you around ages ago.
    5. Re:Zombies? by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      Mind control on cockroaches would allow us to have the perfect victim detection machine, much better than any robot on this generation. So, if there was any earthquake, hurricane, bombing, tornado and you had to find people as fast as possible a cockroach would save lives...

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    6. Re:Zombies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just fundamental research, but in what ways does the OP expect the researchers to contribute to the political solutions that result in people starving? Or does he simply not realize that the main problems are political?

      And why only criticize biologists? What about professional athletes, hair stylists, and third class telephone sanitizers? Besides, biology is distinct from climatory and meteorology, and there's already lots of biologists working on improved food crops.

      PS - GP is about 20 years behind in the field atmospheric science. A lot has been done in the past couple decades about ozone depletion, and most researchers are pretty happy about the progress that has been made.

  11. That is blatant racism by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When jocks inject large amounts of toxic liqued into women to get them to loose control over their bodies, that is just guys being guys, but when nerds do it "CALL THE COPS". For the humor impaired, alcohol is far easier to obtain in large doses then insect venom

    I say enough is enough, we have to strike back. Revenge of the nerds!

    Mmm, sounds like a good title for a movie, what is the number for hollywood?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:That is blatant racism by DrWho520 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Loose the italics next time. I know it is hard to resist, but explaining a joke just makes it !funny.

      --
      The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
    2. Re:That is blatant racism by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      When jocks inject large amounts of toxic liqued into women to get them to loose control over their bodies, that is just guys being guys, but when nerds do it "CALL THE COPS". I dunno, I think it's still rape in both cases, it's just that the school administration will overlook it in the case of the jocks if the team is doing well this season. And a condom would eliminate the whole "injection" problem, too.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    3. Re:That is blatant racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And loose the liqued too.

    4. Re:That is blatant racism by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

      The real trick is getting the women to want to inject the venom into themselves.

      That's where the jocks have excelled (only with alcohol instead of venom). Force a person to consume any toxic substance against their will / knowledge and I'm pretty sure you'll be facing criminal charges shortly thereafter.

    5. Re:That is blatant racism by SwordsmanLuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lose the "o" next time.

      Though, to be fair, you might have been asking the GP to unleash further italics on the unsuspecting world, as in "Loose the dogs of war."

      --
      Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
    6. Re:That is blatant racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at leat now the GP can see why it is necessary to explain jokes around here...

    7. Re:That is blatant racism by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      When jocks inject large amounts of toxic liqued into women to get them to loose control over their bodies, that is just guys being guys, but when nerds do it "CALL THE COPS".

      Yep, but that's just the way of the world. Women like jerks, not smart nice guys who are socially awkward. But don't give up yet: new research has found that women are biologically programmed this way, and if you're young you'll see it as you get older. If you're a nice guy, and have a decent income, women will be throwing themselves at you after age 35 or whenever they start having kids and get fed up with the jerks. The problem is that, while they like being married to and living with nice guys, when they ovulate, they hang out with the jerks, trying to get pregnant by them. Then they expect their nice husbands to raise the bastard kids.

  12. hand them to Mythbusters by nerdyalien · · Score: 0
  13. So many freaky parasites so little vomit left... by F34nor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This one freaks the shit out of me for some reason. http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=53

  14. Quicktime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Since when did generic MPEG video become Quicktime video?

    1. Re:Quicktime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since MPEG-4 Part 14.

  15. "Quicktime video"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just an MPEG-2. (Scientists seem to be really fond of outdated encodings.) OK, I guess Apple Quicktime will play it. As any other video player will.

  16. Well, I for one by 427_ci_505 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, I for one am scared shitless of our new overlords.

    1. Re:Well, I for one by countincognito · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new waspy overlords, and their unstoppable army of mindless roach zombies.

    2. Re:Well, I for one by TheRon6 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they have a venom for that.

      --
      Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
    3. Re:Well, I for one by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      Actually, your body is being manipulated by a unique strain of dung beetles...

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  17. Bah by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    I get a girl drunk, grab her hair, lead her back to MY nest, plant my seed, and...well...I think you know the "rest of the story".

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ... you wake up.

    2. Re:Bah by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Alas, the pill is your kind's undoing.

    3. Re:Bah by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah, tell me 'bout it... by the way, how far behind are you with your alimony payments?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Bah by nb+caffeine · · Score: 1

      Really far, you dont make much $ in jail

      --

      "Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
  18. Re:Actually that's how the political system works by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nicely crafted, but couldn't you have worked "sheeple" in there somewhere?

  19. Dupe by sentientbrendan · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/04/1649211

    I wish they'd just google for the old title... that would catch most of these dupes.

    1. Re:Dupe by scooter.higher · · Score: 1

      Not exactly a dupe... this time scientists were able to recreate the toxin.

      --
      Ramen
    2. Re:Dupe by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      The new part of it is that the scientists have discovered a way to recover normal behaviour. I guess folks were too busy going "HOLY SHIT ZOMBIES" to notice.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it a dupe? In 2004 the scientists hadn't created them, only observed them.

  20. Instead of headcrabs, 'headbees'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brings a new horror to the unpopular mantra 'help i'm covered in bees!'.

  21. Human Zombies by Miratus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This reminds me of a bit of research done by the psychofarmacology department of the University of Rotterdam in the late eighties. They set out to discover if there was any substance to the reports from aid-workers and missionaries in Africa that 'zombies' were for real. Several well-documented cases existed, involving 'dead' individuals returning to their old villages, months or years after their burial, with only hazy memories of what happenend during their time away. With some help from anthropologists it was discovered that the 'zombies' were in fact poisoned with a complex witch-doctor mix of herbs and toxins, the only really important ingredient of which was a powerful neurotoxin of animal origin, which inhibited active thought and the forming of memories. The individual who was doused in this contact-poison would fall into a death-like coma soon afterwards. Then it was simply a matter of digging the body up fast and whacking it over the head a few times to get the person to wake up. If that failed (hitting the proper dosage is a bitch), the grave could be closed, no one the wiser. The 'lucky' ones woke up as addled 'zombies', with no will of their own and able to hear and obey simple instructions and could be sold as slaves. The toxin was recreated by science (without the unnecessary extra ingredients) and proved quite powerful when tested on lab-rats. The neurotoxin blocked key neural pathways, but turned out to be easily 'washed away' by a sufficiently large dose of Na+ ions, such as when the victim ingested common table-salt. Having proved that it there was a scientific truth to the zombie-myth, but finding no easy synthesis of the neurotoxin nor any medical use, the research group moved on. I was given their report while in high-school by one member of the team, who thought it was funny that I was VERY interested in this voodoo-zombie story that she had mentioned to me. I should go look up that report or contact her again for further details, but perhaps someone who is more skilled in research and farmacology can just pull this out of a database for all of us?

    1. Re:Human Zombies by Magada · · Score: 3, Informative

      They got the story just a wee bit wrong, your scientist friends did. Yes, the main ingredient for "zombification" is a venom - pufferfish venom or some other analogous neurotoxin) for the paralysis bit and clinical depression as an added bonus, but the traditional cocktails which have been studied also contain a lysergine and some THC to complete "operation mindfuck", plus additional bits of stuff that inhibit the autonomous nervous system and slow down metabolic processes - sometimes in non-obvious ways. This is something that's been in development since the stone age began. If some obscure herb is in there, it's in there for a reason.

      Btw, if you ever meet a zombie, make her a nice cup of St John's wort tea.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    2. Re:Human Zombies by zimage · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a good article on the subject is titled "THE ETHNOBIOLOGY OF THE HAITIAN ZOMBIE" by E. WADE DAVIS published in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology 9 (1983). It's a fun read even for a lay person.

    3. Re:Human Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wade Davis, probably the most well known researcher on the field, got highly critized for his book "The Serpent and the Rainbow" (later filmed by Wes Craven). From what I've gathered, there are two poisons involved -- tetrodotixin used to feign death, then the psychoactive poison found in plants such as datura and deadly nightshade. Tetrodotoxin is even found in the fugu fish, considered a delicassy in Japan (that's the fish you die from if it isn't cut correctly -- the point is to include just so much poison that it numbs your tongue, but not a fatal dose). A startlingly high number of people die of fugu poisoning every year in Japan. Interestingly, a few cases are known where the patient has regained conciousness even after being declared dead. The datura flower is supposedly an antidote. According to Wade, the zombi master would dig up his victim and feed him datura to reanimate him in a zombi state. Used as a drug, datura is extremely powerful and quite lethal. It fucks up the memory and generally seem to produce more bad trips than good (at least if anecdotes of web posting psychonauts are representative). I can only imagine that such a zombi would lead a real horrible existance. Japanese doctors are working on datura as a possible antidote to fugu poisoning today. Gack, gotta go.

    4. Re:Human Zombies by Creepy · · Score: 1

      There is a Wes Craven movie about this - The Serpent and the Rainbow, loosely based on the nonfiction story "To Circle the Rainbow" by Wade Davis. The Wiki entry says Wade wasn't too pleased with the movie.

    5. Re:Human Zombies by mavi_yelken · · Score: 1
    6. Re:Human Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      actually, if you follow the related articles you get this paper:

      Clinical findings in three cases of zombification

      ProfRoland Littlewood MRCPsycha, Corresponding Author Contact Information and Chavannes Douyon MDb
      aDepartments of Anthropology and Psychiatry, University College, London WC1E 6BT, UK
      bPolyclinique Medica, Port-au-Prince, Haiti

      Available online 19 August 1998.

      Article Outline

      Methods
      Findings
      Conclusion
      Further Reading
      References

      Zombification became a subject of popular Western interest during the occupation of Haiti by the USA between 1915 and 1934.1 The current United Nations intervention has again focused attention on a phenomenon regarded as exotic and improbable by the media, yet one which is taken by most Haitians as empirically verifiable. Along with the related religious practice of vodu, it has been implausibly related by US physicians to the current epidemic of AIDS in Haiti.2 Haitian medical practitioners regard zombification as the consequence of poisoning; the clergy as the product of sorcery. Zombis are frequently recognised by the local population, and estimates of their number are of the order of up to a thousand new cases per year (L P Mars, personal communication).

      Zombification is a crime under the Haitian Penal Code (Article 246) where it is considered as murder although the zombified individual is still alive. Local interpretation is that either by poisoning or sorcery, a young person suddenly and inexplicably becomes ill, is subsequently recognised by their family as dead, placed in a tomb, stolen by a boko (sorcerer) in the next few days, and secretly returned to life and activity but not to full awareness and agency.3 and 4 Haitians are seldom buried but placed in painted concrete family tombs above ground which in country areas are on family land next to the houses; they are vulnerable to being broken open.

      Local beliefs about body, mind, and spirit recognise a separation of the corps cadavre (physical body) with its gwobon anj (animating principle) from the ti-bon anj (agency, awareness, and memory).3, 4 and 5 In zombification, the latter is retained by the sorcerer, usually in a fastened bottle or earthenware jar where it is known as the zombi astral. The boko either extracts it through sorcery which leaves the victim apparently dead, or else captures it after a natural death before it has gone too far from the body.1, 3 and 4 The animated body remains without will or agency as the zombi cadavre, which becomes the slave of the boko and works secretly on his land or is sold to another boko for the same purpose. It is induced to remain a slave only through chaining and beating, or through further poisoning and sorcery. This zombi cadavre is the zombie popularised by Western cinema and indeed is referred to locally by that name. In Haiti, the term is also used in metaphor to refer to extreme passivity and control by another.

      Explanations as to how a zombi cadavre may escape back to its original family suggest that either the bottle containing the zombi astral breaks; or the boko inadvertently feeds his zombi salt; or he dies and the zombi is liberated by his family; or, rarely, the zombi may be released through divine intervention. On release, their mental and physical status remains the same, and they are vulnerable to recapture and continued enslavement; few bokos or doctors claim to be able to return a zombi cadavre to its original state of health and agency, and the matter is reserved for the mercy of Le Grand Maitre (the rather remote God recognised by vodu practitioners who is only invoked briefly through Latin prayers before they begin their ceremonies). Zombis are recognised by their fixed staring expression, their nasal intonation (which they share with manifestations of the spirits of the dead); by repeated, purposeless, and clumsy actions; and by limited and repetitive speech. They are regarded with commiseration; fear is reserved for the possibility of being zombified oneself. Concern that a

    7. Re:Human Zombies by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Anthropologist Wade Davis was the one to crack the secret of the Hatian voo-doo zombie recipe here in North America. Turns out it was puffer-fish poison. He had to join secret societies to learn the secret. His book, "The Serpent and the Rainbow", details this struggle. The movie is crap, though.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    8. Re:Human Zombies by Magada · · Score: 1

      Oh my. I forgot all about jimson weed. Someone mod parent up.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  22. I for one welcome our new wasp overlords. by martensitic · · Score: 1

    Actually, who am I kidding... even the zombie cockroaches could probably do a number on us these days.

    --
    Ut Tensio, Sic Vis
  23. Brains? by FranklinDelanoBluth · · Score: 4, Funny

    But do they eat brains? I don't think so. So, technically they're not zombies.

    1. Re:Brains? by maroberts · · Score: 1

      Actually the larvae will eat everything, brains included.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    2. Re:Brains? by MLease · · Score: 1

      But the cockroaches are the alleged zombies, not the (wasp) larvae. The cockroaches aren't eating brains, so the parent is right.

      -Mike

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
    3. Re:Brains? by Darfeld · · Score: 1

      Zombie are supposed to eat brain, not being eaten...

      --
      (\__/) This is Lapinator
      (='.'=) copy it in your sig
      (")_(") so it can take over the world
    4. Re:Brains? by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

      Not according to Barney. (Simpsons tree house of horror where Barney joins in on the flesh eating)

  24. Zombie ants are cooler by jordyhoyt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you find this amazing, check out the wikipedia article on these amazing parasites!

    1. Re:Zombie ants are cooler by somersault · · Score: 1

      "Most of the cercariae encyst in the haemocoel of the ant and mature into metacercariae, but one moves to the sub-esophageal ganglion (a cluster of nerve cells underneath the esophagus). There, the fluke takes control of the ant's actions by manipulating these nerves."

      o_0 that's insane. I was wondering if it would just be an article someone made up, though there is an external link (which someone else could have made up, but it seems less likely).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Zombie ants are cooler by jordyhoyt · · Score: 1

      yeah, a google search reveals several other sites discussing the "Fluke". it's amazing how it serves to keep the grass population up by making the cows wary of the longer, greener stuff. awesome! apparently it can infect (inhabit? i don't know parasite terminology) dogs and sheep too.

    3. Re:Zombie ants are cooler by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 1

      Wow, thanks for that link. Incredible.

      --
      My user number is prime. Is yours?
    4. Re:Zombie ants are cooler by felddy · · Score: 1

      Another spectacular case of "mind control" is used by the fungus Entomophthora muscae. This bad boy infects house flies, burrows into a specific part of their brain which causes them to seek higher altitudes. The fly eventually ruptures and emits spores. The higher altitude allows the spores to catch the wind and travel to new hosts. Ah, the circle of life.

      Thomas J. Volk has an excellent page about this fungus.

    5. Re:Zombie ants are cooler by felddy · · Score: 1
  25. Good by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This should serve once and for all to dispel the myth of a benevolent creator.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What evidence do you have that the cockroaches don't like it?

      Alternatively, perhaps all cockroaches are Bush supporters.....

    2. Re:Good by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Quite the opposite. I can already see the creationist bunch start ranting "See? Someone MUST have come up with that shit, nature CANNOT create such weird things itself."

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Good by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This should serve once and for all to dispel the myth of a benevolent creator.

      Alright, you've posted with your real account, which has no history of trolling, so either this is a genuine statement or you forgot to hit 'Post Anonymously'.

      I have to ask, at the risk of being modded troll myself... why?

      People have been doing worse things than this to one another for centuries, usually in the name of one God or another, and you are taking the existence of a zombie cockroach as your final proof of a Godless universe? Is there a justification here I'm just not seeing?

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    4. Re:Good by quarterbrain · · Score: 1

      My stab at his logic would go something along the lines of:

      A just and kind god would not create a creature who's life cycle involves mind controlling another for food and fun with puppetry when good old fashioned outright killing would do.

      The people part falls short because "people doing nasty things in the name of some cause and/or deity" can be attributed to misuse of free will and the devils influence.

      I don't care either way. If there is a God, then he is one kick ass engineer and I hope before he banishes me to hell I can at least buy him a beer and chat for a hour or so. If there's not then it puts my bad luck into perspective, I've had a long string of fortunate events to get me here. Sadly now that I'm here all I do is work and surf slashdot.

    5. Re:Good by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 1

      I fail to see the difference between killing something and dragging it back to the nest, and paralysing something and 'walking' it back to the nest to be killed there, except it requires less effort on the part of the predator. Certainly not enough for it to be the deciding factor in someone's evaluation on whether or not there is a higher power - where does that argument begin and end?

      What about Komodo dragons? They are hugely powerful animals that could easily kill most prey in an out and out fight, but they instead hunt by biting their prey and tracking them as they die of likely horrifically painful infection - 'A just and kind god would not create a creature who's life cycle involves infecting another with poisonous bacteria when good old fashioned outright killing would do'. Lots of animals kill their prey in lots of horrible ways. Wasps mind-controlling cockroaches is just one of them, and seems to be a strange choice for this person's final decision on the existence of God.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    6. Re:Good by quarterbrain · · Score: 1

      I agree, there are a variety of heinously nasty and cruel(and interesting) forms of predation, or even parasitic diseases. But that's about as much logic as I can pound of of the OP's argument. I myself don't see it as conclusive evidence of anything more than I need to take the zombie threat more seriously. I may need to read over The Zombie Survival Guide again and get some basic procedures in place to get my family to safety when the dead inevitably rise to seek the flesh of the living.

    7. Re:Good by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      If Candide didn't do it, nothing will.

      Anyway, benevolent in general doesn't mean anything about benevolence toward any one thing in particular. If you take that argument against a fundie, they'll say, "God works in mysterious ways."

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    8. Re:Good by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No. You can't falsify something that is made up and exempt from all tests.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Good by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      People have been doing worse things than this to one another for centuries, usually in the name of one God or another, and you are taking the existence of a zombie cockroach as your final proof of a Godless universe? Is there a justification here I'm just not seeing? Well, for those so inclined, here's a general breakdown of this train of thought:

      1) Humans have "free will" and thus are not subject to "God's Laws" in the here and now while

      2) Animals do not have as much "free will" and are thus controlled much more directly by the Divine

      3) The behaviours in question appear freakish, "morally" reprehensible and certainly not benevolent - from the standpoint of a Human Being.

      4) God also has the same set of morals and uses the same set of critera as the Human Being in 3).

      5) If God were to exist, we would not find these types of behaviours IRL due to 2) and 4). Maybe we wouldn't be able to think about them either, not sure...

      5) Thus, God can't exist because it would be an inherent contradiction since we do see this happening.

      YMMV, but that doesn't appear to be a very good argument to me, either.
    10. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are misinterpreting his statement.

      He said "benevolent creator". You equated that with "God". However, it is quite possible to conceive of a non-benevolent God.

      It's the standard conclusion from the fact that evil exists. As evil exists, there can be no wholly-benevolent, omnipotent God. Either the God is not wholly benevolent (as this God would not have created a universe where evil would exist), or God is not omnipotent (God cannot stop evil from existing).

      As most concepts of God from religious doctrine don't exhibit total goodness ( nearly all Gods are seen as judging, hence the purpose of a Heaven (the carrot) and a Hell (the stick)), this is a bit of a canard. But it comes up since most modern facades of Christianity attempt to protray God as all-loving AND all-powerful. These attributes can't coexist in a world with evil, death etc.

    11. Re:Good by ChocoBean · · Score: 1

      What Matt said, and this:
      Nature often seems cruel, but never wasteful.
      Animals are very, very serious about survival, and that means habitat, and resources. The wasp is perfectly capable of killing a cockroach, let its tiny baby sit there, stay with the egg until it hatches and feeds for a day, then kill another cockroach and transfer baby onto less rotten food, and repeat until baby is grown, at least enough to withstand the dangers of eating rotting food. I'm not sure how long it will take for baby to grow up, but I'm thinking at _least_ a dozen days.
      They're just doing the most efficient thing they know how. Kill just ONE big sized prey, enough for the duration for my one baby. Move on, have more babies. It's not any different than lions killing prey for their young, only baby wasps can't eat an entire carcass before it rots, unlike an entire pride.

      Maybe I'm a freak in this case, but I see Nature as beautifully efficient. The mechanisms are complex, but they work.

      There's an excellent book by CS Lewis by the name of Problem of Pain, in which he talks about "why would a Good God allow suffering". He was taught logics and was a professor in Literature at Oxford and Cambridge. It's worth a read just for good writing and flow of logic(He doesn't say "bible said it worked. there!"), and if you're curious about how this might work.

  26. Sounds familiar by overshoot · · Score: 1

    I knew a gal once who had a similar schtick. Well, except it wasn't exactly the antennae she used ...

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Sounds familiar by Kickasso · · Score: 1

      Did she ate her victims?

    2. Re:Sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you meant, "Did she EAT her victims?"

  27. Matthew 7:5 by overshoot · · Score: 1

    With Hunger, Global Warming and catostrophic ozone loss affecting the lives of billions, dont you think the scientests/Zombie Cockroaches have something better to do? Hmmm?
    With Hunger, Global Warming and catostrophic ozone loss affecting the lives of billions, dont you think you have something better to do than complaining about what others choose to do on Slashdot?
    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  28. How is this for deja vu by Daath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remembered this, believe it or not. Almost 6 years to the day ;P Well, who's counting ;P

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
  29. Re:corepirate nazis create zombi population by PonyHome · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nice one! Okay, two points for demonstrating that IS possible for human brains to become infected, to do the bidding of others, and reprogrammed to mindlessly spread that infection as far and wide as possible. It would have been fifty points but, y'know, spelling.

    And what is this constant harping on cockroach "brains?" Their so-called "brain" is a cluster of nerve cells that runs along the ventral midline of their thoracic segment. There's three clusters of it in the "head" segment, but that doesn't control locomotion. A cockroach doesn't even need its head, except for that starving to death thing. It would have been nice if the article had been a bit more clear on where this precise injection occurs. In the head? That might blind them, but probably wouldn't rob them of "free will" (as much as a cockroach can be said to have free will). Even more impressive might be that the wasp knows in which segment of the neural ganglia to inject them in order to control their actions.

  30. Was Bush stung by a wasp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can the wasp sting also change a human into a zombie? If so, perhaps Bush has been stung.

    1. Re:Was Bush stung by a wasp? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Bush, but Mikael Jackson is certainly a marvel of animatronics.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  31. Zombie? by msormune · · Score: 1

    So the cockroach is stung once for paralyzation and then again for making it walk again against it's will (Well, if a cockroach has a will...)
    At what point does the cockroach turn into a zombie? Seems to me it's just involuntarily walking towards it's doom.

    1. Re:Zombie? by v1 · · Score: 1

      It's been awhile since I watched the Nature ep on this but I recall there were actually three stings in all. One to pacify, one to control, (then the antenna clipping and leading it to the burrow like a cow on a rope) and then a final sting to the nervous system in a way that permanently crippled (but not killed) the roach, to insure that when the roach recovered from the mind toxin that it could not escape. I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet.

      I don't entirely see why the control aspect was strictly necessary, because at least in that show the roach was not all that much bigger than the wasp. This summer I watched a particularly large wasp tag a CICADA in flight, in my back yard while I was picking up sticks. Made a heck of a racket as you might imagine, thrashing around on the ground with the wasp until the poison took effect, but then the wasp was more than happy to fly away with the cicada. Most members of the wasp family are quite capable of flying away with very large prey.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Zombie? by ps236 · · Score: 1

      It's not a zombie at all! A zombie is a re-animated corpse. The cockroach doesn't die and then come back to 'life' (undead-ness), it just loses the power to exert its will.

      The word 'zombie' is just used to get you to read the article.

  32. Zombie Cockroaches Would Be Invincible by doyoulikeworms · · Score: 1

    How do you kill zombies? You go for the head. These things can live for like 10 hours without a head, or something, right? Heaven help us if that happens!

    1. Re:Zombie Cockroaches Would Be Invincible by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually, IIRC, they can go for days without a head and finally die from starvation.

      Pretty creepy if you ask me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Zombie Cockroaches Would Be Invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly. The severed head lives for several hours, the body lives for several weeks. Or months if fed.

  33. FANTASTIC! DOES THIS WORK ON WOMEN? by MichailS · · Score: 1

    I often get frightened by the Pandoras' Box that our revered biotechs are opening time and time again.

  34. Re:Actually that's how the political system works by ModMeFlamebait · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why rob people (...) when they can raise people as zombies,
    And then you can Rob Zombie :)
    --
    Pavlov. Does this name ring a bell?
  35. Relation to Parkinsons? by Stefanwulf · · Score: 1

    This sounds like it has remarkable parallels to Parkinson's, actually. Both conditions are characterized by an difficulty initiating voluntary activity, and seem to be caused in large part by a lack of/inability to process dopamine or equivalent neurotransmitter. I wonder if the section of the roach's brain which is stung serves a function analogous to the basal ganglia in a human?

    Some quick poking around shows that P. D. Evans, in OCTOPAMINE DISTRIBUTION IN THE INSECT NERVOUS SYSTEM (1978), demonstrated that octopamine distribution was highly localized in cockroaches, particularly in the ganglia of the ventral nerve cord. From what I can read, there would have to be some pathway for distribution, most likely to the area which is stung by the wasp. If this area really does act in a similar manner to the basal ganglia in humans, providing inhibition via a feedback loop from the higher control centers of the brain, then it should be broadly connected to the mushroom bodies (if not a part of them itself).

    Does anyone here know more about cockroach neuroanatomy?

  36. Oh Thank God by Kadmium · · Score: 4, Funny

    I read the title as "Scientologists create zombie cockroaches" and actually caught myself thinking, "Yeah, they've been working up to this for a while now."

  37. Huge opportunity by longslash · · Score: 3, Funny

    Surely this opens up a whole new area of cockroach racing with wasp jockeys?

  38. Re:corepirate nazis create zombi population by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Well, since it's probably the same for every 'roach of the same model, all the wasp needs to "know" (or, be programmed to) is to sting at a certain point. That's not so far fetched, current robots that we built instead of nature can do that already. We build cars in a quite similar way.

    The wasp needn't "know" anything about the cockroaches neural network. All it needs to "know" is "sting here, food follows".

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  39. Warning: Gratuitous Windows Bashing! by Fuzzypig · · Score: 1

    So a bit like the average dopey IT manager then. BANG sting you into buying XP PCs, to hook you in, then BANG sting you again when they want 150 quid for an upgrade on each desktop, you have so much invested into it you have no choice but to follow "like a dog on a leash"!

    --
    Windows guys please stop pissing on everyone and the Linux guys stop pissing in the wind, hoping to hit Windows guys!
  40. Evolution is amazing isn't it? by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1

    Evolution. Who would have thought that wasps could get so clever?

    1) The wasps learned how to paralyze and control the roach without a science degree!

    I assume the first wasp must have discovered this by mistake and written a book on it -- which must have been a bestseller, considering that all of these wasps now do it.

    2) The wasp larva eats the roach in an order which keeps the roach alive until the larva reaches the pupal stage.

    Now, how does the larva know how to do this, or is it coincidence that all larva eat the roach internals in the same order? Rather clever stuff.

    1. Re:Evolution is amazing isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insects are so simple they are in essence machines. These behaviors are hard wired into their genetics. A larva doesn't "know" in what order to eat the roach anymore than a coffee cup "knows" how to sit on a table. Eating a roach in a certain order is just what a larva is genetically programmed to do (as a result of evolution - there's a major benefit to having a living food supply rather than a decomposing dead roach clogging up your nest).

  41. I'm afraid that . . . by pablochacin · · Score: 1

    this discovery is making its way directly to Guantanamo Bay . . .

  42. Add a million more years to evolve a third sting by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    if we follow the theory of evolution, in a million more years a third sting would develop in the wasp so that when administered, the roach will feel no pain while being consumed by larvae...

    But by then, the wasps's brain would have the thought pattern equivalent to saying, Naaaaah; don't think so.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  43. RSVP. WASP coming out ball. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The venom works to block a neurotransmitter called octopamine with a similar action to dopamine, which is involved in preparations to execute complex behaviors such as walking. Then the wasp grabs the cockroach's antenna and leads it back to the nest 'like a dog on a leash', says one researcher.


    Ya. "You are required to attend a community innoculation event at the St. Vincent hospital nearest your address. Attendees will be greeted by Laura and Janna Bush. RSVP 2 hours ago. Late responders will be escorted to the festivities by DHS personnel." Err, ahh, that is all.
  44. Insects are sexy by speciesonly · · Score: 1

    This is yet one more way the roach is the most respected member of the insect community. Hate the little boogers, try to kill them, but no body can deny that they fascinate us to no end. Wasp evolution has amazed the entomological community for decades. In Florida we have a wasp that lays eggs in roach egg cases, the larva hatches, and eats the roach egg from the inside.

    --
    "Don't Panic"
  45. Obligatory by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Wasp, you eat Zombie's brains!

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  46. /. is Rife With This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, /. is rife with this, the same transmitters are blocked in most /. readers as soon as Microsoft or George Bush are mentioned. The typical /.er then loses all control, and either reverts to proxy control from MoveOn.org or RMS.

    So, what is the discovery?

  47. The fruits of Islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=497490&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

    Anyone still think Islam is the religion of peace? Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch Mohammed cartoon riots, the Armenius family of NJ, Salman Rushdie, 9/11, the USS Cole, the Iran hostage crisis, Khobar Towers, the Munich massacre, giving aid and comfort to the Nazis during WWII, instigating the Crusades by harassing Christian pilgrims from Europe on their way to visit the Holy Lands, the summer 2006 Paris riots, female circumcision, punishing women for being raped... Sounds more like the religion of perpetual rage and ignorance. It's time for them to grow up and join the rest of civilization which has moved on without them over the last 1000 years or so.

    1. Re:The fruits of Islam by j_166 · · Score: 1

      "Anyone still think Islam is the religion of peace?"

      Did anybody ever really think that? Isn't that just what they tell the n00bs? Same goes for any religion really. Its not really the fault of Islam though. Or christianity for that matter. I mean, a religion can't logically be violent or peaceful. Its not a living thing. Its followers are what's violent or peaceful. The religion is merely the justification. Of course no institution that lasted 1000+ years would be around that long if it couldn't be twisted to justify both war and peace.

      In computing, we would call this a PEBKAC error. "Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair".

  48. And the buzzkiller: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... over the last 1000 years or so." Kinda nicely constructed troll, but you need to do some more reading. Check for example when the whole thing started. Thanx for playnig anyway.

  49. Hmmm... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

    I should have, yes, but this sounded better and rolled off the keyboard so smoothly, I couldn't resist :)

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  50. Re:So many freaky parasites so little vomit left.. by Loosifur · · Score: 1

    "The parasite basically rewires the crab for its own ends, and the crab becomes a helpless vehicle, expending its energy caring for the young organisms that will move on to inflict themselves upon other crabs."

    Until, somewhere around age 50, after a loud, indignant and drunken therapy session with the other crabs at the pub, the crab calls a divorce attorney. Or buys a motorcycle.

    --
    This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
  51. Re:corepirate nazis create zombi population by Loosifur · · Score: 1

    ....uh.....what??? Can we mod parent down due to, I don't know, maybe schizophrenia, please?

    --
    This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
  52. Don't bury me! by Loosifur · · Score: 1

    ...I'm not dead!!!

    --
    This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
  53. Hard-wired vs hard-wired... by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1

    All wasps are hard-wired to feed their young; so what made this one wasp decide to first of all commandeer a cockroach and then decide to leave its larva alone without feeding it?

    Surely the wasp's natural 'hard-wired' instinct to feed its young would have overtaken?

    Perhaps this was just a smart and lazy mutant wasp that overcame its instincts.

    People may mock creationism, but the creation of life via evolution is just as hard to believe: such as organic molecules becoming the first life form by chance. Even the most simplest life form is such a complex structure that it's like suggesting that, given time, a tornado could take a pile of bricks and some cement and a house could be produced. Perhaps this will happen in a few billion years from now. One never knows...

    1. Re:Hard-wired vs hard-wired... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "such as organic molecules becoming the first life form by chance
      "

      Not when you consider the amount of time. FYI: This has been done in the lab. Sometime in the 50s, I seem to recall.

      "a tornado could take a pile of bricks and some cement and a house could be produced."
      It suggests no such thing. I suggest you actually study it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Hard-wired vs hard-wired... by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1

      I would also suggest that you study this more deeply.

      No one has yet created life purely from organic molecules.

      New life forms have only been developed via the use of injecting existing cells, and many of the 'life created' experiments have not actually created a life form but deal with creating some of the primary building blocks of life.

      It's like finding some naturally formed bricks and suggesting that all it takes is a tornado to come along and make a house out of them.

    3. Re:Hard-wired vs hard-wired... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      No one has yet created life purely from organic molecules.
      Correct. And irrelevant. Just because we can't yet duplicate the process which probably took millions of years of chance doesn't mean it didn't happen.
      It's like finding some naturally formed bricks and suggesting that all it takes is a tornado to come along and make a house out of them.
      You are arguing from the position of irreducible complexity. Again, just because you can't see the set of steps which are required doesn't mean they don't exist. The simple fact is that having any sort of gradient in survival rates will force an evolutionary process to come into play as individuals compete for limited resources. In this case, there is a naturally occurring difference in the potency of venom and the location of the sting. If there was an advantage to a certain combination, it would be expected to out compete the others.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    4. Re:Hard-wired vs hard-wired... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      I've responded to a later comment of yours in this thread, but I thought this once raised a slightly different perspective.
      People may mock creationism, but the creation of life via evolution is just as hard to believe: such as organic molecules becoming the first life form by chance.
      Not really. It's been demonstrated that there are several groups of pre-biotic chemicals which exhibit the replication tendencies which could kick start the "arms race" of evolution.
      a tornado could take a pile of bricks and some cement and a house could be produced.
      This is a straw man argument. If you wanted a natural occurrence that is closer to evolution than your tornado example, look at some of the odd, deliberate looking formations created by geological processes. This more closely matches the time frames and gradual nature of evolutionary history. One wouldn't assume that these formations came to be in a single chaotic event, but it's easy to see how the working of glaciers and water over time can result in stunning features.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
  54. Just in time by MECC · · Score: 1

    Just in time for upcoming elections.

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
  55. This does NOT qualify as a zombie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A zombie is something that can move but not think.

    This bug is put into a state where it can think, but cannot voluntarily control its limbs.

    It sounds almost like the logical opposite of a zombie, except that something else can still make the legs move.

  56. Worst Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is my worst nightmare.

    Thousands of zombie cockroaches coming after me, trying to eat me.

    Good thing I can just shoot them in the head...er... Do cockroaches even have brains? Just how am I supposed to kill them after they become zombies?

  57. Prepare for the invasion! by mikehoskins · · Score: 1

    Now there are 2 kinds of zombie overlords?

    It's time to prepare for the invasion:
        http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/18/153047/155
        http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/zombiesurvivalguide/

  58. The obligatory response by fzammett · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new zombified vermin overlords.

    --
    If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
  59. Or simply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Realize that the whole idea of predestination is a crock that is not founded on Biblical teachings and that sinful inclinations are a result of imperfections passed through the human family after the first willful sin. To be repaired in the near future.

  60. ... b ... b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    brainnnnzzzzz....

    1. Re:... b ... b by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      WHAT! This is slashdot! Why is this post so far down the list? Why isn't this the first post? You guys are really getting slow.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:... b ... b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! There's alot of ground to cover on /., and the userbase has risen, while the troll count remains one Anonymous Coward and a handfull of wannabes. It's alot of work to troll these waters, you know! Be thankful or I might just leave!

  61. Big Deal by j_166 · · Score: 1

    Big Deal. Human females have been doing this to the males of their species for millenia. And they don't even have to inject any chemicals into our brains to lead us around by our torsal appendages before they and their young turn us into working slaves and eat us alive slowly, over the course of 50 or so years.

  62. Parasites and you by Spellvexit · · Score: 1

    Zimmer's book Parasite Rex is a nasty and amazing little book about parasites. I never thought I'd find myself reading such a book, but it's a surprising page turner, and chronicles all sorts of parasites and their deviously complex behaviors. One disturbing case is a parasite which initially neuters a male crab and then later gives it a virtual sex change, making it think it's female so it'll disperse its "eggs," which happen to be the parasite's eggs.

    I found the parallel between allergies and parasites pretty interesting as well.

    --
    The moon may be smaller than the earth, but it's much farther away!
  63. Re:So many freaky parasites so little vomit left.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're going to be freaked out by a parasite, make it one that can attack humans.
    Like, Candiru.
    That one will freak the piss out of you. Just make sure there's no trace of urine afterward.

  64. Agreed by darthservo · · Score: 1

    I completely agree that everyone should be respectful of everyone's personal beliefs, and I do respect yours as well. As you say, live and let live.

    --

    Prove it.

    1. Re:Agreed by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Peace on Earth. May your tribe increase and May God bless a tolerant soul like you to reach higher levels of hierarchy in your Church.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  65. It isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least not in the way so many teach it. "Hell" is a translation of a number of original-language words for places of sleep-like death or inactivity for righteous and unrighteous together (including Jesus), angels, the Devil himself, etc. Hell as a place of torment and torture is not in the Bible.

  66. This article is pure BS by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    Zombies are reanimated corpses. These aren't reanimated corpses. They aren't even "infected" flesh-eating humans as portrayed in so-called "zombie" movies. They're not one bit like any kind of zombie I've ever met. So please, get your story titles straight.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  67. Great... roofies for insects by p14-lda · · Score: 1

    Old news... nothing to see here. The guys in the black suits won't even be interested in this as we have drugs that do this to humans already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flunitrazepam) Thank you and have a nice day.

  68. The Republicans see this as a way to win next year by Newer+Guy · · Score: 1

    Apparently, Halliburton has been doing a major stockpiling of this venom. The Republicans see this as a way to win next year. They plan to sting all Democrats in the brain, then walk them docily to the polling places where they will vote for the Republican candidate.

  69. It works on people too by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    Loss of dopamine creating cells is the basis of Parkinson's disease. That causes problems in complex actions in people, such as walking. When a "Parky" has trouble walking, you can give them a cane, not to lean on, but to hold in front of them and use as something to aim towards and thereby "steer" with, much as the cockroaches' antennae thingy. Many can then walk better. I think that's a wicked cool people hack.

    FWIW, it works by pulling in processing from frontal lobe areas related to decision making and cognitive mapping (ie. the body' location and position in space) which don't rely as heavily on dopamine as does the motor areas. The latter requires dopamine to suppress unwanted movements and so "carve out" the wanted ones. Parkinson's is loss of the ability to suppress unwanted movements. Purposely "wanting" via decision making replaces in part the failing unconscious/automated "wanting" from the motor area. Cockroaches use their antennae to "decide" where to go. Using them to steer the bug makes perfect sense in this context.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  70. Punishment yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The salary sin pays is death". "The **soul** that is sinning will die".

    1. Re:Punishment yes by j_166 · · Score: 1

      ""The salary sin pays is death". "The **soul** that is sinning will die"." Its still a shit sandwich, since The Creator created us to sin. That is sadistic. The way I see it, if I'm going to be forced to eat a shit sandwich, I might as well bring my own mayonnaise.

  71. Re:So many freaky parasites so little vomit left.. by F34nor · · Score: 1

    A fishing siwming up my cock is not as scary as something taking over my nervous sytem and using my "mating reflex" to spread more paracites. Even good old toxoplasmosis seems freaker than the "willy fish." Fuck that sounds like "the clam" http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Sex/clam.html

  72. All glory by Lewrker · · Score: 0

    to the hypnowasp!

  73. And just as weirdly evil... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    There's a parasite that spends part of its life cycle in a snail, part in a bird's digestive system. It selectively destroys a piece of the snail's brain that makes it want to stay on the underside of the leaf it's feeding on, where a bird won't notice it. So the snail moves up to the top of the leaf and proudly announces its new desire to get a sun tan.

    You can guess how Act II works out.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  74. For SCIENCE!! by bar-agent · · Score: 1

    Fools, don't you realize the possibilities? You call me mad, but it is you who do not realize the power of my vision! With my army of zombie cockroach minions, I can...

    Hm. What can I do?

    Ah well. More zombies!! For Science!!!!

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  75. Cheap Insecticide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, they duplicated the compound that the wasp did to control the cockroach.
    Once they are doped up, humans can find a way to lead the roach via their antennae to
    their death since they will follow the trail to the cockroach trap.

    Seems to me a large commercial potential for this! It's a cheap harmless means
    to control the roach and lead it to its death without the poisonous side affects that
    chemicals have.

  76. Strange parallel with antipsychotic drugs by Qwaniton · · Score: 1

    Antipsychotic drugs work by (typically) blocking dopamine D2 receptors. (Parkinson's drugs work the opposite way, by activating D2 receptors.) This seems to be similar to the phenomenon reported above.

    The ramifications of this, I leave to you.