Slashdot Mirror


Bark Beetles Hate Rush Limbaugh and Heavy Metal

Aryabhata writes "According to scientists, climate change and human activity have allowed bark beetle populations to soar. They decided to fight the beetles by using the 'nastiest, most offensive sounds' that they could think of. These sounds included recordings of Guns & Roses, Queen, Rush Limbaugh and manipulated versions of the insects' own sounds. The research project titled 'Beetle Mania' has concluded that acoustic stress can disrupt their feeding and even cause the beetles to kill each other."

220 comments

  1. Pitiful. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They wanted "the nastiest and most offensive" and they picked Guns & Roses and Queen?"

    Clearly they fail at knowing anything about actual metal.

    1. Re:Pitiful. by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised they didn't play them recordings of Mark David Chapman.

    2. Re:Pitiful. by bit9 · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Guns N' Roses and Queen are not even remotely in the "heavy metal" category. Especially Guns N' Roses' later stuff (by which I mean everything after their first album), which devolved more and more into overwrought ballads that didn't even sound like rock, much less heavy metal.

    3. Re:Pitiful. by BobNET · · Score: 2, Funny

      Could've been worse, they could have tried Jethro Tull...

    4. Re:Pitiful. by fhuglegads · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the mod who put flamebait doesn't know JT won a grammy for best Heavy Metal album. :/

    5. Re:Pitiful. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      It should be noted that the definition of Heavy Metal has changed over the years. Back in the mid 70's, bands like Zeppelin were considered heavy metal but by the mid-80's bands like Iron Maiden were considered heavy metal. Neither would be considered heavy Metal by the mid 90's and today they are relegated to merely Classic Rock or Hard Rock.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Pitiful. by Mursk · · Score: 2, Funny

      After all, the flute IS a heavy, metal instrument.

      --
      "This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
    7. Re:Pitiful. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Clearly you fail at knowing what was considered 'Metal' back in the 60's, or 70's, or 80's.

      Hint: Metal doesn't fucking exist, per-se. It's classified as 'Fusion'

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:Pitiful. by Khyber · · Score: 0, Troll

      Mods are FUCKING STUPID as well as IGNORANT OF POP CULTURE.

      THAT IS ALL.

      Someone re-moderate BobNET's comment to it's proper place.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:Pitiful. by Vintermann · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I guess they assumed bark beetles are homophobic.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    10. Re:Pitiful. by aBaldrich · · Score: 1

      Back in the '60... ok.. If this slasdhot post was 40 years old, then it would be acceptable to say that GNR are the wildest ear destroying band.
      Now, compare them with this swedish band (famous enough to have fans in south america).
      There are thousands of bands that make GNR seem a group of ladies.

      --
      In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
    11. Re:Pitiful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't they just play the beetles some Beetles? That crap ought to be more than enough to drive any living creature out of its habitat.

    12. Re:Pitiful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tell that to a tuba player, wussy

    13. Re:Pitiful. by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 2, Funny

      You called?

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    14. Re:Pitiful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be noted and so I am doing it - you have no or only a very vague idea of what you're talking about.

      Free history education below:
      Black Sabbath is the first metal band. Genre: proto/stoner doom and then heavy metal (the Dio era, Heaven and Hell).
      Iron Maiden was one of the top bands of the NWOBHM. See also Saxon and Diamond Head.
      This is where the Americans (USA) take over. They invent thrash (Metallica, Slayer, etc.) and then death metal (Death, Morbid Angel, Deicide). Back to Europeans, Swedes had their own brand of death metal (At the Gates), while others, mainly Norwegians, created black metal (Bathory, Darkthrone, Mayhem, Burzum). After that the early nineties are over and everything new is prefixed with post. The world is soon dursted.

      Conclusions:
      Heavy Metal isn't a genre - it's a subgenre. The best you could argue is that there was a name-of-genre change.
      Led Zeppelin and others mentioned in the summary - not HM by any definition.
      My hard driver is probably failing. Motherfucker! Can't believe it's happening again.

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

      NWOBHM - No way of being heavy metal?
      Is that correct? Yes I could google it, but if you're giving lessons, at least explain your cryptic acronyms!

    16. Re:Pitiful. by texnar · · Score: 1

      it is like this

  2. Did they ever consider... by Rei · · Score: 1
    --
    Kneel Before Christ!
    1. Re:Did they ever consider... by maxume · · Score: 1

      The beetles would have attacked the speakers.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Did they ever consider... by robinstar1574 · · Score: 0

      They would die in the way

    3. Re:Did they ever consider... by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Go for the gusto. Play Obama's latest SOTU speech. It's nasty, offensive, AND completely untruthful for a 3-in-1.

      Congratulations -- you're officially part of the far right. Under 17% of speech watchers disapproved of the speech in general, let alone found it "nasty, offensive, AND completely untruthful". Even though democratic viewers outnumbered Republican viewers 2:1, independents were well represented, and combined with the fact that you expressed much more than simple disapproval, this places you solidly in the right-wing column.

      It may be a surprise for you to learn that most of America doesn't think the way you do. They don't view Republicans as an oppressed minority suffering from an evil socialist conspiracy. 58% actually view them as obstructionists. Heck, over 10% of Scott Brown's vote came from Obama voters, who were overwhelmingly trying to punish the democrats for not getting enough done (82% of Obama voters who voted brown support the public option; 86% of Obama voters who stayed home do).

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    4. Re:Did they ever consider... by hansamurai · · Score: 0, Troll

      Obstructionists sounds like a compliment, anything to stop Congress from doing anything is good in my book (couldn't care less which party has the majority either). Like these massive snowfalls, nothing has made me happier.

    5. Re:Did they ever consider... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it may surprise you to learn that America doesn't think the way you do. We've ripped out your beating heart in MA. Come this November we'll finish you off.

    6. Re:Did they ever consider... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The those Obama voters who supported Scott Brown are idiots of infantine proportions. Lets punish the Democrats for not giving us a public option by electing someone who opposes that concept on principal. What a bunch of idiots. Voting for someone you disagree with in order to punish the party you do agree with makes no sense at all. Maybe my father is right to always refer these people as "Dummycrats," I always just thought of it as rude and unnecessarily inflammatory.

    7. Re:Did they ever consider... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You keep telling yourself that. The very media you rely on for your sources is the one that is out of touch with reality.

    8. Re:Did they ever consider... by mweather · · Score: 1

      The those Obama voters who supported Scott Brown are idiots of infantine proportions.

      Not really. Brown voted for Massachusetts' equivalent of Obamacare.

    9. Re:Did they ever consider... by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      As for the Republicans, when in the minority they are SUPPOSED to be obstructionist. The system is supposed to have checks and balances. Obama with Democrat control of the House and Senate means there's no checks and balances.

      No, that's not the way it's supposed to be. When you're in Congress you are suppose to think rationally and vote along lines that are in the interest of the citizens of the United States. Now, if a member of Congress votes against a bill because they believe that bill goes against public interest (not public opinion) then there's no issue. If a Congress person decides to vote against a bill simply because the opposition party proposed it then they are failing at their job. It seems that now more member of Congress are failing than are doing their job respectfully.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    10. Re:Did they ever consider... by DigiShaman · · Score: 0, Troll

      Rei, your delusional if you think America wants to move further to the Left. I sware, you guys crack me up!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    11. Re:Did they ever consider... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should hand the country back to the guys who nearly drove it over a cliff these last 8 years. We did re-elect George Bush, so you can't count that out.

    12. Re:Did they ever consider... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      6 years at most. From 2006 - 2008 The Democrats had control of the House and tied for Senate. Though GWB did have veto bill rights. He had the option of using it then.

      And yes, I'm pissed and GWB for the fact he was *not* a fiscal conservative in the slightest. But Democrat party really fucked things up this time. They OWN the responsibility of debt they bestowed upon us from 2008 - today.

      And for all you morons out there, you CANNOT SPEND YOUR WAY OUT OF DEBT!!! You're supposed to let shit crash-and-burn if needed. That's called a MARKET CORRECTION. But noooooooo, we can't have that happen now can we??!! Fucking morons. All of them.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    13. Re:Did they ever consider... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good post
      Makes one wonder the motives of any and all of the right wing assholes
      Their guy totally fucked up the nation and much of the world
      Now when someone earnestly attempts to repair the damage, they dig in and obstruct all recovery attempts

      Blame goes with the guilty
      republican dickwads gave us the trillion $$ debt before monkey boy left
      this is the penalty we all must face now and for generations to come
      thanks assholes!!!

    14. Re:Did they ever consider... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      They're not trying to spend there way out of debt, they are trying to spend their way out of a recession, which is how you do it. Lower taxes that hinder employment, and hire people. You don't cut the deficit during a recession, you increase it. When growth is hot, then you cut the deficit, which, BTW, is the Democratic plan.

      Complaining about the deficit now is like complaining that the firemen are using water faster than the refresh rate of the town reservoir when your house is burning down.

      And yeah, GWB wasn't a fiscal conservative, he was a down right crook who hid huge expenditures off budget while flying plane loads of cash to Iraq. He got away with it because every single Republican backed him to the end. These will be the same guys that get back into power if we get a backlash election this November. You know who was a fiscal conservative? Clinton. and the Republicans shit all over him.

      Bush was also a war criminal who killed tens of thousands of innocent people with out cause, and he bungled the "War on Terror" in almost every imaginable way. Some how in my discussions with Republicans, this part doesn't phase them as much as Bush blowing through 5 or 6 trillion dollars.

      \

    15. Re:Did they ever consider... by Moryath · · Score: 1

      And those of use who disagree with Obama and the Democrats, for we are not lemmings blindly following the fuzzy ass in front of us off a cliff, are rationally against the things which you claim the Republicans are being "obstructionist" on.

      Since you are obviously uneducated, however, let me clue you in. The point of the US governmental structure is not about "thinking rationally." The point is to prevent power grabs. As James Madison put it, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." The worst thing they could think of was a government in which every separate division - House, Senate, Executive, Judicial - all had the precise same interest and worked in concert. What they wanted and originally intended, quite deliberately, was that it would be in the best interests of the country for all to have different, competing, and contradictory interests so that only the truly necessary things that they could agree on despite their different interests could pass and be sustained.

      The President is supposed to question the shit out of everything Congress does. The Senate and House are supposed to question the shit out of everything the other side does, and everything the President sends their way. The Judicial branch is the backup, to "catch" when the President, Senate, and House all make the same goddamn mistake.

      When you are a member of the House, you are supposed to "think rationally and vote along lines that are in the best interest of the citizens of YOUR DISTRICT."

      When you are a member of the Senate, you are "think rationally and vote along lines that are in the best interest of the citizens of YOUR STATE." Originally, specifically, the legislature and not just "the people." The Senate was supposed to be a proxy for sending the entire elected State governments to vote, or having them mail things in. Boy did we fuck THAT one up.

      When you are President, you are supposed to "think rationally and vote along lines that are in the best interest of the citizens of the United States." Though I haven't actually seen one do so in decades.

      Get the point?

    16. Re:Did they ever consider... by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      Okay, you can claim that I am uneducated (I would respectfully disagree) but I'm fairly certain that you just provided proof that you have never been taught reading comprehension. Let's take a look here.

      You said

      As for the Republicans, when in the minority they are SUPPOSED to be obstructionist.

      To which I responded

      ...if a member of Congress votes against a bill because they believe that bill goes against public interest (not public opinion) then there's no issue. If a Congress person decides to vote against a bill simply because the opposition party proposed it then they are failing at their job.

      Though I believe that what is being proposed for health care reform is better than doing nothing, I did not claim that opposition to that reform was unfounded. I simply stated that being an obstructionist for the sake of obstructing is not correct. Obstructing because you believe that what is being proposed is wrong is perfectly fine. I refuse to believe that the minority party should be obstructionists simply because they are the minority. Decisions of law should be based on rational analysis of the impact of that proposal on the people of the nation/ state/ district and not on knee jerk reactionary, get myself reelected above all else, politics.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
  3. So we're more alike then we thought... by Orga · · Score: 5, Funny

    So by feeding insects our media we have made them more human (killing themselves etc.)... good find!

    1. Re:So we're more alike then we thought... by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      Just don't tell Jack Thompson!

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  4. Listening to Rush by glueball · · Score: 1, Insightful

    After listening to Rush, the beetles decided to get off the dole of this research project and go out to get their own jobs.

    1. Re:Listening to Rush by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 0, Troll

      If I had to listen to Rush forcibly all day - I'd probably want to off myself - who knows - maybe it works with insects too?

    2. Re:Listening to Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does this tell you about yourself? Or don't you have the higher cognitive abilities to recognize the similarity?

    3. Re:Listening to Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe Limbaugh is really that obnoxious.

    4. Re:Listening to Rush by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      ... in broadcasting.

      "I can do that better. Except the shouting," our reporter was told by a spokesbeetle.

    5. Re:Listening to Rush by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      exactly. cause if anything says 'working class hero' its a drug addict who gets paid 30 million a year to talk into a microphone.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
  5. Queen != Heavy Metal by Janthkin · · Score: 1

    Not much else to say, really.

    1. Re:Queen != Heavy Metal by mooingyak · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Nor for that matter is GNR, though they come closer than Queen does.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    2. Re:Queen != Heavy Metal by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmmm ... they don't like 80's rock, or conservative talk radio? Tipper Gore is a bark beetle!

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    3. Re:Queen != Heavy Metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen to the first album! Excellent heavy riffing pretty close to Black Sabbath.

  6. Caused the beetles to kill each other by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    o/~ Here we are! Born to be kings, we're the princes of the uuuuuuniverse o/~

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    1. Re:Caused the beetles to kill each other by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      I love that song!

  7. +5 Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if this article would have made it to the front page of ./ if it hadn't provided an opportunity for certain folks to get a political jab in again at the "evil republicans".

    1. Re:+5 Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder if this article would have made it to the front page of ./ if it hadn't provided an opportunity for certain folks to get a political jab in again at the "evil republicans".

      Ah, yes. Republicans. Nature's eternal victims.

    2. Re:+5 Flamebait by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      I don't see the link with TFS & politics.

    3. Re:+5 Flamebait by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Hah. You win the award for the indiscriminate offending of people on both sides of the aisle in one slashdot story -- one post modded troll for making fun of Democrats, one post modded troll for making fun of Republicans.

      Care to go for the trifecta and offend independents?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:+5 Flamebait by maxume · · Score: 1

      That's redundant.

      Zing!

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:+5 Flamebait by spun · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hah. You win the award for the indiscriminate offending of people on both sides of the aisle in one slashdot story -- one post modded troll for making fun of Democrats, one post modded troll for making fun of Republicans.

      Care to go for the trifecta and offend independents?

      Wat's the point? Independents are too dumb to understand that they are being offended.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:+5 Flamebait by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder if this article would have made it to the front page of ./ if it hadn't provided an opportunity for certain folks to get a political jab in again at the "evil republicans".

      Oh, it would have been posted for the Beetle Mania pun. The bit with Limbaugh was just icing on the cake.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    7. Re:+5 Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to tell you this, but Rush Limbaugh isn't a Republican.

    8. Re:+5 Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's their punishment for having the audacity to free the slaves.

    9. Re:+5 Flamebait by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, look at all of the powerful people conspiring to take away the rights of Republicans:

        * Illegal immigrants
        * Gays
        * The poor
        * African-Americans
        * Environmentalists
        * College professors
        * Peaceniks
        * Atheists
        * Potheads

      How do you stand up against such massive, organized forces when all you have on your side is caucasians, the wealthy, and evangelicals? It's no surprise that Republicans are so oppressed.

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    10. Re:+5 Flamebait by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Bravo

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    11. Re:+5 Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment fails to be sarcastic because those people are represented by powerful special interest groups and are in fact trying to take away the rights of Republicans. Not to mention many of those people are caucasian, so I'm not sure why you lumped them in as Republican supporters.

    12. Re:+5 Flamebait by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0, Troll

      The powerful people conspiring to take away the rights of Republicans?
      * Labor Unions
      * Special interest groups who want funding by the federal government, such as ACORN, the group that helps pimps get houses and import underage prostitutes as well as falsify voter registration forms and violate other election laws.
      * Movie stars
      * Famous Rappers
      * Famous Musicians
      * Most of Hollywood for that matter. You know, people who lead the trends and most of the American idiot class around by the nose. Of course, those people have feet of clay. After all, how many said they would leave the country if Bush won election and re-election?

      You also seem to forget that:
      * Illegal aliens don't belong in the country and have no say in the government. People like you use the terms "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented immigrant" so you can say about people against illegal aliens "They are against immigration" thus muddying the waters and painting them with false colors.
      * Homosexuals are on average, much more successful and richer than heterosexuals
      * There are atheist Republicans
      * There are black Republicans ("African American" is a term that should only apply to immigrants and their children.)
      * There are homosexual Republicans
      * College professors get to preach their doctrine to a captive audience and have been known to punish students who do not slavishly follow the professors' political agenda. I have seen it happen and have read about it in the newspaper and on news sites.

      How about if I paint Democrats as crime-loving, drug-abusing apologist for brain-washers, drug-dealers, child-molesters, corrupt unions, organized crime, and illegal aliens who drive down the wages of working Americans by taking jobs under the table that pay less than minimum wage?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    13. Re:+5 Flamebait by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      How about if I paint Democrats as crime-loving, drug-abusing apologist for brain-washers, drug-dealers, child-molesters, corrupt unions, organized crime, and illegal aliens who drive down the wages of working Americans by taking jobs under the table that pay less than minimum wage?

      Isn't that the Republican's anti-Democrat slogan already? Truthfully, it is precisely this reason that when the media finds Republicans doing such things they harp on it so much and when Democrats do it they tend to ignore it. Hypocracy is news. Follow some known sterotype really isn't.

      On the bright side, eventually all the scandals with Republicans will taint the party so badly, the media will ignore them too with their amoral activities. On the down side, perhaps they'll then start focusing on Republican's insane "tax less, but never manage to cut spending enough to counter the lost revenue". Tax and spend might be bad, but thinking first "how can I take in less revenue to pay for my budget" is just loony.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    14. Re:+5 Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * There are atheist Republicans

      Name two.

      * There are black Republicans ("African American" is a term that should only apply to immigrants and their children.)

      Name two.

      * There are homosexual Republicans

      Name two.

      Actually, I know there are more than two for each of those categories, but frankly, most people could not name any prominent republicans on any of those bullets with the exception of Colin Powell. The republican party is inherently exclusive, which is why you have the RINO moniker for any politician who follows the party line in all but one or two rail issues.

      It's fine to be angry when people pigeon-hole your party, but like most stereotypes those about both parties tend to be mostly fact with just a little fiction.

      The only widely held belief about the republican party, which is truly false, is that they are fiscally responsible or good for business.

    15. Re:+5 Flamebait by mangu · · Score: 1

      * There are black Republicans ("African American" is a term that should only apply to immigrants and their children.)

      Name two.

      That's easy: Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice.

      Now, if I could name *one* atheist, or let's say just moderately religious Republican...

    16. Re:+5 Flamebait by Slur · · Score: 1

      True, strictly speaking he's a corporate apologist, and it just happens that he and the Repubs tend to work the same angles of obfuscation and the same banal talking-points.

      --
      -- thinkyhead software and media
    17. Re:+5 Flamebait by Locando · · Score: 0

      Powerful movie stars, rappers, and musicians. Riiight. When people dream of being movie stars, do they desire the power that comes with that position? Or is it that if you care about having actual power you go into, oh, I don't know, business or politics?

    18. Re:+5 Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, look at all of the powerful people conspiring to take away the rights of Republicans:

        * Illegal immigrants

        * Gays

        * The poor

        * African-Americans

        * Environmentalists

        * College professors

        * Peaceniks

        * Atheists

        * Potheads

      You forgot the President of the United States, the VP, Speaker of the House, Senate Pro Tem, congressional democrats, 1/2 the supreme court, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and teacher's unions.

      But other than that, yes, no problems.

    19. Re:+5 Flamebait by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Now, if I could name *one* atheist, or let's say just moderately religious Republican...

      Easy, me. I am fiscally conservative, socially moderate atheist republican. I hate the way the religious wackos have taken over the party. And, I hate the way current republicans are acting like no-tax-and-spend Democrats. If it keeps up, I am going to have to switch to independent or start my own party.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    20. Re:+5 Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot about the 'Educated Elite'. I hate those 'Educated Elite', always acting so... educated.

    21. Re:+5 Flamebait by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      oh noes, rappers! they're totally out to oppress the GOP!

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    22. Re:+5 Flamebait by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1

      * There are homosexual Republicans

      Name two.

      1. Glenn Beck
      2. Larry Craig

    23. Re:+5 Flamebait by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rei(128717) makes a statement that is not just wrong but either deliberately misleading or just plain ignorant and gets modded +5 insightful. I make a response with factual information and get modded -1 troll for disagreeing with him and showing his falsehoods.

      I love the hypocrisy of Slashdot. "Conform to our non-conformist believes or DIE!!!"

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    24. Re:+5 Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they try the sound of a vacuum cleaner? Science knows nature abhors a vacuum.

    25. Re:+5 Flamebait by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. Republicans. Nature's eternal victims.

      It's hard to be a rich white guy in 21st century America.

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    26. Re:+5 Flamebait by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      I love the hypocrisy of Slashdot. "Conform to our non-conformist believes or DIE!!!"

      If you think this is bad read the liquid hate that spews out in every topic even vaguely related to biology, evolution, Texas, etc. Every time I point out that the anti-creationist, anti-Republican slashdotters are just judgmental pricks bashing on other judgmental pricks I get the sort of responses which include "creationism gets mocked because creationism is ridiculous" and "well at least I don't believe a magical sky wizard created it all" and the like.

      It's amazing how accepting and tolerant liberals (and Christians, I freely admit) can be until it's time to accept or tolerate someone who disagrees with them in the slightest.

  8. Also proven disruptive to Beatles... by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yoko Ono.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Also proven disruptive to Beatles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yoko Ono.

      I've heard her singing and that has got to be more effective than Guns N Roses. Her voice can strip paint so Bark Beetles shouldn't be much of a challenge.

    2. Re:Also proven disruptive to Beatles... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      "Yoko Ono is a concept by which we measure our pain." - Paul McCartney

  9. Masochism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh Oh! Torture me! Torture me!
    Those beetles have no taste.

  10. Front page news? by Shotgun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is some front page news that some people dislike Rush Limbaugh and some old music?

    How about this? I kill the black mold in my shower by showing it pictures of Rachel Maddow.

    This isn't news for nerds. This is stupid.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    1. Re:Front page news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you managed to kill the black mold with pictures of Rachel Maddow, then yes, it would be news, dipshit. Ignore the political part and you'll actually see the news part.

    2. Re:Front page news? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      The part where loud noises disrupt animals? That's news to you? You should get out of your mom's basement and visit the country a little more often. You strip away the politicization of science, and the article is empty.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    3. Re:Front page news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you still haven't gotten the point of the article, yet. It didn't just disrupt the beetles. Certain sounds caused them to attack each other. That's different than a horn disrupting a horse from doing it's horsey things. Maybe it would be the same if the horse bit the nearest things head off at the sound of horn.

    4. Re:Front page news? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Certain sounds caused them to attack each other? And hunters make little wooden whistles that cause ducks to land in front of them. And certain chemicals will make all sorts of animals think they're fixin' to get a little pootang. Is any of that "news for nerds"?

      So why the need to point out that the scientist thought Rush Limbaugh was obnoxious? Are you denying that the article mentioned Rush Limbaugh?

      The article tried to use some "science", that demonstrated nothing, as a political laughing point. The only reason it was put on the front page was because it attempted to make Rush Limbaugh a laughing point. IOW, it was flamebait, not news for nerds, and it did not matter. Rush Limbaugh does enough to make a fool of himself (as does Rachel Maddow*). We don't need to wrap up attacks against him as "science".

      *Rachel Maddow may be, or may have been a 'he'. It's contorted logic always makes me woozy long before I can reach a conclusion on that point. Why do the even let someone that ugly go outside? Can't someone do something? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    5. Re:Front page news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't need to wrap up attacks against him as "science".

      This is basically what science has become - attacks - as it's lurched leftward away from actual science. Attacks on industrialization, attacks on religion, etc.

  11. So, any loud noise will work? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Limbaugh may be obnoxious and rude, but I can't think of anything particularly offensive about his voice that I don't hear pretty much every day walking down the street.

    Likewise, Guns & Roses and Queen aren't especially anything other than loud - nothing especially offensive about the sounds of either.

    Did they consider trying a really offensive noise? Like a jet engine spinning up? Or a Shuttle taking off? Or a machinegun firing?

    Or even Ozzy doing whatever he was doing when he thought he was singing?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by Bemopolis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Limbaugh may be obnoxious and rude, but I can't think of anything particularly offensive about his voice that I don't hear pretty much every day walking down the street.

      Dude, his voice is so annoying his own ears couldn't take it anymore and shut down.

      I'm kidding, of course. His hearing loss was actually the result of him being an unapologetic oxycontin addict.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    2. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I think it's the way it was reported....what they really seemed to be trying to do was find out the effect of playing aggressive beetle noises to the beetles and seeing what happened (apparently beetles make noises). I'm guessing they tried some of the other noises as a kind of control, and found that the beetles ignored the other noises after a while, as opposed to the beetle noises which made them angrier and angrier (assuming beetles can get angry) and they started killing each other.

      However, in reporting it to the mainstream press, the Rush Limbaugh thing was more exciting, so they focused on that, even though from a scientific perspective the beetle noises were the main focus.

      If you hear a report of an experiment in mainstream media, and it sounds scientifically suspect, 99.9% of the time it is because of the way the media reported it, not because of the work the scientists did; and if you look back at the original report, the work is a lot more sound.

      --
      Qxe4
    3. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Or even Ozzy doing whatever he was doing when he thought he was singing?

      I'd much prefer to hear him sing than talk.

    4. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Why should he be apologetic? He became addicted to oxycontin as a result of taking it to relieve the severe pain from his back surgery. Jeez man, revel in others' pain, much?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by Rei · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dude, his voice is so annoying his own ears couldn't take it anymore and shut down.

      I'm kidding, of course. His hearing loss was actually the result of him being an unapologetic oxycontin addict.

      Hey, stop that. It's not nice to make fun of the mentally disabled. It is NOT his fault that he's a greasy pig-eyed ogre who flunked out of college, and I don't appreciate the implications of your post. And bringing up that he hypocritically abused dangerous amounts of prescription pain killers acquired from an underground drug ring after routinely making fun of drug addicts on his show? That's just low.

      Leave him alone.

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    6. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, so you think HIS excuse is valid, but every other substance abuser, illegal immigrant-hirer, unemployed person, and so on is inexcusable and should be shot. But of course.

    7. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said that where in his post?

    8. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you need read between the line, man

    9. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find most drug addicts will say the same thing, whether it be a physical or mental pain and yet I think you'll find that fat bitch supported Nancy Reagan's "Just say no to drugs" campaign along with every other Republican initiative to rid the US of drugs.

      I certainly don't revel in most people's pain but I love it when some fat rich ignorant twat who thinks he's allowed to do something the common man can't do. He's a damn hypocrite and I can't wait to see him suffer a slow death.

    10. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      So you're saying he should not regret breaking the law? Even after he breaks the plea-bargain he made with the prosecutor? Instead we should be understanding of a drug smuggler's plight and be lenient?

      Tell me, what political party is he a pundit for and what is their stance on the actions you propose? I can tell you what Rush Limbaugh suggested.

      "Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river, too." -- Rush Limbaugh 1995

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    11. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      I'm kidding, of course. His hearing loss was actually the result of him being an unapologetic oxycontin addict.

      Can you imagine what his show will be like in 20 years?

      The Impressive Pundit: Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, the libwals wish to distwoy...

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    12. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I'm confused.. is he right, or wrong? Because you SEEM to be arguing he's wrong, but you want him held to that standard.. okay, I get the hypocrisy angle, but has it occured to you that maybe he's had his eyes open by his own experiences with it and maybe sees it differently now?

    13. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should apologize for trying to smuggle hundreds of OxyContin through an airport. That's not due to his back surgery, that's due to him being a plain old-fashioned pill-head.

    14. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by wickerprints · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why should he be apologetic? Because most people who are prescribed Oxycontin do use it as directed, and don't become addicted to it. And if you do develop an addiction, you wouldn't be so colossally stupid as to try to hide it and refuse treatment to wean you off it. Otherwise you run the risk of...wait for it...other medical problems. Get it now? Oh, poor Rushie, he's in so much pain. Too bad it's because he's too fucking fat, rich, and self-entitled. He stepped into his own shit and he has nobody else to blame for it but himself.

    15. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by plague911 · · Score: 2, Informative

      No because he still argues for the same things. Just for other people to have to face the consequences of their actions..not his own actions.

    16. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      Why should he be apologetic? He became addicted to oxycontin as a result of taking it to relieve the severe pain from his back surgery. Jeez man, revel in others' pain, much?

      It's not revelling in his pain. It's the fact that he is a hypocritical jerkwad. He has referred to so many other people who take drugs as "human filth" (and that's when he's feeling charitable), but when he is addicted to drugs and illegally obtains them, we're all supposed to "pray for Rush" as he goes into rehab.

      So, for most human beings, I would feel great sympathy at them becoming addicted to pain killers. But the Supreme Hypocrit Rush should be forever denied any kind of pain killing drug. And, as Wanda Sykes said, "I hope his kidneys fail."

    17. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      So I'm confused.. is he right, or wrong? Because you SEEM to be arguing he's wrong, but you want him held to that standard..

      okay, I get the hypocrisy angle, but has it occured to you that maybe he's had his eyes open by his own experiences with it and maybe sees it differently now?

      If what you suggest were true, if he has had his eyes open by his own experiences and sees it differently, then there should be no difficulty in him apologizing. Now if it isn't true, if his eyes are still closed even after his own personal experience, then all that's there is an oblivious hypocrite who finds apologizing difficult because of the contradiction. Apparently, it seems the case may be the later of the two.

      If this cognitive dissonance is by choice or by ignorance doesn't matter to me. A firm opinion is good. It test's the opposing opinion's strength and exposes it's weaknesses but an immutable opinion is the realm of faith and religion and should not be applied to politics and/or a political party's platform least the Pundits become Priests.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    18. Re:So, any loud noise will work? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      It is NOT his fault that he's a greasy pig-eyed ogre who flunked out of college

      And yet he still gets off to callers calling him "professor" on his show.

  12. Re:Pitiful. but accurate by DarthSensate · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would think G&R and Queen would be really offensive to anyone who likes metal.

  13. better representation by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative
    The summary makes it sound like the beetles were killing each other to get rid of Rush Limbaugh. Here is a more accurate quote from the article:

    He and his colleagues found that while Limbaugh and the heavy metal initially bothered the beetles, the insects mostly ignored the sounds after a while.

    The researchers next decided to record and manipulate the beetle-produced sounds. They focused on an aggression call produced by males of the "tree killer" Dendroctonus species.

    By making this call longer and louder than usual, they altered the beetles' behavior.

    Apparently if you want to alter beetle behavior, using sounds that beetles understand is more effective. Just like Rush Limbaugh is more effective at making human subjects froth at the mouth.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:better representation by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      It's not so much that I "understand" Limbaugh.
      It's that his talking is longer and louder that makes me froth at the mouth. At least it would if I listened to him.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
  14. Scientists' Opinions on Music and Politics by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1, Informative

    Right up there with Lady Gaga's perspectives on Quantum Mechanics or Keith Olberman's taste in pop music.

    Thanks, I'll pass.

    1. Re:Scientists' Opinions on Music and Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that never works out.

  15. The opposite must be true by vvaduva · · Score: 2, Funny

    This means that Obama's speeches would really encourage pests to grow and have healthy development?

    1. Re:The opposite must be true by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This means that Obama's speeches would really encourage pests to grow and have healthy development?

      Well, it's worked that way in the federal government so far.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:The opposite must be true by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Only if funded by a massive stimulus.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    3. Re:The opposite must be true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it just encourages the pests to have false hope that things will actually change in Washington.

    4. Re:The opposite must be true by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      oh snap!

  16. Hmm by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like they only tried "rush," "heavy metal," and manipulated beatle noises, and rush and heavy metal came out *below* beatle noises.

    They did not try white noise, other radio commentators (Al Franken, perhaps), other genres of music, or even other animals. Also unmentioned is whether they tried silence.

    I think a more appropriate title would be "Biologists manage to get paid for amazingly inadequate experiment, while making jabs at completely unrelated fields they really don't know much about."

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:Hmm by HiThere · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, you're right, their jab at Limbaugh was unfair. But it got them headlines. And it could also have been spun to be pro-Limbaugh.

      On the other hand, I see no reason to presume that their opinions on either music or politics are in any way less knowledgeable than yours. They may not agree with you, but that doesn't mean that they don't have reasons as valid as yours.

      E.g., to you it may be important to distinguish between Guns & Roses and Heavy Metal, but to someone primarily interested in Gamelan they may just be an example of a form of western music that they find offensive, Synechdoche is a valid form of speech & writing, even if it tends to be uncommon.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  17. G&R? Wimps! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    When I had to get family of raccoons out of my attic I played Brujeria, Melt Banana and John Zorn's Naked City for an entire night. That did the trick.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  18. Just shows by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    that scientists have no clue about music. Although, if they had used real metal, half the beetles would probably have moshed the other half to death. Which would probably have supported their conclusions. Although, it would be interesting to see what music like Megadeth, Slayer, Killswitch Engage, or the like would do to insects. Maybe contrast it to something like Tool? Now, that's an experiment I wouldn't mind doing.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Just shows by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You apparently have no clue about music as well. And I speak as a guitarist. In the 70's, Queen was Metal. In fact, it was known as Melodic Metal.

      Doesn't change the fact that 'metal' is a fusion of classical and blues styles and is thus considered 'Fusion' by all academic means.

      That's right - the term "metal" has been around since the late 60's. Ted Nugent was considered 'metal' when he finally released "Cat Scratch Fever" and of course Pantera redoing the song in pretty much the EXACT SAME FASHION showed that it was indeed fucking metal.

      Born in the 90's, were you?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Just shows by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Born in the 90's, were you?

      As a matter of fact, no, I wasnt. And it does not matter what they were classified as when they came out. No one now using the common usage for "metal" would ever classify Queen as metal. Now, you say Queen, people think classic rock. You say metal, people think of things like Slipknot, Slayer, etc. Terms change, try to keep up.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Just shows by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Terms change - academia still says you're wrong, and they're the ones that pretty much make the terms.

      All in all - METAL DOESN'T EXIST. It's called 'Fusion'

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  19. Does this mean.. by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this mean that bark beetles are Democrats?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Does this mean.. by jgtg32a · · Score: 2

      Well they are both pests and eat the Tree of Liberty.
      So yes Bark Beetles are Democrats

  20. Not necessarily the bark beetles... by G-Man · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...but the scientists obviously hate Rush Limbaugh. They could have picked anyone's voice - not a polarizing political figure. How about Gilbert Gottfried? How about low male voices like James Earl Jones versus high pitched female voices?

    How do you, Mr. 'Scientist', expect me to take your research seriously when you demonstrate that you are irrational and let your politics color your work?

    1. Re:Not necessarily the bark beetles... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I guess the notion that this demonstrates pretty clearly the scientists have a sense of humour zinged over your head like a fast-flying, um, what's the word...beetle.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:Not necessarily the bark beetles... by macintard · · Score: 0

      Why do the scientists obviously hate Limbaugh? If these beetles were instead attracted by his voice, would you somehow be offended too?

    3. Re:Not necessarily the bark beetles... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      zinged over your head like a fast-flying, um, what's the word...beetle.

      If that's your idea of a funny quip then you are forgiven for thinking these scientists have a sense of humor.

    4. Re:Not necessarily the bark beetles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their sense of humor really shows when they tell us that our falling temperatures are due to... <drumroll>... warming! Ha ha, definitely a good one, but if today's scientists are a bunch of jokers and pranksters horsing around like this, then who's doing any actual science?

  21. Black metal by WarlockSquire · · Score: 1

    When I want aggressive and loud white noise I turn to:
    Emperor, Immortal, Gorgoroth, Dimmu-Borgir etc.

    Good for coding when I'm pissed off and in a hurry...
    As a bonus, it also keeps people out of my office.

  22. Proof of no scientific method by inthealpine · · Score: 4, Informative

    The 'most annoying sound' was a biased opinion of one scientists: ""the most annoying sound" his colleague, Reagan McGuire, "could think of was Rush Limbaugh or rock music.""(from TFA) In fact the assumption of it 'working' is wrong because: "[Richard Hofstetter] and his colleagues found that while Limbaugh and the heavy metal initially bothered the beetles, the insects mostly ignored the sounds after a while."(from TFA) So what did we learn? 1. Beetles don't like loud 'stuff', but after a while they get used to it. 2. Global warming scientists don't like Rush Limbaugh 3. Science is a lost discipline, replaced by partisan political calculation. 4. Tax payers yet again fund clown-pseudo-science.

    --
    "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
    1. Re:Proof of no scientific method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Proof of no scientific method by d34dluk3 · · Score: 1

      "[Richard Hofstetter] and his colleagues.

      Please tell me this guy is related to Leonard Hofstadter!

    3. Re:Proof of no scientific method by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The 'most annoying sound' was a biased opinion of one scientists: ""the most annoying sound" his colleague, Reagan McGuire, "could think of was Rush Limbaugh or rock music.""(from TFA)

      Yep, one scientist (truck-driver-turned-research assistant, specifically) thought that certain human based sounds he found offensive might offend the beetles.

      In fact the assumption of it 'working' is wrong because: "[Richard Hofstetter] and his colleagues found that while Limbaugh and the heavy metal initially bothered the beetles, the insects mostly ignored the sounds after a while."(from TFA)

      Yep, they proved rather nicely that beetles will ignore various human based sounds. That's some good science.

      So what did we learn? 1. Beetles don't like loud 'stuff', but after a while they get used to it.

      Not quite. Beetles don't like loud 'beetle' stuff and will become very aggressive over it. Beetles will ignore loud 'human' stuff.

      2. Global warming scientists don't like Rush Limbaugh

      Funny how "one scientist" (who, btw, works at the Northern Arizona University School of Forestry lab, which sounds like it's interest in trees, not the climate) becomes "[All] global warming scientists". It'd be just as well if the same person had chosen Al Frankin or whoever they wished, really. The results would have been the same.

      3. Science is a lost discipline, replaced by partisan political calculation.

      Perhaps for you. It's funny how you're not offended at all that Reagan McGuire doesn't like Queen or Guns N' Roses. But, keep on harping on how he doesn't like Rush Limbaugh either. Clearly it's he, not you, with the political calculations.

      4. Tax payers yet again fund clown-pseudo-science.

      You well admit that their first hypothesis, that loud Queens, Guns N' Roses, and Rush Limbaugh might aggravate the beetles, was tested and proven incorrect. Hence, they falsified their hypothesis, a rather critical part of science. After, they created a new hypothesis (beetles might well hate loud beetle noise), and tested it out and found that their second hypothesis seemed correct (although it'd take more tests to verify it was the beetle sound specifically and not various other factors). Overall, it sounds like good science. And if some less polarizing celebrity had been suggested as an annoying sound (Fran Drescher's nasal voice seems like an obvious choice), I doubt you'd say a thing.

      The only way, then, I see it as clownish is that instead of choosing a different voice, to avoid any reasonably possibly contrived controversy, they allowed the Rush Limbaugh suggest to be used. I wouldn't go as far as say that lack of oversight was a conspiracy to gain publicity, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone involved well knew that the research might be used by someone in the media and hence would drive a bit more attention to their research. Of course, if people like you or me really cared about ending such clownishness, we wouldn't even be talking about the research at all.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    4. Re:Proof of no scientific method by inthealpine · · Score: 1

      Name of TFA: "Heavy-Metal Music, Other Sounds Aimed at Beetle Pests" Subtitle: "A novel approach to controlling tree-destroying beetles uses piped-in rock music and backward recordings of Rush Limbaugh." Name of TFA on slashdot: "Bark Beetles Hate Rush Limbaugh and Heavy Metal" ...NOW if you RTFA you would know that 'climate change' WAS part of the conversation: ""beetles have their place in the ecosystem too, of course, but climate change and human activities have allowed beetles to take over more than they should. To combat such infestations, scientists thought up the "nastiest, most offensive sounds" "" If you think this is science and how science should be presented, targeting political figures, then you only add to my argument about the poor state of science.

      --
      "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
    5. Re:Proof of no scientific method by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Name of TFA: "Heavy-Metal Music, Other Sounds Aimed at Beetle Pests" Subtitle: "A novel approach to controlling tree-destroying beetles uses piped-in rock music and backward recordings of Rush Limbaugh." Name of TFA on slashdot: "Bark Beetles Hate Rush Limbaugh and Heavy Metal"

      So...the media sensationalized and/or got wrong what worked. And here I thought you were complaining about science, not how science is reported...

      ...NOW if you RTFA you would know that 'climate change' WAS part of the conversation: ""beetles have their place in the ecosystem too, of course, but climate change and human activities have allowed beetles to take over more than they should. To combat such infestations, scientists thought up the "nastiest, most offensive sounds" ""

      Wow. So, if a physicist makes an off-hand comment about heavier rains due to global warming (something that research papers by "global warming scientists" predict), he's a "global warming scientist"?

      If you think this is science and how science should be presented, targeting political figures, then you only add to my argument about the poor state of science.

      Actually, I made the point that the media is obsessing over the irrelevance of the science. And so have others. But, then, that's a complaint in most part about the media.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    6. Re:Proof of no scientific method by inthealpine · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is because the entire cause for this research being 'climate change' (yeah, not just an off handed comment) it doesn't mean this is 'climate change' related science? ...what it must be like to be your brain. So in short what you are saying is it doesn't matter what the entire focus of the scientists statements and TFA was about; what matters is we must assume this is top notch science because it's science and all other evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.

      --
      "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
    7. Re:Proof of no scientific method by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is because the entire cause for this research being 'climate change' (yeah, not just an off handed comment) it doesn't mean this is 'climate change' related science?

      Yes, it's "climate changed related", just as the physicist with the research that had to deal with climate changed related higher rainwaters would be climate changed related. That doesn't make the person a "climate change scientist" nor his opinion that of all climate change scientists. Now, it's likely he believes in climate change, but then most scientists do.

      So in short what you are saying is it doesn't matter what the entire focus of the scientists statements and TFA was about;

      Let's see. One scientist mentioned that one of the things he finds annoying is Rush Limbaugh's voice and included it as part of a test of beetle annoying sounds. TFA focuses on it, even going as far as to create a false headline. You focus on just the Rush Limbaugh part of his experiment, apparently not upset at all that a scientist would dare voice his annoyance of Guns N' Roses. I note that it was clownish to use Rush Limbaugh mostly because it created some undeserved publicity, but that clearly you and I arguing over (and focusing on) the issue would make us either hypocrites or really that we just don't really care that much over it being clownish.

      what matters is we must assume this is top notch science because it's science and all other evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.

      This is not "top notch science". Most science is not "top notch science". Like most things, it was rather mundane. Was it important? Maybe. Was it a waste of money? Possibly. But, then, that'll be rather hard to gauge for quite some time. It's not like you can slap a dollar value on most research with some knowledge of how much that information can be turned into applicable technology; and the little that goes that way is almost invariably built upon a mountain of mundane research like this.

      It sounds like the beetle is a pest, but I don't know how viable a sound system deterrent would actually be. And developing it for other species might not work. On the other hand, this knowledge might work in another way. Specifically, it sounds like the beetles attack each other thinking that each other beetle is threatening them. If that is the case, perhaps there are other ways to stimulate the same behavior that is cost effective.

      Once you get past the sensationalizing media and start to understand what the scientists were trying to say, you can actually possibly learn something. If nothing else, that's the reason I read the article anyways. Why did you?

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  23. if they want to kill beatles with bad music... by Moheeheeko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...go play them some ICP, that stuff makes me want to kill MYSELF.

    1. Re:if they want to kill beatles with bad music... by IMightB · · Score: 1

      This. I met Crazy J or whatever at a promo for a local Radio Station back in the 90's when I was in college. What a egotistical, misogynistic, Grade A, A-hole.

  24. why not just hire limbaugh by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Troll

    to blow his cigar smoke into the beetle's bore holes?

    tobacco basically invented nicotine to kill insects, so rush, with his volumes of hot air, seems like a perfect delivery vehicle

    as a bonus, we hasten limbaugh's death via lung cancer

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  25. I'm a BARK BEETLE! by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

    It now explains EVERYTHING!

    Including being named Gregor Samsa.

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  26. AGW by Singularity42 · · Score: 1

    Before listening to anyone on this, ask if they are creationist. If they are, ignore them.

    1. Re:AGW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best way to solve the bark beetle problem is to let the natural fires burn the underbrush. Ask the rangers at Tetons what happened in a 1981 wind storm, No trees, bark beetles weakened the trees and poof, over they went.

      Oh, Singularity42, what happened before the Big Bang? Who made the rules?

    2. Re:AGW by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Before listening to anyone on this, ask if they are creationist. If they are, ignore them.

      Because creationists are inherently hostile to the planet and science? Or because they're inherently hostile to other religions such as AGW?
      Judeo-Christian creationists believe that humankind has been granted stewardship of Earth, and that it's supposed to be kept in good shape. If they believe that man can alter the environment, they'll be on the AGW side. If they believe that man can't alter the environment, they'll be on the anti-AGW side. Seems like belief in old Earth versus new Earth is irrelevant to belief in AGW.

    3. Re:AGW by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Because creationists are inherently hostile to the planet and science?

      As creationism generally denies and suppresses any scientific evidence against creationism, the answer to your first question is "yes".

      Judeo-Christian creationists believe that humankind has been granted stewardship of Earth, and that it's supposed to be kept in good shape.

      No, Judeo-Christian creationists believe the world was created by an invisible man in the sky exactly as it is now. Many of them believe that the alleged creation happened about 6,000 years ago regardless of the fact that Earth is over 4 billion years old and that human civilization is over 10,000 years old.

      If one's core beliefs fly in the face of science, then one is inherently hostile to science.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    4. Re:AGW by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Oh, AC, what happened before the god you imply exists? Who made him? Who gave him the power to make the rules?

      It's a stupid argument and has no answers, so most rational people don't bother with it and instead focus on what we *can* know.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    5. Re:AGW by Draconius42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, far more creationists (Who usually don't even think to call themselves that) believe that God set the universe into motion and designed everything by the rules of science to work out in such a way that man would arise. I've never understood why people believe that intelligent design (lower case) and Evolution can't both be true..

    6. Re:AGW by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      I think you need to look up the definition of "creationist" and intelligent design.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  27. Mating by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    "We found we could disrupt mating, tunneling and reproduction," Hofstetter said. "We could even make the beetles turn on each other, which normally they would not do."

    I wonder if this works on Democrats as well as it does on bark beetles. Maybe this is the real reason why they hate Rush Limbaugh so much. Keep it up Rush, we may have found a way to handle the population explosion!

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Mating by maxume · · Score: 1

      100 million North Americans would not have any meaningful impact on the population explosion.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  28. What. The. Fuck? by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

    "They decided to fight the beetles by using the 'nastiest, most offensive sounds' that they could think of. These sounds included recordings of Guns & Roses, Queen, Rush Limbaugh"

    Someone please introduce these guys to crunk for some really shitty noise (i refuse to call it music), hell, let them experience the high quality sounds of this:
    The Greatest band in the world, Brokencyde!

  29. Re:Pitiful. but accurate by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

    I'm not offended by G&R or Queen, i actually like both bands, but yea, they're not metal. Not in a long shot.

  30. Maybe this works both ways by byrdfl3w · · Score: 1

    Rush: Ok caller, you're on the air..

    Caller: [puts phone next to stereo and blasts rush with "Eleanor Rigby"]

    Rush: RAWWRRRRRRGH! [crash][bang][stab]

  31. There was no Metal by cstec · · Score: 1

    None of the bands listed were Heavy Metal. Slayer is Metal. Nothing's more annoying than hearing some clueless civilian call a band like Queen "Metal"?

  32. What a tragic story by copponex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Too bad. They all worked really hard in a meat packing plant, but got infections under their fingernails from the poor working conditions. After they couldn't continue working, they were fired and thrown off of the company PPO on a technicality. They went to a hospital for treatment, and walked out a month later with $250,000 in medical bills. This destroyed their credit, so they were unable to get a decent apartment in a safe neighborhood. After struggling for years to get ahead, the beetles wondered... could they have stayed on and helped to try and advance the cause of science?

    Or was it better to follow the advice of a narrow-minded, bigoted, meritless, and anti-human demagogue simply because he had a microphone. They realized that he was right all along. Societal progress can only be accomplished by performing some menial task for someone else. Everything else is just a waste of time.

    1. Re:What a tragic story by Rei · · Score: 0, Troll

      The difference is liberty. And I choose liberty.

      Yeah. Last I heard, this is America! If you lived in Communist China, you wouldn't have the freedom to criticize like you're doing now! If it wasn't for our troops fighting for the freedoms you cherish, you'd be speaking German right now!

      (Yep -- I can spout vacuous jingoistic aphorisms as well!)

      Or was it better to follow the advice of a narrow-minded, bigoted, meritless, and anti-human demagogue simply because he was a fellow Socialist?

      Let me guess: he's also not being non-partisan enough. ;)

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    2. Re:What a tragic story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it would be Russian, because Russia were beating the shit out of the Germans on the East Front. If just your schools were better then we didn't have to listen to people like Rush.

    3. Re:What a tragic story by Rewind · · Score: 1

      Hey fuckstick! In Capitalism, man exploits man. In Communism, it's the exact opposite.

      What?

      --
      ?
    4. Re:What a tragic story by copponex · · Score: 1

      they were jailed for being anti-social by the factory political minder. They went to a hospital for treatment, and walked out a month later with tuberculosis. This destroyed their ability to work further, so they were unable to get a decent apartment assigned by the local Party housing authority. After struggling for years for the collective, the beetles wondered... if I speak out will I be sent to Siberia or run over by a tank?

      Amazing. I had no idea socialist democracies like France or the UK or any other large economy in Europe had suddenly turned into Stalinist Russia.

      Hey fuckstick! In Capitalism, man exploits man. In Communism, it's the exact opposite. The difference is liberty. And I choose liberty. You want to be taken care of by your benevolent dictator?

      Damn! I can't believe there are only two systems of government that have ever been imagined! I've been misled!

      You and Noam wouldn't be missed.

      But then who will you use as an enemy image to propagandize against?

    5. Re:What a tragic story by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's simple. In Capitalism, man exploits man. In Communism, it's the exact opposite.

      You see, the exact opposite of man exploits man, is man exploits man.

      You see?

    6. Re:What a tragic story by copponex · · Score: 1

      It's a "truism." Much as in Animal Farm, the party leaders are "more equal" than the rest. It's an anti-political sentiment, trying to snidely imply that there is no "good" government, which is somewhat true.

      I'd amend the statement to say: "In capitalist societies, man exploits man. In communist societies, it's the other way around. In social democracies, the benefits of sharing resources are balanced with individual freedoms and market competitiveness, but this would require some nuanced approaches to the way you view the world, so please continue living by simplistic aphorisms so you aren't forced to consider making informed decisions."

    7. Re:What a tragic story by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      You see, the exact opposite of man exploits man, is man exploits man.

      Actually no it isn't. The exact opposite of "man exploits man" is "man helps man." The saying ends up conveying the opposite meaning of what it intended.

      It should more accurately read: "In Capitalism, man exploits man. In Communism, it's the other way around."
      That conveys the intended meaning, whereas the first saying is easily misinterpreted.

    8. Re:What a tragic story by copponex · · Score: 1

      The problem with putting all the socialists in one country is they don't have enough to share...they eventually run out of other people's money

      Hi. I'm the nuance and complexity of reality. Have we met?

      Or are you affiliated only with the maxims of old women who are "greatly saddened" when murderous dictators meet their maker?

      You're the least entertaining single trick troll I've encountered. But now I have a new blog to read, besting Glenn Beck in the "miserably uninformed" category. My favorite quote of yours - gleefully not even a page deep - is:

      Imagine how demeaning it must be to be Obama's secret service detail.
      I'd rather be a dung beetle. They work with a much higher class of material.

      Oh, Fate! Your will has articulated this conversation into the most insufferable arc...

    9. Re:What a tragic story by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I cannot take credit for the musings on that blog.

    10. Re:What a tragic story by PagosaSam · · Score: 1
      "In Capitalism, man exploits man."

      What a twisted view of Capitalism. How about a quote from Mr. Wayne...

      Devlin Warren: I dont know what to say. Never begged before. Turned my stomach. I suppose I should have been grateful that you gave me the job.

      George Washington McLintock: Gave? Boy, youve got it all wrong. I dont give jobs I hire men.

      Drago: You intend to give this man a full days work, dontcha boy?

      Devlin Warren: You mean youre still hirin me? Well, yes, sir, I certainly deliver a fair days work.

      George Washington McLintock: And for that Ill pay you a fair days wage. You wont give me anything and I wont give you anything. We both hold up our heads. Is that your plug?

      Devlin Warren: Yes sir.

      --
      :q! Oh crap, not again...
    11. Re:What a tragic story by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 1

      It's not really necessary to sincerely make corrections to obvious jokes.

    12. Re:What a tragic story by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      It's not really necessary to sincerely make corrections to obvious jokes.

      I wasn't the one who turned the conversation serious again. ;-) Usually I'm the one blamed for inserting humor into serious situations.

  33. Oh God by santax · · Score: 1

    Those poor little creatures will blow their brains out when confronted with half the music produced in the 90's.

    1. Re:Oh God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know any music was produced since then? Was there (I mean anything good)?

  34. junk science by Jodka · · Score: 1

    The study authors compared the response of insect pests to playing Rush Limbaugh to their response to playing nothing at them. Readers are going to concluded from this that insect pests are, like liberals, aggravated by conservative speech. Yet it's a bogus conclusion on the basis of that evidence. The correct experiment to perform to divine the political feelings of insect pests would be one which measured the differential response of insects to Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken.

    But seriously. If you wanted to study the response of insects to sound then choose sounds for your stimulus set with which vary by known quantities along physical dimensions such as amplitude and frequency. Or use an ecological approach and choose sounds from the insect's natural environment, such as those generated by prey and predators. The choice of stimulus set in the experiment was pretty retarded. Of course it was chosen to be humorous to liberals. Humor in science can be great. But not one-sided political humor which compromises the integrity of the science.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:junk science by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      Um, you not read the whole article? The music and Limbaugh didn't have long term effects; however, when they used angry beetle sounds they could cause the beetles to attack one another. They did exactly what you wanted. The music Limbaugh focus is the story hook to get readers. The science is there.

    2. Re:junk science by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      If part of the selection criteria was "attract readers/attention", then the protocols of the experiment are junk, and thus the science is junk.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  35. Attention seeking ho by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Queen and Guns&Roses are considered heavy metal now? And this is "science" is it?

    that "the most annoying sound" his colleague, Reagan McGuire, "could think of was Rush Limbaugh or rock music."

    Pfft. Clearly an Abba fan. Or he sits around with his nose in the air as he listens to his collection of "thinking man's music" on reel to reel tape or his $2500 oil balanced, laser tracked turntable.

    The Hercules beetle video *was* cool, though.

  36. Well, at least... by robinstar1574 · · Score: 0

    At least my moms not the only idiot who hates rush limbaugh

  37. That works out quite well by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    See, in many places where there is a bark beetle problem, the population is pretty conservative so listening to Rush is a pleasure; win-win.

  38. Re:Pitiful. but accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not really true either...

  39. Dung Beetles by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Bark Beetles don't like Rush Libaugh but Dung Beetles eat the stuff up.

  40. Ha ha, nice flamebait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More realistically, it appears that Limbaugh and the heavy metal music didn’t have much of an effect, other than being unusual at first and causing some disturbance until the beetles got used to the noise:

    He and his colleagues found that while Limbaugh and the heavy metal initially bothered the beetles, the insects mostly ignored the sounds after a while.

    The researchers next decided to record and manipulate the beetle-produced sounds. They focused on an aggression call produced by males of the "tree killer" Dendroctonus species.

    By making this call longer and louder than usual, they altered the beetles' behavior.

    "We found we could disrupt mating, tunneling and reproduction," Hofstetter said. "We could even make the beetles turn on each other, which normally they would not do."

    This was particularly graphic when the researchers played the manipulated sounds right as a male and female beetle were about to mate.

    Hofstetter said his team would "watch in horror as the male beetle would tear the female apart."

    ...holy shit, did I just read what I think I just read?

    Somebody get 4chan on the line, they’re going to love this...

  41. Evidence of lack of your understanding of science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To base a "conclusion" that science is a lost discipline on one study is ridiculous. That said, the experimental design of this is fine. They provided four different treatments to test the effect of "dynamic music" (FTA - and this counts at two treatments), loud conversation, and natural cues the insects would understand. The utilized their educated opinion (based on personal experience) to come up with their hypothesis and to design their test treatments, and had a control that was subjected to no noise. They observed the behavior and came to the conclusion that beetle's response is selective to known cues, as opposed to just noise (which could be new information, or simply add to a body of evidence that already exists - which is a primary mechanism in the scientific method). Next up, they plan on refining their experiment by focusing on ultra-sonic noise as a treatment for infestation as opposed to simply loud noise.

    If you're complaining that their hypothesis and treatments had bias, well that's always the case: both of these are based on prior experience and knowledge, which is inherently biased. The method was not biased and proper controls were in-place. I'm sure they could have exposed it to very loud recordings of Keith Olberman to similar effect. Again, slashdotters provide more evidence that they know little of actual scientific method. Go back to your virtually useless sys-admining and keep your nose out of things you don't understand.

  42. Re:Obama wants warrantless wiretapping of cellphon by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    2 years ago KDawson would've had 4 articles on the front page about this... Now? More AGW-esque science about how they've "proven" that even bugs are irritated by Rush Limbaugh...

    And the Obama article? >cricketcricket

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html

    Don't worry, Mr. Anonymous, Timothy posted it, and it seems to be getting more traffic.
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/02/11/1822225

  43. Rush Limbaugh? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do I need to point out that Rush is "annoying" for the actual words he says and not the sound he actually makes? This experiment is completely absurd, unless they engineered beetles capable of understanding English (or politics).

    Now, that would have been impressive.

  44. Re:And they didn't try other politicians? by spun · · Score: 1

    Look down a bit further. I got modded troll for insulting Republicans, too. I'm an equal opportunity asshole.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  45. More Lib waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel like my IQ dropped just from having to see this asinine post.

  46. even cause the liberals to kill each other by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    That was his plan all along.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  47. Re:And they didn't try other politicians? by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

    How is this political trolling? Making fun or Rush Limbaugh? He is not a politician. Or are you the troll? I noticed you kindly included the word 'fag' did you imply that mod-points are like piles of sticks? Or did you carelessly use homophobic slurs because you are afraid of what the rest of the world thinks?

  48. Re:Pitiful. but accurate by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "they're not metal."

    LMFAO. I smell someone born in the 90s.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  49. Re:And they didn't try other politicians? by Kreigaffe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    best part is i read about this two days ago, and the ACTUAL truth is that neither rush limbaugh or heavy metal were very effective; it was only when the researchers started using sounds that, you know, MADE SENSE, that it became effective. They blasted the sounds the beetles themselves make when they are agitated and aggressive.

    Yeah, the researchers are the assholes here, because when they wanted to blast loud and offensive sounds the first things they thought of were heavy metal and rush limbaugh. what a bunch of assholes, more concerned about denigrating things they don't like and scoring snark points than doing actual thinking about what might be most offensive to beetles.

    --
    ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  50. elp, elp, Im being oppressed! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    It's no surprise that Republicans are so oppressed.

    The republicans aren't oppressed, they are just disliked because they are hypocritical dickheads. They are about the most pampered pack of 'victims' I have ever seen.

    I con only imagine how they would whine and carry on if they actually were oppressed...

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  51. Re:Pitiful. but accurate by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

    You need to fix your nose, 70's kid here.

  52. Hate, no, no, by Icegryphon · · Score: 1

    They are Scared and jealous of the manliness.

  53. beatles + crappy rap music... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...go play them some ICP, that stuff makes me want to kill MYSELF.

    Hearing ICP makes me want to kill ICP. If we were to assume that hearing ICP makes you want to kill ICP, then based off of your statement, I have to conclude that you are a member of ICP and kill you.

  54. Politics and science do not mix by snmpkid · · Score: 1

    Obviously the "Scientists" wanted to get into the news with their little science lab project which had not much science involved with it.

    Now these are the clowns getting money for research rather than manned spaceflight and the ignorant left are following right along because it is the era of Jon Stewart political thought. Make people laugh, ridicule the other side and they wont notice that our liberties are more in danger from the left than when the right was in charge. At least when the republicans were running things we had a news media that would take them to task for the decisions they made.

    Instead of asking the present administration why they advocate warrantless location finding with gps enabled phones the cronies in the press are asking the administration what they think about some ignorant woman writing notes on her palm or why the president took 3 months longer deliberating on what kind of dog than his decision to provide more corporate welfare than any president before him.

    Slashdotters should think more critically than this

  55. Re:Pitiful. but accurate by rcuhljr · · Score: 1

    Yeah I thought this article was going to be about actual heavy metal.

  56. P2P insecticide by mangu · · Score: 1

    compare them with this swedish band (famous enough to have fans in south america).

    Thanks for the tip. Now go get the complete discography, and rescue your trees from the bark beetles!

  57. Re:Pitiful. but accurate by Drey · · Score: 1

    Like arsenic and cadmium?

  58. Apologiize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well he could acknowledge the lack of morality of asking his housekeeper to score more drugs for him vs asking his doctor.

    1. Re:Apologiize? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Anybody know what happened to his housekeeper? Hope she didn't go to jail for the old gas bag.

  59. African-Americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol. Yeah, no true black person is a republican. they are *really* white. you know the kind i'm talkin about. ashamed of they skin. actin all uppity.
     
    besides, basically every GOP convention i've been to was quickly "followed" by a kkk meeting...coincidence? don't let 'em pull that abe lincoln crap either.

  60. Nearly half the population believes in creation by Quila · · Score: 1

    I mean literally, humans were put on this Earth by God in present form less than 10,000 years ago.

    "58% actually view them as obstructionists"

    I wonder what the percentage was back when Bush was president and the Democrats were blocking every nominee he had, especially Eric Estrada (and they were blocking him for reasons of racial pandering, not even over a real issue!).

    1. Re:Nearly half the population believes in creation by Rei · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the percentage was back when Bush was president

      I don't know the final tally, but as of 2005 during the "nuclear option" threat, the Democrats had confirmed 208 of Bush's judicial nominees and filibustered 10.

      especially Eric Estrada

      The guy from CHiPs and Sealab 2021?

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
  61. Paul listens Rush Limbaugh, ... by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    kills Ringo. More news at 11.

  62. Nastiest sounds? hah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guns and Roses? Maybe a few beetle deaths.

    One Hate Eternal album however, would level the entire colony.

  63. Re:Pitiful. but accurate by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

    Only on slashdot . . .

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  64. So...Liberal democrats are bark beetles? by tiqui · · Score: 1

    Overtly-political pseudo-scientific claptrap "science" deserves overtly-political pseudo-analytical claptrap "analysis".

  65. Re:And they didn't try other politicians? by Boronx · · Score: 1

    I don't care what your politics are, but Rush Limbaugh is a zit upon the ass of American culture any way you look at it.

  66. Re:Evidence of lack of your understanding of scien by inthealpine · · Score: 1

    Tell me why the failed tests, meaning Limbaugh sound tests, was the major focus of TFA and the TFA on slashdot? 2/3 of the article describes in detail how Limbaugh testing worked, then 1/3 on what actually worked.

    --
    "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
  67. Ha ha hah by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

    Tee hee. Silly scientists. Limbaugh is annoying. A thousand laughs. How original! Cutting edge! How.... EDGY!

    Did they do a double blind study including Al Franken?

    No? Didn't think so.

    --
    Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
  68. Re:And they didn't try other politicians? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    If he was the zit on his ass that kept him from being drafted he'd be recursive.

  69. Re:And they didn't try other politicians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what a bunch of assholes, more concerned about denigrating things they don't like and scoring snark points than doing actual thinking

    Sounds like scientists in general today.

  70. Beetle Snuff by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

    The researchers next decided to record and manipulate the beetle-produced sounds. They focused on an aggression call produced by males of the "tree killer" Dendroctonus species.

    ...

    This was particularly graphic when the researchers played the manipulated sounds right as a male and female beetle were about to mate.

    Hofstetter said his team would "watch in horror as the male beetle would tear the female apart."

    Beetle stuff!!! How long before the scientists have NOW banging down their door? Maybe they can play some of those altered Rush Limbaugh tapes. NOW activists + high volume Limbaugh shows. Imagine the carnage!

    --
    "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."