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."

32 of 220 comments (clear)

  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 BobNET · · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

      Tell that to a tuba player, wussy

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

      You called?

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
  2. 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!

  3. +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 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
    3. 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!
    4. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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 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.

    3. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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?

  10. 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?!
  11. 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

  12. 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?

  13. 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 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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 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?

  16. 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!
  17. 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. :|
  18. 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.