Slashdot Mirror


Directed Energy Weapon Downs Mosquitos

wisebabo writes "Nathan Myhrvol demonstrated at TED a laser, built from parts scrounged from eBay, capable of shooting down not one but 50 to 100 mosquitos a second. The system is 'so precise that it can specify the species, and even the gender, of the mosquito being targeted.' Currently, for the sake of efficiency, it leaves the males alone because only females are bloodsuckers. Best of all the system could cost as little as $50. Maybe that's too expensive for use in preventing malaria in Africa but I'd buy one in a second!" We ran a story about this last year. It looks like the company has added a bit more polish, and burning mosquito footage to their marketing.

428 comments

  1. Nice by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, to hell with the green movement... get me another 250 amp breaker box to my house! It's go time, you little bastards. I'm going to put some energy executive's nephew through college!

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Nice by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

      P.S. this is the only sexist technology that I fully endorse. Just want that clear.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Nice by _LMark · · Score: 5, Informative

      First: What's more impressive than the lasers that fry* the mosquitoes is the targeting and detection system that drives this crazy thing. Many people are looking at this and wondering how you pick out your targets. The system first scans the surrounding space and *listens*. What it is listening for is quite interesting. See, Malaria is an interesting disease because only specific mosquitoes carry it, and only the females. Since there could be many side effects to zapping any insects within range, or even any mosquitoes (regardless of species or gender), the laser targeting system listens for the precise wingbeat frequency of the female Anopheles Stephensi mosquito and then zaps only those.

      *Technically speaking, the mosquitoes will not be fried in the final product. In addition to potential danger to other occupants of this system's effective bubble, it is planned for deployment to very poor areas of the world where electricity will likely be at a premium. As a result, they are also experimenting with the minimum amount of energy a laser strike must possess to render the mosquito infertile, because that interrupts the cycle necessary for Malaria transmission between humans.


      Cheers,
      Makr

      --
      'the Internet is right.'
    3. Re:Nice by IndigoDarkwolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      As a Minnesotan, I approve of this device.

    4. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mosquitoes not fried? That ruins the entire concept for me. I want to kill the little bitches. It's war baby!

    5. Re:Nice by spun · · Score: 1

      As a Minnesotan, you're going to need a bigger version. From what I gather, Minnesota has mosquitoes the size of Buicks.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:Nice by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're not that big. Not literally. Now DC...DC has mosquitoes the size of people, dressed up as people!

    7. Re:Nice by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right. Put rows of these things on K-Street. Take care of those human dressing roaches and leeches too.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    8. Re:Nice by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      "...must possess to render the mosquito infertile"

      I had read that it was supposed to blind them, not sterilize them.

    9. Re:Nice by dan828 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I believe that there is a law about interfering with them, especially if on their way to a vote.

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

      ...they are also experimenting with the minimum amount of energy a laser strike must possess to render the mosquito infertile

      But won't wounding the mosquito only increase the danger?

    11. Re:Nice by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The trouble with rendering them infertile is that the already-fertile females who are out looking for their meal of blood aren't going to realize they've been stealth-spayed, and are going to bite anyway. Seems wiser to keep the thing set to kill.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    12. Re:Nice by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Heh. Reminds me of this joke.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    13. Re:Nice by ciantic · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...to render the mosquito infertile, because that interrupts the cycle necessary for Malaria transmission between humans.

      You do realize that in order to accomplish this they now have to detect the fertility of flying mosquito, to prevent it from re-shooting the mosquitoes already made infertile. That does sound a bit tougher task than eliminating them all together.

    14. Re:Nice by ppanon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, that's a good point, but the counterpoint is that the spayed female mosquito is going to keep attracting males and may keep those males busy enough that, given the short reproductive lifetimes, they miss the chance at fertilizing the eggs of a fertile female. If you sterilize 90% of the females, that may cause the same effect as if you killed 98% of them (similar to a vaccination herd effect). So, not so good to protect you locally but better in the long run. If you have to place the devices where humans can't be because they could accidentally cause blindness, then they're not very useful for direct protection but more useful for limiting reproduction.

      That said, I think somebody else put their finger on how it will fail - selection pressure will change the common beat frequency for the female anopheles mosquito. It's probably related to size, and this will therefore select for a different size of female by letting them survive. Hopefully a production version of this thing can take a firmware upgrade that changes the targeted frequency range.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    15. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are also experimenting with the minimum amount of energy a laser strike must possess to render the mosquito infertile

      I do wonder - by not rendering them flightless or killing them, will the system end up using more power tracking additional targets and re-zapping previously hit insects then it would otherwise?

    16. Re:Nice by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      I gave blood in North Dakota. Their mosquitoes are at least 6x the size of the ones here in Texas.

    17. Re:Nice by MurphyZero · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much when you have to interfere, to protect your wallet.

      --
      Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
    18. Re:Nice by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Is it true that your mosquitoes circle overhead for a while, and then try to peck your eyes out, before sucking blood?

    19. Re:Nice by IndigoDarkwolf · · Score: 1

      Only the adults. The children they carry off into the wilderness. We find the piles of drained, shriveled corpses every so often. It's how we know where to employ the napalm.

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

      At $50/unit, I wonder how long it would take Mosquito species to become endangered in North America and Europe. If, whenever you've got an outdoor event you've got several of these things at the perimeter, I imagine it might not take that long.

      At the very least, we should prefer these to seasonal spraying to keep the mosquitoes populations down.

    21. Re:Nice by mixmasta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hallelujah!

      It's a shame it only seems to burn their wings off, I was hoping for complete flaming annihilation.

      --
      #6495ED - cornflower blue
    22. Re:Nice by jimmydigital · · Score: 1

      I think I speak for everyone when I quote Homer... Less yappin' more zappin' !

      --
      Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -HLM
    23. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about vibrators?

    24. Re:Nice by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      >As a result, they are also experimenting with the minimum amount of energy a laser strike must possess to render the mosquito infertile

      That sounds really bad.

      1. A mosquito in the room has malaria.
      2. Laser renders it infertile.
      3. ?
      4. You get malaria.

    25. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is the only sexist technology that I fully endorse. Just want that clear

      oh STFU!!!!11111

    26. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First: What's more impressive than the lasers that fry* the mosquitoes is the targeting and detection system that drives this crazy thing. Many people are looking at this and wondering how you pick out your targets. The system first scans the surrounding space and *listens*. What it is listening for is quite interesting. See, Malaria is an interesting disease because only specific mosquitoes carry it, and only the females. Since there could be many side effects to zapping any insects within range, or even any mosquitoes (regardless of species or gender), the laser targeting system listens for the precise wingbeat frequency of the female Anopheles Stephensi mosquito and then zaps only those.

      *Technically speaking, the mosquitoes will not be fried in the final product. In addition to potential danger to other occupants of this system's effective bubble, it is planned for deployment to very poor areas of the world where electricity will likely be at a premium. As a result, they are also experimenting with the minimum amount of energy a laser strike must possess to render the mosquito infertile, because that interrupts the cycle necessary for Malaria transmission between humans.

      Cheers,

      Makr

      Fry them all and let God sort them out I am more concerned about dengue then malaria.

    27. Re:Nice by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A good counter point. I would argue, however, that it may not be desirable to kill all the mosquitos by destroying their reproduction cycle. Annoying as they are, mosquitos are a pretty important part of the food chain for a lot of larger insects, birds, and bats. Driving a species to extinction doesn't seem to be the wisest course of action. And if someone argues that it won't drive them anywhere close to extinction then I would argue that it won't do much good anyway unless it has immediate-kill capabilities.

      However, staking out an area where humans are (a patio, or a campsite, for instance) and staking 4 devices set to kill at each of the corners, set so that the arc that encounters the staked out area is a deadzone for laser activation, would ensure that mosquitos getting too close to the area would be killed, without wide-ranging effects on the species in general. You'd need to be able to have the devices talk to each other, so that they could triangulate each other's position and auto-calculate "inside the box" vs "outside the box," but that shouldn't be too difficult.

      I do agree with you about the firmware upgrade being a necessity. Might also be fun to give it bluetooth so that you can log in to the device via a laptop/smart phone and set it to take out various types of bugs. If, for instance, you live in an area where mosquitos aren't a big problem, but biting flies are, it'd be cool to be able to instruct the device to target those.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    28. Re:Nice by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Hey, burning the wings off means that they die slowly of dehydration on the ground, rather than more or less instantly as their nervous system is fried.

      Since mosquitoes are bastards, this strikes me as a feature, not a bug(so to speak).

    29. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rendering the mosquito infertile won't have an impact on their ability to infect humans with malaria. There is little to no vertical transmission of malaria (from mother to offspring). Instead, malaria's life cycle depends upon a two host system. It is injected into humans as a worm-like sporozoite, and goes through three distinct stages of development in the human host to become male and female gametes. These are taken up by the next mosquito to take a blood meal. The gametes combine in the mosquito to become the next generation of sporozoites. Now if you could specifically disrupt the salivary glands in the mosquito, then you stop the cycle without directly killing the bug.

    30. Re:Nice by thickdiick · · Score: 1

      Kill all the mosquitoes. They serve no useful purpose. It's one set of species i would gladly eradicate. Anything that depends on them as a food source can easily use other bugs in lieu of mosquitoes.

  2. Uh oh by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Funny

    Woe be to the man who walks past wearing his fishing vest.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  3. "Burning Mosquito Footage?" YES. by smpoole7 · · Score: 3, Funny

    And NOTHING ... I repeat, NOTHING ... is better than burning mosquito footage.

    --
    Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    1. Re:"Burning Mosquito Footage?" YES. by emt377 · · Score: 1

      I would rank it second to the smell of burnt mosquito, especially when it's the ONE bugger that's keeping me awake at 3am...

    2. Re:"Burning Mosquito Footage?" YES. by GiveBenADollar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I for one support the overthrow of our mosquito overlords.

    3. Re:"Burning Mosquito Footage?" YES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do I, down with the blood su--%^%*>?$"%£$@@@NO CARRIER

    4. Re:"Burning Mosquito Footage?" YES. by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would rank it second to the smell of burnt mosquito, especially when it's the ONE bugger that's keeping me awake at 3am...

      I love the smell of burning mosquito in the morning. Smells like... victory.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    5. Re:"Burning Mosquito Footage?" YES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @"burning mosquito in the morning."

      Until the burning mosquito lands on some paper in your house or anything else that burns easily. Then its goodbye house. :)

    6. Re:"Burning Mosquito Footage?" YES. by treeves · · Score: 1

      and for another funny mosquito quote:

      [with a soft voice, in a British accent]
      "The wings of a fully-grown make mosquito can fetch anything up to 0.8 of a penny"

      This device sounds more cost-effective than the hand grenades and elephant guns the Pythons were using on mosquitoes. And less collateral damage.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  4. Pardon my skepticism by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 0

    Finding, focusing on, and tracking a mosquito (in 3 dimensions!) would be an astonishing accomplishment. Forgive me if I'm skeptical.

    1. Re:Pardon my skepticism by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Informative

      The laser describes a perfectly straight line; no windage is needed. You therefore do not need to track the mosquito in three dimensions, but only two--no fine determination of range is required.

    2. Re:Pardon my skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking IDIOT, they have VIDEO. OK?

    3. Re:Pardon my skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we can shoot down missiles from hundreds of miles away, we can track and shoot down a mosquito a few meters away. (Like how I mixed unit systems? Nah, me niether)

    4. Re:Pardon my skepticism by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Well, why doesn't DARPA fund this then so they could at least gain more knowledge into shooting down things like missiles with fricken laser beams?

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:Pardon my skepticism by Doctor+Morbius · · Score: 1

      Go back to geometry class. You only need to know the azimuth and altitude of the mosquitoes location. You don't need to know the distance. The laser beam will hit it if aimed properly.

      --
      If I disagree with you it's because you are wrong.
    6. Re:Pardon my skepticism by MasterPatricko · · Score: 1

      Well, why doesn't DARPA fund this then so they could at least gain more knowledge into shooting down things like missiles with fricken laser beams?

      Because missiles don't buzz at a characteristic frequency?
      And because its a bit too late to leave shooting down a missile till its a few meters away?

      --
      I'd tell a UDP joke, but you may not get it. I'd tell a TCP joke, but I'd have to keep repeating it until you got it.
    7. Re:Pardon my skepticism by ae1294 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, why doesn't DARPA fund this then

      Because it already exists and works?

    8. Re:Pardon my skepticism by bami · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Only if the laser and the targeting sensor are on the same position. Otherwise, the farther you go, the more inaccurate it will be.

    9. Re:Pardon my skepticism by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      They use a camera with an optical zoom lens to locate targets in 3D space.

    10. Re:Pardon my skepticism by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      If it does exist then when can I buy one? If it does exist where's an example or pics of the $50 of technology from E-Bay?

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    11. Re:Pardon my skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How smart. And to know the azimuth you need...?

    12. Re:Pardon my skepticism by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ha, you young Whippersnapper! Back when I was a boy, we used to track 'em in 11 dimensions. 11! And 8 of those dimensions were *dang* small. And if we missed a dimension, our pappy would throw us through a hole in it so we'd have to squeeze back into the outhouse in the 5th dimension. You kids have it sooo EASY!

      Now, get off my lawn!

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    13. Re:Pardon my skepticism by Punto · · Score: 1

      It'd be nice if they could determine the distance and somehow manipulate the cycles of the laser to only burn at that specific distance, so it doesn't endanger other targets in the laser's line of sight (such as my balls).

      --

      --
      Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    14. Re:Pardon my skepticism by IICV · · Score: 1

      Further, you don't even need some sort of awesome-sauce optics to track and recognize the mosquitos - you just need to listen for them. They're loud little assholes. And listening to their sounds gives you angle, elevation, species and gender, which is all the data you need to decide to shoot one down.

      Of course, all this will lead to in the long run is silent ninja mosquitos. We'll burn that bridge when we come to it too.

    15. Re:Pardon my skepticism by jamesh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It'd be nice if they could determine the distance and somehow manipulate the cycles of the laser to only burn at that specific distance

      Two slightly lower powered lasers might be able to do this, powered such that two of them need to hit the target to impart enough energy to fry it. Spaced slightly apart on the device they could intersect at the precise point of the mosquito, creating a much smaller 'kill' area instead of a long beam. We're talking about a much more complicated device though.

      (such as my balls)

      Assuming they are in your pants, they are probably quite safe. It's your eyeballs you should be really worried about.

    16. Re:Pardon my skepticism by jamesh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who modded this 'Troll'???

      Unless the detector is sitting right in line with the laser (or mirror), in which case it would get fried, there is going to be a difference between the angle that the detector determines the target is at and the angle required to shoot at the target from a slightly different starting point. And to determine that angle you need to know how far away it is.

      Mosquito's are really tiny... i'm actually amazed they can hit them at all!

    17. Re:Pardon my skepticism by chaim79 · · Score: 1

      It actually goes both ways, if the mosquito detection is perfectly inline with the laser then you don't need to know distance, if the mosquito detection is offset from the laser you need to know distance in order to correctly compensate for the difference of detecting it at x-y when at z height vs hitting at x-y when at z-10 height.

      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    18. Re:Pardon my skepticism by gbjbaanb · · Score: 5, Funny

      Man, if you're the kind of person who says "wow, a laser that shoots down mosquitoes, how cool. Lets dangle my balls in front of it", then you don't deserve to reproduce :)

    19. Re:Pardon my skepticism by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      If it does exist then when can I buy one? If it does exist where's an example or pics of the $50 of technology from E-Bay?

      ...denialist....

    20. Re:Pardon my skepticism by hedronist · · Score: 1

      +1 Dead on!

      My kingdom for a mod point!

    21. Re:Pardon my skepticism by oldsaint · · Score: 1

      The problem for DARPA is that it is trying to develop its own mosquitoes - real and mechanical - as weapons. This is a defense strategy that DARPA is likely to buy and suppress.

    22. Re:Pardon my skepticism by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0

      Hmm what about time? Does the laser have to anticipate the mosquito's movement?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    23. Re:Pardon my skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps this is why? I mean, when I saw the headline I thought it was a dupe for nearly half a second...

    24. Re:Pardon my skepticism by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      real and mechanical

      so then I take it they have the imaginary ones up and running???

    25. Re:Pardon my skepticism by aquila.solo · · Score: 1

      Only if mosquitoes have started moving faster than light all of a sudden.

    26. Re:Pardon my skepticism by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      The beam has to be kept on the mosquito long enough to heat it up. Now, I admit maybe I'm being dumb and missing a detail here, but why wouldn't continually aiming the beam to hold it on the mosquito long enough to torch it be considered a 'dimension'?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    27. Re:Pardon my skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Done. Ill have your kingdom now, thanks.

    28. Re:Pardon my skepticism by aquila.solo · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's certainly a point, but if you watch the video at the top of the page, the mosquitoes are as good as dead in about 4-5 wing beats. According to this hastily gathered source, mosquito wings beat anywhere from 250 to 1000 Hz. We're talking single digit milliseconds to cook these bugs. Wiki puts their flight speed at around 1-2 km/hr.

      If we accept an estimate of 10 ms to cook a bug, and a 2 km/hr flight speed, a mosquito could move as much as 5 mm (or one third of its body length) in the time it takes to zap it.

      So yes, tracking could be an issue. But I can't see it being any trouble at all once you've targeted the thing.

    29. Re:Pardon my skepticism by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      >Forgive me if I'm skeptical.

      No kidding. In this video, a kid burns a mosquito with a blu-ray laser. The damn thing runs around for 20 seconds before it finally starts to die.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiShG2OxWVc

      How come the inventors of this device don't have a video?

  5. I'm from Minnesota by onyxruby · · Score: 1

    I'm from Minnesota, if this thing works that well I'll be tempted to pick it up and put it on a plinth in my backyard. Between that and my mosquito deleto I just might be able to enjoy a mosquito free evenening....

    1. Re:I'm from Minnesota by natehoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm from Maine and I live in the woods near some marshland. If this thing works 1/4 as well as advertised I'd happily pay $200 for one if they wanted to use something similar to the "OLPC" model.

      At a manufacturing cost of $50, that's one for me to enjoy my backyard, two for third-world countries fighting malaria, and $50 profit for the manufacturer.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:I'm from Minnesota by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I've tried several variants of that, most recently the "Mosquito Magnet", and while they work pretty well, they are also pretty expensive to run (refill the tank every 3 weeks, attractants add up, and they pull a decent amount of power) and you're damned lucky if you get two seasons out of them.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    3. Re:I'm from Minnesota by ubercam · · Score: 1

      We have an official Mosquito Magnet (I think it's a half acre model, but I could be wrong) in the back yard in the spring & summer. The thing traps ungodly amounts of mosquitoes. The creepiest thing is pulling the trap box out and holding it up to your ear and listening to thousands of mosquitoes buzzing at once. It's insane. It goes through a tank of propane in 21 days or so, and you have to change the scent cartridge every 2-3 propane tanks.

      Does it actually put a dent in the biting mosquito population? I have no idea. Possibly, but there are so many of them (especially with a wet spring or summer) that it's hard to notice a difference.

    4. Re:I'm from Minnesota by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Not exactly good marketing to link a product who's first review is a 1/5 star.

    5. Re:I'm from Minnesota by RichiH · · Score: 1

      As long as they deploy them via intercontinental trebutchets, you are right.

  6. As 2012 Approaches by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    With one of these who needs Armageddon?

    A useful, and frightening device. If the neighbors have one in their backyard, I don't want to be in mine. NIMBY , or let me have one on my cell phone.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    1. Re:As 2012 Approaches by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Hmm... funny you should mention cell phones. Do you think these things are going to start attacking teenagers with those "teacher-proof" ringtones?

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:As 2012 Approaches by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Dude.. You give your neighbors the bug zapper.. Every time they smile cause they zapped a mosquito, you'll smile cause that mosquito was attracted to their yard and not yours. You get yourself the laser to pick off the stubborn ones..

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  7. I've been wanting one! by mhajicek · · Score: 1

    I thought of this about a decade ago and have been wanting one ever since. Of course I've never had the time or money to build one... Sure, sell them for $50 a pop and I'll buy at least two.

  8. Add a techno soundtrack... by gimmebeer · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..and a Roomba to clean up the mess, and you've got a party.

    1. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by mhajicek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Heck, mount it on the roomba to patrol.

    2. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by anss123 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Heck, mount it on the roomba to patrol.

      That would be pure awesome.

      Somebody do this and post on youtube, now!

    3. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new vacuuming, mosquito killing robotic overlords...

    4. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Careful. You're one voice synthesizer away from a Dalek.

    5. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want a vacuum cleaning robot with frikkin lasers attached to its head?

      I'll take the shark any day.

    6. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by jadin · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Dj Roomba

    7. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by gknoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, a voice synthesizer and an AI unsympathetic to human life. :D

      It would certainly be an excellent dalek mimic, though. I would totally love to hear my roomba chanting "Exterminate! Exterminate!" while it wheels around my porch zapping mosquitos. (Or, I would if I had a porch, roomba, mosquitos, and a mosquito-killin' laser.)

    8. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      And a toilet plunger.

    9. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our new Roombas with laser overlords.

    10. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but only until they make a Roomba that can go up and down stairs.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Exterminate!

    12. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Exterminate!"

    13. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

      Then you'd have to call it the "Doomba" hehehehehe.
      Oh and in response to the person saying install another 250 amp breaker in their house...hell, I'll pedal a damn bike with an alternator on it to fry mosquitos! With those flying torture devices, it's personal!

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    14. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Screw the Roomba - I say mount it on a patrolling mini-blimp.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    15. Re:Add a techno soundtrack... by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      ...and then put it into a blender and post that on Youtube too

  9. Evolution by lappy512 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When will it be until mosquitoes evolve energy shields?

    1. Re:Evolution by starglider29a · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nah! The smaller of the females (survivors) will simply learn how to make the males larger. "The women are bigger. They beat at a lower frequencies" Evolution in action.

    2. Re:Evolution by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Then they'll target both genders equally. Then the mosquitos will get a little tougher, perhaps reflective in the appropriate frequency, and learn to play dead and fall to the ground when hit with a laser that doesn't quite kill them.

    3. Re:Evolution by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then they'll target both genders equally. Then the mosquitos will get a little tougher, perhaps reflective in the appropriate frequency, and learn to play dead and fall to the ground when hit with a laser that doesn't quite kill them.

      Where they are promptly eaten by a frog. Sometimes, change and predation happens so fast that evolution is not a fast enough process to prevent extinction. Sometimes the change is insurmountable.

      Adios passenger pidgeon.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    4. Re:Evolution by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new hyper-reflective, hyper-intelligent mosquito overlords.

    5. Re:Evolution by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I think this would be a sudden enough change that evolution wouldn't have time to have any effect. It'd be a pretty radical change over a short period. Unless there are currently large male mosquitoes whose wings beat at lower frequencies, there won't be many mosquito Casanovas for the skeeterettes to find. And since they use wingbeat frequency to find each other, the females will think it's another female anyway.

      But, if the skeeters do evolve, there's always a firmware update.

      Personally, I want this, and I want to be able to program it for those pesky little stripe-winged deerflies too. Those bastards are persistent, and they have a nasty bite. Give me one that can take down skeeters and deerflies and really works, I'll happily shell out $250.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    6. Re:Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope to be long dead by then...

    7. Re:Evolution by Translation+Error · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah, the 'mirrorwing' mosquito. I can see it now. Maybe not so much once I get a reflected laser to the eye.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    8. Re:Evolution by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Fuck you, Bali Tiger! Get lost, Chinese river dolphin! Hasta la vista, Desert Bandicoot!

    9. Re:Evolution by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Most likely course:

      Female mosquitoes that can sense the lasers at range and randomly avoid them come to dominate the species.
      Unless you have 100% coverage, there will be survivors (for some reason).
      Insects and Bacteria respond really really quickly to selection pressures.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    10. Re:Evolution by Binestar · · Score: 1

      Most likely the evolution will be a breed of them that don't fly near people. Net win for us.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    11. Re:Evolution by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Great.. Now we can look forward the evolution of the laser-resistant mosquito!

      It's called a cockroach.

    12. Re:Evolution by VorpalRodent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Practically speaking, the evolutionary route would likely be that their wing beat frequency would change - faster or slower enough to not attract the attention of the laser (since that's what the poster above indicates is used for targeting).

      --
      Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    13. Re:Evolution by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most likely the evolution will be a breed of them that don't fly near people. Net win for us.

      I hope so. It also made me wonder about Poison Ivy. That plant is damned lucky that it is hardy, because I can't think of a worse thing to happen (evolutionarily speaking) than to develop a defense which is exceptionally annoying to a sentient creature with access to landscaping equipment.

      I'm sure it worked great as a defense for creatures whose only real option was to 'Avoid that greasy trefoil', but once you add a machete and herbicides into the mix it's amazing how fast a true advantage is turned into a significant disadvantage. I hate that plant so much that I'll cut it off at the roots if I'm just walking through the forest and happen to see it.

      Odd considering that other plants (and domesticated animals ancestors) won the genetic lottery simply by having a useful feature which humanity exploited.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    14. Re:Evolution by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      Female mosquitoes that can sense the lasers at range and randomly avoid them come to dominate the species.

      Who modded this up as interesting?
      Nothing can sense a laser before it has hit.
      Hence the warning "do not look into laser with remaining eye"

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    15. Re:Evolution by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Practically speaking, the evolutionary route would likely be that their wing beat frequency would change - faster or slower enough to not attract the attention of the laser (since that's what the poster above indicates is used for targeting).

      Evolution is not faster than intelligence in this regard though. After a brief period of time simple testing would indicate that the system letting too many mosquitos through. An analysis will determine that the female's frequency is higher or lower than what they are looking for. A simple software update is fielded to the units and the advantage is lost again.

      However, looking at the videos it appeared that the darker sections of the wings vaporized first, you might see a loss of this coloration in future generations if it helped a few survive But that might harm the mosquitos in other ways as predation increases due to reduced camo.

      It is possible that the females would decrease in size until they were similar enough to males, but then the system could just include ALL mosquitos. All of this would happen at a much faster rate than evolution could cope with. As an above poster said, it might just be that mosquitos lose their 'taste' for humans and seek out less deadly hosts.

      IF that is what happens, then the system would be a HUGE success.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    16. Re:Evolution by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sarcasm between the lines here is of course that some species by being cute are somehow magically important and we should intercede at great cost and labor to do whatever we can to prevent their extinction, regardless of the accepted fact that 99% of all once extant species are now extinct. Humanity is so conceited about how it subjectively assigns meaning to niche species that it thinks that a healthy biosphere is one frozen in time where nothing changes, nothing adapts. Never mind that without mass extinctions in prehistory, there would be no animal life as we know it whatsoever.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    17. Re:Evolution by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe he means some females will hear the scream of their brethren after their wings are fried and they're tumbling to the ground and thus avoid that area.

    18. Re:Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will it be until mosquitoes evolve energy shields?

      More likely to develop a silver skin. There is a type of beetle with a silver chrome-like skin. I couldn't find one in a web search but I have seen them in insect collections. The real truth is mosquitoes breed in such great numbers that's their defense.

    19. Re:Evolution by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nevermind the fact that the ecosystems which we *rely on to survive* involve many species, in symbiotic relationships... You can call them cuddly or ugly or whatever, but you can NOT call them meaningless. Your existential rant was beautiful up until the part where you were a completely arrogant ass.

      The "great cost and labor" actually goes INTO their extinction as we destroy natural habitats in search of food, oil, gold, etc.

      Ready for the "big finish"? Hint: this isn't sarcasm...

      If there is another mass extinction, it will INCLUDE US.

    20. Re:Evolution by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Which would work great if the laser had to evolve in return but since all it takes is a ~5min firmware update and we've already achieved sentience I don't think changing wingbeat frequency will help much.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    21. Re:Evolution by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      More human conceit. All you can see is the biosphere now, and when species leave the stage you cannot imagine the species that will enter it. If you look at speciation over time, you'll notice that regardless of mass extinctions, speciation keeps going up. If we intelligent enough, and we are, to adapt ourselves to new orders of the biosphere, any mass extinction will be survivable for us.

      I understand, it's glamorous to think you're 'saving the world', but all you're trying to do is artificially maintain invalid paradigms and actually prevent the shuffling of niches that cause natural speciation.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    22. Re:Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Most likely course; Female mosquitoes will thanks to the darwinian process change size and with that, sound, and thus render the device useless since it can no longer correctly identify its targets.

      Dull and boring, yeah.

    23. Re:Evolution by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 1

      That's why we'll genetically engineer cactars to eat the mirrorwing mosquitoes. What could possible go awry?

    24. Re:Evolution by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, whadayya mean, if - we are in the middle of a mass extinction. Whether it includes us or not has not yet been determined. Get back to me in a coupla hundred years (an insanely short timespan for this kind of event, but that's the way it's going).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    25. Re:Evolution by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      You can sense part of a laser that reflected off something else, or laser pointers would be completely useless.

      Mosquitos with a phobia of little speckles of blue light would have a serious advantage. Or mosquitos that avoid villages that look like they get aid from rich westerners.

    26. Re:Evolution by not-my-real-name · · Score: 0

      Maybe he means some females will hear the scream of their sisteren after their wings are fried and they're tumbling to the ground and thus avoid that area.

      Fixed that for you. It's the sisters that are being targeted here.

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
    27. Re:Evolution by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more the smoke and smell of their own dead.

      A lot of species are averse to their own dead.

      However, the later poster has an obvious and likely adaption. Those females who are just outside of meeting the criteria would be strongly selected. Those outside the area who sensed the smell and avoided it might not be selected as strongly.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    28. Re:Evolution by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is certainly possible to detect the reflection of the laser off a nearby object, like say, another mosquito.

      That's the way the lidar detector in my car works - if the cops illuminates a car in front of me, I've got a chance of detecting a reflection and slowing down down before he points his laser at my car.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    29. Re:Evolution by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Just because we as a species may survive doesn't mean that it won't involve a large fraction of our population dieing as a result of an ecosystem collapse. Or that life will be as pleasant for the survivors as it is for us now. With your attitude, I'm not convinced you'd be one of the survivors by the way since, in such a case, the majority of the survivors would be the ones who accept and mitigate risk rather than practice ignoring it.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    30. Re:Evolution by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Where did you get the idea that "surviving" automatically means life would be as pleasant as it is now?

      Sure, the human race will survive. But screw up the ecology enough and millions who end on the wrong side of it will starve. And don't be so sure that you'll be on the winning side, as since modern agriculture isn't very diverse, just a few of the right species going extinct could cause a whole lot of trouble.

      You've got a lot of conceit yourself, but of the reverse kind that you're complaining about. You're making the mistaken assumption of that since "life goes on" it'll also mean it'll be "business as usual", forever, regardless of whatever we do. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

    31. Re:Evolution by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      I thought that shields + lasguns = bad stuff happens.

    32. Re:Evolution by Shark · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... Okay, so we have an unfair advantage so we screw up our competitors chances at survival. Therefore, we need to act as referee to the game we're competing in because if we win, we'll loose since we'll have messed up the playing field too bad. I say fair game... Let whatever is most adapted to that messed up playing field win then.

      Assuming the parent is correct, the survivors will ultimately be the ones who learn to use the resources available in a sustainable fashion... Nature will be a lot more efficient at humbling us back in line than whatever self-righteous enviro-feel-good hippy crap we come up with.

      There have been extinctions (before we were around) far far worse than whatever we could cause and much less survive, and life kept on living... So well in fact that it created us. Sure, we're pretty cool and have a lot of potential as a species. Heck, we're even able to argue by swinging electrons and photons around on wires... But to think the tiny blip in earth's history that is humankind so far justifies taking stewardship of all life on earth is the pretentious bit if you ask me.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    33. Re:Evolution by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Nothing that is, except Jedis! Clearly this is the worst of all possible cases, we will weed all the non force-sensitive mosquitoes out of the population leaving only the strongest and most capable to breed with an insatiable thirst for revenge!

    34. Re:Evolution by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 0

      Usually I only comment to be funny, but I have to say - that was the single most pompous speech I've yet read. You reeled it off as if it were physically and obviously impossible for humans to be defeated in any way or to any degree - will you please cite your sources?

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    35. Re:Evolution by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I mitigate risk with an H&K USP .45 full size var. C. You can rest assured that in a breakdown of social order I would fair rather well. Humanity has suffered many collapses. Plagues, famines, etc. etc. and actually, when the population burden is momentarily eased, it can result in an increase in the quality of life for those who remain after the immediate crisis has passed. Resources are always limited, so having to split them fewer ways is a benefit of population decrease.

      However all the doomsaying is sourced in nothing of real substance.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    36. Re:Evolution by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Millions have already starved. Know you no history? No anthropology? No biology? Starvation is natural. Countless numbers of countless species have starved in many different eras, some to extinction, so what? What do you care of the starved creatures of the Devonian? It's all the same. You, like most people, are so sentimental about the current biosphere you think it's special, some kind of sacred cow. It's not.

      Mass extinctions enabled the biosphere of today. If you consider this biosphere so special, you shouldn't turn around and attack the very process that produced it. The cycle of increases and decreases in speciation over periods is how life improves itself, becomes more efficient, more resilient, and generally advances. If mass extinctions previously have been net benefits, a mass extinction now will likely be a net benefit as well given precedent. You're just too sentimentally attached to current species. You don't grasp the fundamental functions of evolution, that all species are *transitional*. They are all either becoming better species or dying out.

      I have no conceit. In fact, if humanity is supplanted by a superior life form, so be it. Life is bigger than species, even ours. You don't even know what the business of life is.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    37. Re:Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they would adapt this behaviour (sounds doubious) ... it would be exactly what we would want with a "mosquito fence"...?

      ie the mosquitoes would live but they would avoid human areas protected by this...

    38. Re:Evolution by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Oh god.... Nooooooooo!!!!!!!! You're making sense out of that painfully stupid Star Wars explanation for the Force!

      Midichlorians are evolutionary decedents of the malaria parasite, and Jedis simply have the worst cases of malaria.

      Pardon me while I go stab myself in the eye with a pencil.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    39. Re:Evolution by dgr73 · · Score: 1

      We wont go extinct as long as stocks of Soylent Green last.

    40. Re:Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you admit it: the ecologists act because they are selfish arrogants.

    41. Re:Evolution by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Millions have already starved. Know you no history? No anthropology? No biology? Starvation is natural.

      Cyanide is natural too, doesn't mean it's a good thing for me. That something is "natural" doesn't mean it's a good or a bad thing.

      Countless numbers of countless species have starved in many different eras, some to extinction, so what? What do you care of the starved creatures of the Devonian? It's all the same. You, like most people, are so sentimental about the current biosphere you think it's special, some kind of sacred cow. It's not.

      Oh, no. I'm an egoist. I care about me, and a few other people. I do not want to starve, nor see the people I care about do, so I looked at what happened in some countries that managed to really screw up their ecology and agriculture, and want none of it.

      I have no conceit. In fact, if humanity is supplanted by a superior life form, so be it. Life is bigger than species, even ours. You don't even know what the business of life is.

      Yeah, life will go on and all that. If it goes on without me, that's not so fun, so I don't want it to go on in such a way.

      Now with such a philosophy, maybe you could give evolution a little push and become fertilizer as soon as possible.

    42. Re:Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we are the most adaptable animal species on this planet, are there any other animal species that can survive in such a wide array of environments as we do?

      If we fuck up the planet, things could get very unpleasant, lots of people could die, civilisation as we know it today will collapse, but enough of us will adapt and carry on. There may well be some things that could wipe us out, I suspect the only one with a remote likelihood of happening is a global nuclear war.

      It is of course possible for humans to be defeated, maybe some aliens will come along and wipe us out, I suppose it is quite possible we will create an AI that decides to wipe us out, I think it is unlikely it would choose to but it is is still a possibility, I don't think it is at all likely there will be any other species on this planet that will evolve to displace us because we most likely wouldn't let it happen, remember we have a head-start here with quite a significant advantage over any potential competitors and evolution happens relatively slowly.

      This is, of course, pure speculation, but what makes you think the poster you replied to is wrong in his assertion that we won't survive a mass-extinction, which is the claim he made, not that we won't be defeated.

    43. Re:Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he means some females will hear the scream of their sistren after their wings are fried and they're tumbling to the ground and thus avoid that area.

      Fixed that for you. It's the sisters that are being targeted here.

      Fixed that fix for you.

    44. Re:Evolution by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      You have no concept of scale. Obviously I'm not saying 'go starve yourself because it's fun!' but rather that starvation has happened both individually and en masse to every animal species in the history of life itself, and will continue to happen. It is happening right now, and not because of ecology. What are you doing about that? Nothing? Of course. More starvation is inevitable.

      Since when did we start talking about you? You want to live, take care of yourself. You want others to live, take care of them too, but don't pretend that propping up species that are no longer able to function in their environment is the direct means of doing those things.

      Some societies have collapsed for primarily agricultural reasons, like the Maya, but that's because they didn't know anything about crop rotation or other fundamentals of agricultural science. That has nothing to do with speciation/extinction. I challenge you to name one incident in human history where a human society collapsed because of extinction of an organism. Don't worry, I'll wait.

      And as for suicide, you miss the point again. Humanity like all species must fight. Only when we can be supplanted by force can another species claim superiority. How do you think we got where we are today? By hugging all our competing species in the holocene? There was a time when people killed lions with their bare hands, but civilization has turned humanity into one big soft, sensitive hippy campfire drum circle.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    45. Re:Evolution by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      You have no concept of scale. Obviously I'm not saying 'go starve yourself because it's fun!' but rather that starvation has happened both individually and en masse to every animal species in the history of life itself, and will continue to happen. It is happening right now, and not because of ecology. What are you doing about that? Nothing? Of course. More starvation is inevitable.

      What do you mean "not because of ecology"?

      The planet is quite capable of producing plenty food. Starvation happens in places where more resources are used than the land is capable of providing, there is a lot of contamination, or where the resources are available but not properly used. Except for the last one it's very much an ecology problem.

      Since when did we start talking about you?

      Since you asked "What do you care of the starved creatures of the Devonian?". If you don't want my opinion, don't ask for it. Though I might give it anyway.

      You want to live, take care of yourself. You want others to live, take care of them too, but don't pretend that propping up species that are no longer able to function in their environment is the direct means of doing those things.

      Egoism is far reaching. I don't exist in a void, hence if my existence requires the ecology to be in good shape then I'll have to make sure of that. Doing otherwise is stupid and suicidal.

      I also like taking nature photos. That's a lesser priority, but still a reason to make sure something to take photos of remains.

      There was a time when people killed lions with their bare hands, but civilization has turned humanity into one big soft, sensitive hippy campfire drum circle.

      Yeah, that is easy to say while comfortably seated in front of your computer, heh. You're probably just as soft yourself. Even if you're into some "manly" activity like boxing, you probably still do it in safe conditions.

      If killing lions with bare hands is the kind of thing you crave, please go do that, then tell how well it went.

    46. Re:Evolution by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Starvation in the modern era is far more frequently a political problem than an agricultural problem. (Your categorizations are poor, treating land's productive capacity as fixed, it isn't, which means it is a matter of agricultural technology, not ecology. I might also add that you were the first to distinguish between agricultural and ecological issues, and now you try to conflate them.)

      I notice you dodged my question about when any human society has collapsed due to an extinction. Isn't that kind of the crux of this issue? Wouldn't it establish an important precedent for your point? Of course it would, but the lack of any example, because there are none, does the opposite. Many species have 'gone the way of the dodo' during human existence, and that. has. never. mattered. Argument over.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    47. Re:Evolution by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Starvation in the modern era is far more frequently a political problem than an agricultural problem.

      Politics affect ecology. If during a war, land is salted as a part of a scorched earth campaign, that's an ecological problem that will exist after the war is over.

      (Your categorizations are poor, treating land's productive capacity as fixed, it isn't, which means it is a matter of agricultural technology, not ecology. I might also add that you were the first to distinguish between agricultural and ecological issues, and now you try to conflate them.)

      Land's productive capacity is finite. There's a limit to what you can grow on an amount of land. No technology will allow growing the world's food supply on one acre of land. And, agricultural and ecological issues aren't different issues, agricultural issues are a subset of ecological issues.

      I notice you dodged my question about when any human society has collapsed due to an extinction. Isn't that kind of the crux of this issue? Wouldn't it establish an important precedent for your point? Of course it would, but the lack of any example, because there are none, does the opposite.

      Again you obsess with extinction, collapse, etc. I don't think a complete disaster is needed to make things unpleasant. There can be starvation without civilization collapse, and food shortages without huge amounts of people dying. I don't think that's a good thing to have either.

      Many species have 'gone the way of the dodo' during human existence, and that. has. never. mattered.

      How about overfishing in Somalia? Since they lack a government they have a hard time policing their own waters, which resulted in quite a few outside people fishing there. That led to food shortages, and to pirates. Given all the news about that, I'd say that quite a few people care about what resulted, so it would be fair enough to say that it matters.

      Now, if too few fish to eat is a bad thing, obviously no fish at all would be even worse. There's not an infinite amount of species of fish in any area, and some of them depend on others, so the extinction of enough of them will kill the rest. It's not really hard to see.

      Argument over.

      Ah, if only stating something is indisputable made it true. No, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that.

    48. Re:Evolution by wwahammy · · Score: 1

      God damn, you are a prick. You must be delightful at parties.

    49. Re:Evolution by wwahammy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Poison ivy covers such massive areas that I don't think humans, short of a scorched earth campaign, could do much about it. In that case though, I think the collateral damage would far outweigh any benefit.

    50. Re:Evolution by tuxicle · · Score: 1

      Hence the warning "do not look into laser with remaining eye"

      Or in this case, don't look at laser with remaining 1,999 eyes.

      Quit trying to fix Leela up with fly mutant!

    51. Re:Evolution by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Ah, salting the land. Yeah, that has happened so much in the modern era, I forgot all about it. (That's sarcasm, yo.)

      Of course land capacity is finite, I didn't say otherwise, and you were acting as though it were fixed. Maybe we can actually have a useful debate about that sometime in the future when land optimization is no longer possible. However, if farming in the third world were done with the equipment and methods of the first, the world food supply would quintuple.

      Also, I'm not obsessing about extinction, it's the topic that spawned this discussion, or perhaps you weren't paying attention. Now you try to shift the frame of things to 'maybe an extinction made some people inconvenienced and uncomfortable.' What a specter that is.

      And Somalia. You're kidding right? Is this becoming logical fallacy amateur hour now? Let me walk you through this:

      Social collapse - leads to - overfishing to compensate for resource shortfalls caused by a disintegrated infrastructure - leads to ... social collapse? Oh wait, that ALREADY HAPPENED and was the CAUSE not the EFFECT. Not to mention you cite no extinction, only the vague possibility of one in some hypothetical extension of the scenario.

      So, yes, the argument is still over, you still have not provided one example that actually fits the parameters that would set the necessary precedent.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    52. Re:Evolution by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Ah, salting the land. Yeah, that has happened so much in the modern era, I forgot all about it. (That's sarcasm, yo.)

      It was an example. Pick another if you prefer. The point is, political decisions have an effect on the ecology.

      Also, I'm not obsessing about extinction, it's the topic that spawned this discussion, or perhaps you weren't paying attention. Now you try to shift the frame of things to 'maybe an extinction made some people inconvenienced and uncomfortable.' What a specter that is.

      Extinction isn't required. What does it matter if there is 1000 fish or no fish? If the number is small enough it's pretty much the same as if there weren't any.

      Things aren't binary, they get screwed up well before there's a complete extinction.

      And Somalia. You're kidding right? Is this becoming logical fallacy amateur hour now? Let me walk you through this:

        Social collapse - leads to - overfishing to compensate for resource shortfalls caused by a disintegrated infrastructure - leads to ... social collapse? Oh wait, that ALREADY HAPPENED and was the CAUSE not the EFFECT. Not to mention you cite no extinction, only the vague possibility of one in some hypothetical extension of the scenario.

      No. Societal collapse leads to inability to defend their territorial waters from foreign nations that decide to fish there, since there is nobody to stop them. Which leads to the piracy, which has been in the news quite a bit.

      When things get tough, as you said yourself, people are going to fight and try to survive. And that can be an unpleasant business.

      Not to mention you cite no extinction, only the vague possibility of one in some hypothetical extension of the scenario.

      It seems even better to me. If things are already screwed up to too few members of a species, then it's obvious that the species going extinct outright isn't going to be any better.

      I repeat, things aren't binary. It's not going to be all fine right until the last member of a species dies.

      So, yes, the argument is still over, you still have not provided one example that actually fits the parameters that would set the necessary precedent.

      I provided one, you invented some crazy interpretation of it. Not conceding this one, sorry.

    53. Re:Evolution by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      You did not provide an example that fit the parameters of the question, and since all you're going to do is spin things and claim that you did (and further claim that your fallacious circular cause and consequence argument is still valid while calling my interpretation 'crazy'), you lack the intellectual integrity that is necessary to make further conduct of this exchange worthwhile. Even in your last post you admit that the societal collapse in Somalia was a cause, so it cannot be an effect, negating its validity as an example. This demonstrates that you are a blatantly dishonest (or extremely obtuse) person, which places you literally beneath my contempt.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    54. Re:Evolution by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1
      I'm so glad you could contribute such substance to this exchange. Your enlightening insight has shattered my world. I'm positively quaking consequent to such well-thought-out criticism of my human worth. I am quite certain that whichever parties you enjoy, I would not, and vice versa.

      To him, then, Demosthenes made a sharp answer. 'Indeed,' said he, 'thy lamp and mine, O Pytheas, are not privy to the same pursuits.'

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    55. Re:Evolution by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      You did not provide an example that fit the parameters of the question,

      Oh yes I did. I was replying to your "Many species have 'gone the way of the dodo' during human existence, and that. has. never. mattered.". Nowhere in there there is a requirement for social collapse being caused by extinction.

      I consider that the rise of piracy in Somalia is an outcome that definitely matters, given all the talk about it.

      and since all you're going to do is spin things and claim that you did (and further claim that your fallacious circular cause

      "Collapse -> inability to defend -> exploitation by others -> piracy as a reaction" is not a circular argument. It starts with collapse, but doesn't end with it. The idea to add collapse to the end of the chain is your own invention, and which I never spoke of.

      Even in your last post you admit that the societal collapse in Somalia was a cause, so it cannot be an effect, negating its validity as an example.

      Well, duh. I never said the collapse was a consequence, I said piracy was. You insist in trying to add it as a consequence, which I never did.

      This demonstrates that you are a blatantly dishonest (or extremely obtuse) person

      No, I'm not being really dishonest, or obtuse (IMO you are), I'm just very persistent in trying to get people to understand what I'm saying. Once you get what I'm trying to say, then you can make some sort of refutation of it. Twisting my words to something I never said won't do.

      which places you literally beneath my contempt.

      I don't care if you like me or not, and that's not a way to win an argument.

    56. Re:Evolution by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1
      You've been dodging this from the moment I asked it, focusing on anything and everything else to avoid it, trying to spin and reframe terms until you can succeed at completely different arguements, and until you answer it, fuck off:

      I challenge you to name one incident in human history where a human society collapsed because of extinction of an organism.

      (What you even quoted as what you were replying to is taken out of context, as immediately previous to that I restated the same parameters you're working so hard to ignore and escape. I previously had foolishly assumed you had integrity enough to be responding to the whole thought, not just the quote you took out of context, which is why I presumed that you were trying to provide an example within the parameters contained in the whole paragraph whereupon the reasoning would have been circular, because the true premise of the real question has always been social collapse as an effect.)

      (The whole quote, of course, is "I notice you dodged my question about when any human society has collapsed due to an extinction. Isn't that kind of the crux of this issue? Wouldn't it establish an important precedent for your point? Of course it would, but the lack of any example, because there are none, does the opposite. Many species have 'gone the way of the dodo' during human existence, and that. has. never. mattered." The scope of what 'matters' in this case is defined earlier in the paragraph. It is simply social collapse. However, because you couldn't answer that question, you decided to lop off the important part, and focus on the now detached antecedent by itself, so that you could arbitrarily define a completely different scope for what 'matters'. You couldn't defeat the strong argument, so you created a weaker argument that was vaguely similar so that you could attack that instead. This is blatant, dishonest strawmanning. And the reason this is all parenthetical is it is all beside the point. The point is still the one question you keep dodging and spinning and no other. Answer it or fuck off. Anything short of an answer to that question I will ignore, and you can bask in the glory of having the last, disingenuous word.)

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    57. Re:Evolution by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      You've been dodging this from the moment I asked it, focusing on anything and everything else to avoid it, trying to spin and reframe
      terms until you can succeed at completely different arguements, and until you answer it, fuck off:

      I challenge you to name one incident in human history where a human society collapsed because of extinction of an organism.

      That sentence has little relevation to the start of our argument.

      Your position seems to be "starvation/extinction/etc are natural processes, so there's nothing to worry about, and no need to try to preserve anything, because it's business as usual". Or something along those lines.

      My position is that not all natural things are good for me, and while on the long term life goes on, on the scales of human lifetimes things can turn extremely unpleasant, and it's not in my interest to let them get to that point. My standard for an unacceptable situation to live in is much less strict than a civilization collapse, so I start caring about environmental issues much before that happens.

      Your question was "why do I care", and I provided an explanation based on my own egoism and examples of what happens in other places when things get tough. I do not think in absolute terms of "survival of humanity/civilization" like you do, but in terms of my own wellbeing, so I do not need to find an instance of civilization collapse. All I need to justify my position is to find an example of a place that's screwed up enough for me to say "I do not want to live like that", or "I do not want to have to deal with such neighbours".

    58. Re:Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mosquitoes may be a food source for bats but getting rid of malaria and west nile may be worth it

    59. Re:Evolution by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      Nothing can sense a laser before it has hit.

      exactly, nobody expects the laser target acquisition

  10. Mosquitoes don't surf by Minwee · · Score: 3, Funny

    I love the smell of mosquito lasers in the morning... The smell, you know that burning insect smell... Smells like, victory.

    1. Re:Mosquitoes don't surf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the smell of frying retinas as someone gets caught in the flash of this device that must've come from a personal injury lawyer's wet dream.

  11. If it works on little bloodsuckers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...then it is only a matter of time to scale up the output energies. Take out 50-100/sec of congresspersons or lawyers and you get a Nobel prize.

  12. PETA ... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... is going to throw a fit. A pissy hissy little fit. Good.

    1. Re:PETA ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry, an anti-PETA laser is already in works, to be brought to you by US DoD!

    2. Re:PETA ... by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      ROFL. Wish I had mod points for you today.

    3. Re:PETA ... by cryoman23 · · Score: 0

      na they wont.... they wont get a chance :) upscale this and use on all resistance mwahahahaha

      --
      epic sig..... ya i got nothing
    4. Re:PETA ... by Shrike82 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. That little Italian chef gets charged for killing and eating a rat in the jungle, but apparently it's OK to shoot down mosquitos with directed energy weapons. Yeah it's all very "cool" and "useful" to kill mosquitos, but rats aren't fair game any more? Perhaps everyone has forgotten a little thing called the Black Death. Rats weren't so cool back then....

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    5. Re:PETA ... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean a high pitched hissy fit.

    6. Re:PETA ... by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      Then PETA can go to Africa, capture all the malaria-carrying mosquitoes and take them home to their houses. No? Bug-zapping lasers it is, then. Obviously PETA is not really committed to its cause.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    7. Re:PETA ... by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

      >

      I prefer the high-pitched *whiney* hissy fit to the general run-of-the-mill high-pitched hissy fit, personally.

    8. Re:PETA ... by Bakkster · · Score: 0

      Actually, PETA was mad that Obama killed a fly during an interview. They even sent him a little device to 'catch and release' future flies from indoors to outdoors...

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    9. Re:PETA ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean a high pitched hissy fit.

      PETA males do tend to hissy at a higher frequency than PETA females in addition to being more slender and far less hirsute than PETA females. Scientists are still struggling to understand why this is so, but the leading theory posits that PETA males are nancy boys.

    10. Re:PETA ... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      ... is going to throw a fit. A pissy hissy little fit. Good.

      Nothing like reveling in the imaginary words you put in the mouths of your opposition!

    11. Re:PETA ... by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 1

      Just remember, PETA VP Mary Beth Sweetland is a diabetic and needs pig insulin. This little fact can win just about every NAVS and PETA debate you'll ever have to have.

      Also, pronounce it "pay-tah", and when they correct you, remind them of a pita, and the delicious meat fillings they usually come with.

      --
      ~ C.
    12. Re:PETA ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, PETA was mad that Obama killed a fly during an interview.

      Bullshit. PETA made no official statement whatsoever in direct response to Obama's fly killing. The media — always on the lookout to sensationalize anything— started contacting PETA in droves to get statements from them. So they made a good-humoured comment and decided to send a fly catcher to Obama. The only people who really took that "incident" seriously are all the rabid anti-PETA folks clamouring for anything to make PETA look like idiots.

    13. Re:PETA ... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Then we'll use the laser to carve them a nice tiny little violin and turn it right back to mosquitos.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    14. Re:PETA ... by IICV · · Score: 4, Funny

      It works by targetting the buzzing noise they make when they chant their slogans; it also selectively targets females, which will make males think "wtf, why are there no chicks here? I'm leaving".

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

      But they sent the bug catcher.

      check out our handy-dandy bug catcher—one of which we are sending to President Obama for future insect incidents.

      link.

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

      But they sent the bug catcher.

      I know. That's why I said "they made a good-humoured comment and decided to send a fly catcher to Obama".

      Keep up.

    17. Re:PETA ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, rats are not ok but mosquitos are. Pretty simple

    18. Re:PETA ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      No problem. A whine is a whine. Just re-tune the targeting system and up the power to the laser and problem is solved.

    19. Re:PETA ... by dgr73 · · Score: 1

      No, I think we should reserve the laser for mosquitos, human or insect. For PETA I am planning a humanoid robot that undresses, oils up and spanks PETA members.. and it will not stop spanking until the the member in question admits "Yes, I am a naughty girl and I deserve to be punished"... no wait, that's the script for my new "movie".

    20. Re:PETA ... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Anything that marginalises PETA is a good thing.

      I hate those cunts.

      Eat meat, wear leather and can someone please buy me a fur hat?

    21. Re:PETA ... by Faylone · · Score: 1

      Not anymore, it seems. She now uses a totally synthetic form of insulin called Humulin. http://www.goveg.com/diabetes_controlled.asp

    22. Re:PETA ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything that marginalises PETA is a good thing.

      I hate those cunts.

      Eat meat, wear leather and can someone please buy me a fur hat?

      Yeah, they're total cunts. How dare anyone give a shit about anyone other than themselves?

      Kill everything that isn't me. I'm all the matters.

  13. Evolution by hitchhacker · · Score: 3, Funny

    Great.. Now we can look forward the evolution of the laser-resistant mosquito!

  14. Well, there's only one thing needed now... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...and that's a cute robot doll to shoot the laser at the mosquitos!

    1. Re:Well, there's only one thing needed now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. This system clearly needs more sharks.

  15. Future Charity Commerical by hardburn · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Your donation of only $2 a day could help this African village purchase a mosquito defense laser . . . "

    --
    Not a typewriter
    1. Re:Future Charity Commerical by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

      I already sent several checks to a Nigerian prince. What the hell else do they want now?

    2. Re:Future Charity Commerical by bcmm · · Score: 2, Funny

      If the commercial features slo-mo burning mosquitos, I'm sold.

      In fact, they could probably just charge for the vids.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    3. Re:Future Charity Commerical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Your donation of only $2 a day could help this African village purchase a mosquito defense laser . . . "

      Y'know, I could see myself donating to a charity like that...

      Hell, I've dreamed of having a system like this for years, I just didn't have the skills (or lasers) to actually build one.

    4. Re:Future Charity Commerical by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      But the Nigerian prince said he's helping his whole country purchase spam defense lasers! I think it's worth it.

  16. If this actually works... by dasdrewid · · Score: 1

    "Best of all the system could cost as little as $50. Maybe that's too expensive for use in preventing malaria in Africa but I'd buy one in a second!"

    If it works as advertised (ok, ok, so we're in sci-fi land here with any product, but follow me for just a minute more), then it *would* be inexpensive enough for use in hospitals and medical centers, even purely by donation. Yes, nets work much better and are cheaper, but you could put this in the surgery room where nets would be impractical, or keep it in the triage room where people are in/out too much for nets to work particularly well. It wouldn't eradicate malaria, but I imagine it could seriously help prevent it spreading in a few specific situations that just also happen to be involving high-risk (for carrying/transmitting and catching) individuals.

    /pipe-dream

    --
    No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    1. Re:If this actually works... by rotide · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I'm not entirely sure you want to be zapping mosquitoes and aerosolizing their body parts around an open surgery site.

      Although, put one of these in every entry way where there are two sets of doors to pass through and you'll practically eliminate them.

      Personally, however, I want one for my bedroom. Nothing annoys me more than a lone mosquito buzzing around me while I'm trying to fall asleep.

    2. Re:If this actually works... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I'm not entirely sure you want to be zapping mosquitoes and aerosolizing their body parts around an open surgery site.

      I'd rather risk a bacterial infection than Malaria when trying to recover from surgery.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    3. Re:If this actually works... by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I'm not entirely sure you want to be zapping mosquitoes and aerosolizing their body parts around an open surgery site.

      I'd rather risk a bacterial infection than Malaria when trying to recover from surgery.

      If this laser is powerful enough to vaporize mosquito flesh, shouldn't it also destroy any bacteria?

      In addition, I think the idea was to place these lasers at all entrances to prevent them getting in, rather than waiting until they're already in the OR.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  17. David Brin, "Earth" by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    That's where the idea comes from :-)

  18. Combating Malaria by pete-classic · · Score: 1

    You know what's great at combating malaria? DDT. Does anyone know of any negative side effects of indoor use of DDT, to the inhabitants or the environment? Does anyone know of a more effective way to prevent malaria?

    -Peter

    1. Re:Combating Malaria by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Doesn't take much electricity either.

    2. Re:Combating Malaria by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 1

      You know what's great at combating malaria? DDT. Does anyone know of any negative side effects of indoor use of DDT, to the inhabitants or the environment?

      Yeah, DDT was great, before mosquitoes started developing resistance to it. Good thing we stopped using it like a sledgehammer, or they'd all be resistant by now.

      (Oh, and there's the bird thing, but who really needs birds, anyway?)

    3. Re:Combating Malaria by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Indoor use? How about this downside: Most of the places ravaged by malaria have little to no "inside" with which to confine the DDT?

      Yes, we know you are making a statement that using DDT to kill mosquitoes and prevent disease is worth the cost of killing wildlife through disruption of the food chain and reproduction cycles of avians. Good for you.

    4. Re:Combating Malaria by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      I believe that "the bird thing" was linked specifically to outdoor spraying. I'd be interested if that's not the case.

      I could just as flippantly say something about not needing the poor of the third world. I'm of the opinion that the ban wouldn't have happened if American and European lives were on the line.

      I think there's a strong argument to be made against blanket spraying of any pesticide. I also think that indoor-only use of DDT would not lead to widespread resistance, given that the overwhelming population of mosquitoes would never be exposed to it.

      -Peter

    5. Re:Combating Malaria by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that DDT doesn't break down in the environment. If you spray it indoors it's eventually going to go somewhere, and that somewhere is probably going to be outside. If you used it sparingly then you'd probably be okay, but I don't really see why using it sparingly indoors would be any safer than using it sparingly outdoors.

    6. Re:Combating Malaria by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      Indoor use? How about this downside: Most of the places ravaged by malaria have little to no "inside" with which to confine the DDT?

      *boggle*

      What are you talking about? Where are all these masses of people sleeping under the stars? Or are you saying their homes don't count in some way? The occupants of a simple, thatched mud hut are much safer from malaria if the interior surfaces sprayed with DDT than if they are not. And without artificial light, there's little reason to be out during the peak feeding time of mosquitoes.

      Yes, we know you are making a statement that using DDT to kill mosquitoes and prevent disease is worth the cost of killing wildlife through disruption of the food chain and reproduction cycles of avians. Good for you.

      Hmm. I was very specific about indoor spraying. I believe that harm to wildlife has been specifically linked to outdoor spraying. I'd be interested to know if I'm incorrect on this point.

      I find it interesting, however, that you immediately put wildlife first. Do you do this in your personal life? Can I assume you sleep under the stars, so as to avoid disturbing habitat by living in a house? Or is this a special duty you assign to the (apparently homeless) third-world poor?

      -Peter

    7. Re:Combating Malaria by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      I don't really see why using it sparingly indoors would be any safer than using it sparingly outdoors.

      It's not safer. It's more effective. Blanketing a large area with any chemical probably isn't a great idea.

      It's my opinion that using a comparatively miniscule amount of the chemical in the places where it is vastly more effective at preventing disease sounds like a pretty good idea. It seems that the WHO agrees.

      -Peter

    8. Re:Combating Malaria by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 1

      Recent studies in rural South Africa where DDT is still used extensively has shown a significant statistical increase in transgendererd humans.

      --
      Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
    9. Re:Combating Malaria by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Finally! Someone tries to answer one of my questions! Kudos!

      I don't find your argument very compelling, given that, according to WHO, 3,000 children die from malaria in Africa daily. That's over one million per year. That's a staggering number.

      So, it increases the risk of breast cancer five-fold. To what degree would it increase the chances of adulthood?

      -Peter

    10. Re:Combating Malaria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Environmental_impact

      Ignorance is bliss, eh?

    11. Re:Combating Malaria by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Actually, I asked because I wanted to know. As I've said elsewhere in this thread: 1. outdoor spraying seems like a bad idea and 2. it still seems that indoor-only use is preferable to the staggering death toll due to malaria.

      Thanks for contributing to my improved understanding of the issue.

      -Peter

    12. Re:Combating Malaria by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      The way to stop malaria is to remove malaria from humans and mosquitoes, period.

      Spreading a house with DDT doesn't solve the problem.

      The only way to stop malaria is to kill all infected mosquitoes (Which is essentially all mosquitoes in certain areas.) and treat infected people. (You could kill them too, but we frown on that.)

      If all you do is stop mosquitoes from biting people, they will happily go off and attack other animals for a few years, passing malaria on to each new mosquito generation, and when you stop stopping them, they're back.

      DDT was used to wipe out entire populations at once, massively, and it worked very well. Unfortunately, it's incredibly bad to use in this way.

      You can argue that we should use DDT instead of, say, mosquito netting, and considering it kills the mosquito, that seems like a reasonable solution, but the problem with both of those is that it's not any sort of actual solution, just a way to stop a single person from being infected. (Or, do what the article you linked to say, and put insecticide on the nets.)

      To actually stop malaria, entire breeding grounds of mosquitoes have to be wiped out. Not permanently, the mosquitoes can come back...it's just all the infected ones have to be killed. And you have to be quick about catching the disease in humans, as biting an infected human is the major way mosquitoes get it. (They get it from an infected mother, also, but without humans, it wouldn't really spread any.)

      Hauling in 200 of these boxes to a breeding ground, leaving them up for a week, and then hauling them over to the next breeding ground might actually work.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  19. You only have to track two dimensions by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Travel time is instantaneous for all practical purposes. If you think you need the distance to know what to shoot and what not to shoot, that's only half the problem. The real problem is what about the parts of the laser beam that aren't intercepted by the mosquito? I realize lasers do gradually expand, but not enough to avoid zapping the people nearby.

    1. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd be shocked if this laser is more powerful than 100 milliwatts (and it's probably much less), since even on the mosquito it doesn't appear to cause any damage to the main body, just the delicate flesh on the wings (according to the video). I wouldn't stare into it for long periods of time, but on your skin (and on brief exposure to the retinas), you'd be fine.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    2. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Ever touched the live part of a bug zapper? Hint: It won't kill you. The power of the laser isn't (or at least, doesn't need to be) strong enough to harm a human or larger animal.

    3. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      If it can track and kill 100 mosquitos per second, each kill must last 10ms or less (assuming it's just one laser).

      According to Wiki, if the beam power is under 1mW/cm^2 we'd be just fine.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    4. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      If you really want to reduce the power impact outside the target range, you can splay the laser out into multiple sub-lasers converging onto the target. Kind of like the Death Star. Kind of.

    5. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      There's a problem with that: 1mW per square centimeter isn't enough to kill or injure. It's so little power it's a bit hard to detect. A laser pointer is roughly 5mW, and the dot space is usually about 0.1 square centimeters, so even with a lowly laser pointer we're already at 50x more power. And I can tell you from experience that a laser pointer doesn't injure mosquitos. You can handle about two orders of magnitude more light intensity on your skin than your eyes can handle, because the lens/cornea system in your eye is a fantastic light concentrator and it doesn't take much light to start burning holes in your retinas. Obviously, sunlight will do a good job of burning holes in your retinas if you're patient, and it's a kilowatt per square meter -- which, by the way, my back-of-the-envelope calculations say is 100mW per square centimeter, but it's clearly not killing mosquitos very quickly.

      I know from experience that a 300mW laser focussed to a 0.003 inch circle will cut cleanly through polyimide film at several meters per second. Polyimide has an optical density somewhat greater than mosquito wings, but is also significantly thicker. I'm guessing the laser they're using is in that power range, however -- probably closer to 100mW than 300, but definitely in the range that even a reflection off a nearby shiny surface would result in immediate eye damage.

      One challenge with this is beam spread. It's easy to use a lens to focus almost any laser of reasonable beam quality down fine enough to cut holes in things, if you know the distance of the target, because that's where you put the focal point for the lens. It's a lot harder to build an optics system that can shoot a beam capable of cutting holes at an arbitrary distance, without relying on a (hard-to-make, expensive, hard-to-keep-clean) convex front surface concentrating mirror of exceptional quality. Once I can get to the article, I'm really looking forward to seeing how they managed this.

    6. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      My dad built a homemade bug light from a 10,000 volt transformer using a four foot long florescent light to attract bugs. We never had to clean up dead bugs and I would not want to touch the damn thing even though that transformer would have dropped the amperage down quite a bit.

    7. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'd be shocked if this laser is more powerful than 100 milliwatts

      You mean burned or blind.

    8. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5+mW laser is dangerous to your retina. 100mW laser is dangerous to your retina from stray reflections.

      But sure, ignorance is bliss? I would dare you to look into a 100mW laser beam for 1s. :P

    9. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Right...so you picked a poorly designed, vastly overkill home made device as a counterexample?

      Are you retarded? Do I actually have to explain that I'm talking about the kind of thing you buy in the damn store, which is high voltage but with so high an internal impedance that it is incapable of taking out a person?

    10. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A class 3A laser is powerful enough to cause damage if your blink-reflex doesn't make you stop looking at it, and that's only 5mW. 100mW is a badass such that even a reflection or the spot it makes on a wall would be bright enough to cause eye damage - you'd want to be wearing goggles around such a thing.
      The power required to damage an insect wing is a lot higher than the power required to damage vision.

      I suspect that making this device safe for use in a home whilst still being effective against bugs may be quite a challenge.

    11. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      But does it just shoot them with a straight laser, or does it use a low-power laser with a lens to focus the energy? The latter would be considerably more energy-efficient, but it would probably also be harder to design and implement.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    12. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      You do realize you are on /. right?

    13. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by ccbailey · · Score: 2, Informative

      A 100mW laser will cheerfully blow holes in your retina before you even get the chance to blink. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety#Class_II for details.

    14. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        I suspect this device is intended more for large backyards or other places where it can be emplaced far away from people. I can't get to the article either, but it would make sense to design and mount it such that it can only cover one hemisphere, pointing up.
        Obviously that could cause problems in other environments such as multi-story apartment buildings or downtowns, but I don't see any reason why one couldn't write the software such that it doesn't fire on pre-set portions of it's coverage area - ie, windows and balconies and such. There's plenty of surveillance software out there that does similar things.

        Shouldn't there be some way to get a rough range using many separated audio sensors ( add antennae to it it'll be even cooler *g* ) and doppler analysis software?

        I'm not going to speculate on what effects this may have on ecosystems. It would be pointless for anyone to.

        Humor:

        Sign seen at entrance to upper-class neighborhood: "This is a Mosquito Free Zone. Please wear the special safety glasses at all times." (Apologies to Carlin)

        SB

        PS I spent 35 years in Minnesota. Much of it living in Swampland, MN... Mosquito Magnet and Finally Moved the Hell out of There... so a message to all Mosquito Magnets out there, you know who you are, move to a more desert climate.

       

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    15. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mount it high, point it down. That gives you a wide but naturally limited range.

    16. Re:You only have to track two dimensions by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      First intelligent response yet. They used to put pipe railings around gun tubs in the old navy to prevent guns from being aimed at own ship. You could do the same thing here so it couldn't have windows or sky behind the target. of course, someone could leave a beer bottle in the yard ...

  20. So where do I buy one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh wait...I can't buy one. They don't exist yet. There is just the one prototype and the company that built it doesn't even plan to market it.

    Dammit, don't get me all excited about this stuff untill I can buy it!

    1. Re:So where do I buy one? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      The heck with mosquitos!! I want one of these to attach to the car, and have them take out the speed and stop light cameras!!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  21. I want ONE! by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Note, I am one of those people who attract mosquitoes. You put me at a pond and I get bit and no one else does. I would pay $500 for a personal mosquito zapper, that works, let alone $50.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:I want ONE! by insufflate10mg · · Score: 1

      That's what I'm sayin'! $50 for a device like this? Most people would pay far more...

    2. Re:I want ONE! by jamesh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hire yourself out for parties. For $5/hour you could sit 10m away from the crowd and draw the mosquito's to you. You'd have your $50 in no time! You'd also have malaria, which is a bit of a downside.

    3. Re:I want ONE! by Lousy+pawn · · Score: 1

      You might consider the "Biteshield Electronic Racket Zapper" (at amazon.com, and maybe other places), or something like it. I've had an early model of that kind of device for over 10 years and it has been fantastic for focused termination of mosquitoes and flies.

    4. Re:I want ONE! by giorgist · · Score: 1

      You with Frinkin lasers mounted onto your head

      Priceless ...

  22. Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by LifesABeach · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This lazer device use was banging around in the early 1980's. A couple of grad students from Florida created it. I don't recall how they were able to track the bugs. But they also "tuned" the lazer so that it lasted just long enough to only vaporize the wings. There's just one problem with this device, if the target is between the lazer, and a person's eye.

    1. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by natehoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      True, but skeeters are usually active at dusk and after. Two possibilities.

      1. If it can recognize shapes, have it shut down whenever a larger animal is within 10-15 degrees of the beam. I mean, this thing is already accurately identifying specific species of mosquito, right? How hard would it be to put a "don't fire if something bigger than a housefly is emitting heat in the range of fire" system in?

      2. Put it on a timer or switch, and only turn it on when everyone is inside, and put it away from windows (this would only work, of course, if you live like me - in the woods with no neighbors).

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by AioKits · · Score: 1

      Then they can use their remaining eye to locate the support number to report the incident to the company.

      --
      "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
    3. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no z in laser.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    4. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      3. Mount it above eye level and design it so that the beam cannot be deflected below the horizontal.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      if the target is between the lazer, and a person's eye.

      How did the device see the mosquito in the first place if someone's head is in the way?

    6. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      This lazer device use was banging around in the early 1980's.

      I don't want to know what you named your personal anatomy as a teen, dude

    7. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      While safety issues are readily apparent it would be possible to mitigate them by keeping the laser above eye level (10 ft. or so) and only allowing it to aim horizontally or a few degrees above to avoid issues with aircraft.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    8. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Simple, elegant, but limited.

      My house is up on a hill, and mosquitoes tend to live and fly relatively low. Put it above eye level at my place, and you won't get a lot of dead skeeters.

      Still, for some applications this could be useful.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    9. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Not a problem. A cheap IR detector like what is used with security systems should work. At least up to 98 degrees... A cheap cmos camera with a rudimentary motion detection system should also work.

      Or you could just say fuck it and give out cool sunglasses with each unit and slap a warning on the frickin laser.

      Or realize that Africans aren't going to try and sue your company because it would end up with all of their goats and mud huts since your money would buy you justice.

    10. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      Only the plural version: laserz.

    11. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How did the device see the mosquito in the first place if someone's head is in the way?

      Through the ears?

    12. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Punto · · Score: 1

      or if the thing is so freakisly accurate, they could control the size of the beam so that the body of the mosquito would absorb all the light, and your eyes would be covered by the mosquito's "shadow".

      --

      --
      Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    13. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      FTFA: The breakthrough relied on understanding how the technology that guides the precision of laser printing could be combined with the image-detecting charge-coupled devices, or C.C.D.’s, used in digital cameras and powerful image processing software.

    14. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by billybacs · · Score: 1

      There is also in O in lazor.

    15. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Itz ztimulated emizzion, learn ye quantum mechanicz.

    16. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      How do you propose it detects that a person is 500 meters away? This is a laser; it's long range.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    17. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      ... if the target is between (that's in-between) the laser (the bright zappy thing) and a person's eye (the squishy zapped thing).

      Take a moment.

      I assume that the laser is broad enough that the mozzy doesn't completely block the beam, so enough of it continues to the eye. ie. if the mosquito flies between (that's with the laser on one side and the eye on the other) the eye and the laser.

      (sorry to be sarcastic, I just couldn't help myself :)

    18. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Jeng · · Score: 1

      From what I understand it targets via sound.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    19. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by goofyspouse · · Score: 1

      ... to avoid issues with aircraft.

      Did you WTFV? This thing can barely take down a mosquito, much less a commercial airliner! *grin*

    20. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Just tweak the collimation optics so the beam has some divergence...

    21. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Light Amplification by Ztimulated Emision of Radiation?

    22. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there is one in lazer

    23. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      You should also say it with two hands raised making a double quotation sign.

    24. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but there is in lazer, isn't there?

    25. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP is probably thinking of the organic version: Light Amplification by Zucchini Emission of Radiation

    26. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      The danger to aircraft lies in potentially damaging the eyes of the pilots. At low angles of inclination the atmosphere will be sufficient to scatter the laser. If you weren't such a complete moron it would have been obvious to you. I assumed everyone on /. was smart enough to not have everything explained to them in detail but I guess there's an exception to every rule.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    27. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe he meant |4z0rzzz.

    28. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 1

      Except that in most of the U.S. the old dusk active mosquitoes have been replaced by the invasive Asian tiger mosquito, which bites all God-dammed day long. Where does the line for these lasers start. I want at least two of them. I'll wear a welding mask when I have to go outside.

    29. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by m000 · · Score: 1
    30. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Since I am about 6 inches taller than the typical American male I'd have to wonder how you'd define "eye level".

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    31. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there are two z's in ZZ Top.

      ZZ Top 2 - laser 0

      (Some might find this informative but actually it's insightful.)

    32. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by tempest69 · · Score: 1

      Nope, put it on a mast have it only fire up
      And bring bait.. as that makes it more awesomer ;)

    33. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by ras · · Score: 1

      I don't think it could be called a breakthrough. My guess they use sound to approximately locate the mozzie, then focus two cameras at that spot. The software doesn't have to do much. Just find some changing pixels, roughly mozzia size, colour and moving at mozzie speed.

      Even I could do that. Building cameras, lasers and optics that they can position within a micrometer is another proposition entirely. If I could do that, I would build one the things myself.

    34. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by jc79 · · Score: 1

      This lazer device ... the lazer ... lazer, .....

      Aaargh!

      It's a laser.

      Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation

      LASER

      Stimulated is not spelt Ztimulated.
      </rant>

    35. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are right.
      I misread it as in the head is between the laser and the target. :-)

    36. Re:Old 1980's Technology, with One Problem by svallarian · · Score: 1

      >There is no z in laser.

      There was in the 80s. Remember Lazer Tag?

      --
      I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
  23. Can I Give One to my Programmers? by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    I'd love them to zap bugs in our code.

    1. Re:Can I Give One to my Programmers? by natehoy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry, even at best it can only do 50 to 100 bugs per second. You'd need a lot of them.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:Can I Give One to my Programmers? by kiehlster · · Score: 1

      Now don't go assuming we're talking about Microsoft developers. See what you've done now? You've started another Microsoft flame war.

  24. It's friendly by hitchhacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a friendly mosquito killing robot here to help you... Until a mosquito lands on your face or near your eyes.

    1. Re:It's friendly by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the bit in the article where they said they program it not to shoot people (or butterflies)?

    2. Re:It's friendly by hitchhacker · · Score: 1

      Well I didn't read anything about stereoscopic vision, so I'm guessing it is using the motion of the mosquito to track. If that is the case, then you could get hit if you stand completely still.
      I'd be completely wrong if they are using infrared vision, or facial recognition, but the article didn't mention.

    3. Re:It's friendly by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There's no need to identify people by motion. It has a camera. If there's enough light to see mosquitos by, you can see large objects like people, moving or not, and not shoot when they're in the way. If there isn't enough light to detect large objects you're not going to be able to detect small ones either and will have to use infrared.

      Once you've designed a camera tracking system to identify mosquitoes, detecting whether the background behind the mosquito might be a person or animal isn't going to be much of a challenge.

    4. Re:It's friendly by hitchhacker · · Score: 1

      Like I said, the article didn't say, but I doubt they are using object detection like facial recognition. It's easy to toss around concepts like "see humans", and impossible to get software to do it 100% of the time. I'd be willing to bet they are using infrared to detect heat, and motion to detect the size and direction of the moving objects. Maybe when the TED talk comes out we will have more info.. can't wait.

      -metric

    5. Re:It's friendly by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      YOu don't need facial recognition. You don't need to recognize anything more than "hm, this background is not the background I should be seeing."

  25. Die evil wool moths and case-making moths by John+Whitley · · Score: 1

    Better living through non-chemistry. I'll bet this can be adapted to target clothes moths and case-making moths, the two species responsible for textile (and other) damage. The things are pernicious; very difficult to remove from a home with an infestation. Perhaps even make the zapper more effective by using it to cover the area where a pheremone trap is located (to draw adults into the kill zone).

  26. Safety of the device? by langedb · · Score: 1

    While I admit this is very cool and I'll take two; what power is the laser? What keeps this thing from also shooting out a user's eyes while it is doing its job?

    1. Re:Safety of the device? by sricetx · · Score: 1

      Sunglasses

    2. Re:Safety of the device? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Probably not much. You would probably place it somewhere that it just won't have an angle of attack where there are going to be people.

      place it level above 6ft and its unlikely to hit all but the tallest people if it can't shoot down, etc.

    3. Re:Safety of the device? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sunglasses

      YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!

      Oh, sorry. I thought that was my cue.

    4. Re:Safety of the device? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Future's so bright... I wear my sunglasses at night.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    5. Re:Safety of the device? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My vision is augmented.

  27. Want!! by Scutter · · Score: 1

    As a walking mosquito magnet, let me be the first to say "I'm in. Let's do this thing."

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    1. Re:Want!! by crono_deus · · Score: 1

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"

      Looks like we just found one, so I'd say yes!

      --
      Ne Cede Malis.
    2. Re:Want!! by Scutter · · Score: 1

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"

      Looks like we just found one, so I'd say yes!

      Dammit. Now I have to change my sig.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  28. Nathan IS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a PATENT TROLL.

    BTW, the name is Nathan Myhrvold

    Yours In Novosibirsk,
    Kilgore Trout

    1. Re:Nathan IS by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Patent trolls do not make things or have the desire to make things.

      IV developed and showed off a working skeeter zapper prototype. Plus they have developed other technologies (Read the wiki on IV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures )

      So we have a conflict of definition here... IV actually makes product. Ok, they don't have the scale or facilities to mass produce things to the public. So what? nVidia doesn't make graphics cards, they just licence out their GPUs. ARM doesn't make product, they just licence out their chip designs.

      Seems to me IV is a business of RAND rather than physical product.

  29. A product of Intellectual Ventures by Grond · · Score: 4, Informative

    This came out of Intellectual Ventures, which Slashdot often derides as a patent troll that brainstorms ideas, patents them, then lives off of the licensing revenue without actually contributing real products to the world or even prototyping their vaguely defined ideas.

    This shows that IV is quite capable of producing actual, useful products. Its business model is not limited to patent licensing revenue, which makes it more like, say, IBM, than a typical patent holding company.

    Maybe, just maybe, IV is not the evil parasite that many on Slashdot made it out to be. In fact, it seems to be in the business of shooting evil parasites with lasers, which is pretty cool.

    1. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This came out of Intellectual Ventures, which Slashdot often derides as a patent troll that brainstorms ideas, patents them, then lives off of the licensing revenue without actually contributing real products to the world or even prototyping their vaguely defined ideas.

      This shows that IV is quite capable of producing actual, useful products. Its business model is not limited to patent licensing revenue, which makes it more like, say, IBM, than a typical patent holding company.

      Maybe, just maybe, IV is not the evil parasite that many on Slashdot made it out to be. In fact, it seems to be in the business of shooting evil parasites with lasers, which is pretty cool.

      From TFA:
      "However, his company would not manufacture them. "

      So basically, they won't make it, but they can take your profit it you bother to actually produce a working and affordable one.

    2. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      In one of the linked articles it mentions that IV is not going to produce the device themselves, but license the technology to somebody else. So, sorry, but this is not going to be the example that vindicates them as an actual producer.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    3. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It shows the Intellectual Ventures can generate some high speed camera footage of a mosquito flying through a laser beam...

    4. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

      >brainstorms ideas, patents them, then lives off of the licensing revenue

      Still holds true, according to the article >without actually contributing real products to the world

      For all values of "contributing," yeah, they might be considered contributors to the greater welfare. But keep that in mind next time you invent some revolutionary way of helping the developing world, start selling it for super-cheap prices, and then find yourself in court staring at Nathan's lawyers.

      >or even prototyping their vaguely defined ideas

      Here's your prototype, pal. See? We have GREAT ideas. And they're all...well, ours.

    5. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by Grond · · Score: 1

      "However, his company would not manufacture them."

      That doesn't say much. Apple doesn't actually manufacture iPods and Macs, for example. And a university that develops a new drug won't make it itself; it will spin the technology off into a for-proft company.

      The details of the business organization are largely irrelevant. The main thing is that they've built a functioning product that they intend to bring to market, perhaps through a subsidiary, perhaps a manufacturing partner, or perhaps by licensing the technology to all comers. That last option is in many ways the best for consumers because it creates competition in the marketplace for the best implementation of the underlying technology.

    6. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Name one product that ARM makes.

    7. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by izomiac · · Score: 1

      The first beta of the laser targeting system wasn't as specific. This "problem" became apparent when the engineers showed the device to the blood sucking lawyers. OTOH, Intellectual Ventures seems to be doing a lot better now.

    8. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Does ARM actually produce the chips that go into the devices that use them?

      No. They licence them out to Samsung, Nokia, Conextant. Why is it ok for ARM to licence out their technology and not IV?

    9. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Uh, me? I don't care about ARM. I was just saying the GP is wrong.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    10. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      RVDS 4.0

      ARM make and sell a lot of tools that go with the IP they licence. This includes not only software tools such as debuggers and compilers, but also FPGA platforms and dev boards to enable prototyping/integration/test of the IP they sell. They also have strong technical support for all of these direct products.

      Check the products section at arm.com.

    11. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Why not? ARM has exactly the same business model.

      They develop chip designs and then licence them out to other companies. But they don't make the chips themselves.

      Explain to me how it's ok for ARM to licence out technology they develop, hold the rights to but do not produce, while it's not ok for IV to follow the same model.

    12. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Looks like their products still rely on the IP licencing.

      Without the licencing, there wouldn't be any need for the secondary market.

    13. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Let me be clearer: I don't care about either one. I just didn't want Grond to get away with misinforming people that IV was becoming a producer, because they are on record to the contrary. Just because I point out a misrepresentation does not mean I have a horse in the race.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    14. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, I get your point now.

      But we can't just put IV in the same boat as NTP; while both are in the business of acquiring patents, IV puts the effort into developing technology as well which this prototype demonstrates.

      IMO, this is part of what the patent system is for. Sure, instead of the individual inventor working out of a basement it's a well funded think tank licencing out their design, but the end result is the same: the patents fund their research while the fobbers make profit off the tangible product.

    15. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we need now is a laser to shoot down ridiculous patents.

    16. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by epine · · Score: 1

      Name one product that ARM makes?

      ARM Compiler

      The Xbox merely repackages IP from Intel, NVidia, Samsung, and Seagate. Hardly counts as a Microsoft product when you source so much IP from other companies, does it?

      Buttercup sat up in bed. It must be his teeth. The farm boy did have good teeth, give credit where credit was due.

      It's Microsoft's keyboard division that validates Microsoft as a manufacturing venture and not a patent troll.

    17. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by sjames · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. I Iooked at the video and TFA and have yet to see the device in operation. I see the close ups of mosquitoes being zapped, but no device in sight.

    18. Re:A product of Intellectual Ventures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll believe it when I see it. They aren't selling anything yet!

  30. Sharks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if we can only find a way to attach this to a shark, we'll be in business!

  31. if you can do, what you claim - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please contact the next Entomologist group working with Anopheles.

     

    They are seeking a way to distinguish male from female ( before they suck blood )

     

    best contact the winner of the Ig Nobel-Price2008, Dr. Bart Knols from the Netherlands.

  32. Next Up, Mosquitos on the Endagered Species List by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    I can see it now, in a few years these pests will be on the endagered species list and then we'll have to protect them!

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  33. Your military tax money hard a work by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    They'll finally get Binnie L. if they can now just get him to dress as up as a mosquito.

  34. Nathan Myhrvold, not Nathan Myhrvol by techmuse · · Score: 1

    The original posting has the incorrect name for Nathan Myhrvold. It's Nathan Myhrvold, not Nathan Myhrvol.

  35. Obligatory Star Wars... by Dr.Syshalt · · Score: 1

    Obi-Wan: I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of mosquitos suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

  36. Re:yguo Fail It!? by insufflate10mg · · Score: 1

    Dear Slashdotters,

    Can someone explain posts like this to me? I don't quite understand why someone would go through the effort of posting something like this...

  37. Weemz by Weemz · · Score: 1

    This is awesome. I need to mount one of these on the handle bars of my mountain bike and wire up a firing trigger with the handle. lol

  38. Sign me up for 10 by CompressedAir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Knowing this can be done, I bet this would be pretty easy to make.

    You'd take a pan and tilt servo controlled laser, and put sound sensors around the laser. Move the laser towards the loudest noise, fire when the noise is equal on the sensors. Bingo, dead mosquito. Just like a sun tracker!

    Everything else is software, like knowing what frequency to listen to mosquitos on.

    Does anyone know:
    1. How much laser power do you need to kill a mosquito?
    2. What frequency noise do you target?
    3. Is it shark-mountable?

    1. Re:Sign me up for 10 by kimvette · · Score: 1

      4) how much does it cost to train the shark and maintain the shark pool?

      Don't forget the minor details! :)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:Sign me up for 10 by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      5) how much does it cost to license the patents?

      Don't forget the minor details! :)

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  39. Holy Smokes! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    As the insect flew, a sudden light beam struck it, disintegrating parts of its body into a plume of smoke. It fell, even as its wings continued to beat.

    The kid who used to pull the wings off of flies just died of an organism reading this.
         

    1. Re:Holy Smokes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of organism did he die from? Was it related to pulling wings off of flies?

    2. Re:Holy Smokes! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "The kid who used to pull the wings off of flies just died of an organism reading this."

      (cue Groucho Marx voice)
      "How the organism read this, I'll never know!"

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  40. Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, but, I want fricking lasers mounted *on* the mosquitoes so I can terrorize my enemies!

  41. So much for the food chain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Full disclosure: I am not a biologist by any means, so I might be wrong here.

    Annoying as they are, mosquitoes are an exceptionally important part of the food chain. To eliminate them would have massive repercussions on the rest of the chain. I heard from a biologist once that the lower you are on the food chain, the more important you are.

    Think about it - if you eliminate mosquitoes, things that eat mosquitoes (bats, small spiders, birds, whatever) will have a plentiful food source eliminated.

    They will either adapt or die; more likely die as adaptation takes a long time. This means that things that eat THOSE animals will have a plentiful food source eliminated.

    And so on.

    All because we get annoyed - and yes, malaria is a problem, but let's be a little bit darwinian here - by some tiny flying insects.

    Seriously, how self-centered are we?

    Oh wait...

    1. Re:So much for the food chain by natehoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      First, mosquitoes are only one thing at their level of the food chain. Flies, noseeums, and plenty of other non-biting insects live at the same level.

      Second, this is actually better than most current solutions. Mosquito magnets and skeeter deleters and other things attract all manner of insects, not just mosquitoes. Don't get me started on spray permethrin and other insecticides.

      Third, mosquito populations are WAY up in my area because bats are being wiped out by that nose fungus infection. I haven't seen a bat in my area in a couple of years, unfortunately, and they used to be common.

      Fourth, these units would only work in the immediate vicinity of houses. In my area, that means there's still a few hundred acres behind my house that remain prime mosquito real estate. I only want my yard, they can have the marsh.

      And, finally, I don't care. I am, in fact, that self-centered.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:So much for the food chain by ae1294 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seriously, how self-centered are we?

      God damnit this is /. how dare you come in here and try and spread your silly idea's about mosquitoes being important blah blah blah. What the hell man? THIS IS A GOD DAMN LASER WEAPON FOR KILLING BUGS! You don't get this? pewpewpew? no? FUCK! {throws chair}

    3. Re:So much for the food chain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can only think of one species that contributes nothing to the planet, and that's mosquitoes. Their only unique purpose seems to be to spread disease, and the only diseases they spread can only be spread by them. If the mosquitoes go away, the diseases go away, and we have lost nothing of value.

    4. Re:So much for the food chain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mosquito larvaes are quite usefull in humus generation.
      The solution would be to find a way to make your yard a place where those bats live. I have quite a few in my yard, along with many bird varieties AND cats.
      Managing to have the predators and the preys at home is the trick.

    5. Re:So much for the food chain by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Don't forget cockroaches.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    6. Re:So much for the food chain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Full disclosure: I am not a biologist by any means, so I might be wrong here.

      Indeed.

      They will either adapt or die; more likely die as adaptation takes a long time.

      Nope. They adapt pretty quickly since they reproduce very fast compared to say humans.

      All because we get annoyed - and yes, malaria is a problem, but let's be a little bit darwinian here - by some tiny flying insects.

      Seriously, how self-centered are we?

      Oh wait...

      Mosquitos (and their ensuing diseases) may very well have killed more people than all wars combined.

    7. Re:So much for the food chain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seriously doubt that mosquito populations have increased in your area due to any supposed reduction in bat populations. Bats simply do not consume that many mosquitoes when they consume mosquitoes in the first place. Disregarding the study from the 50's that so many projections piggy back off of where bats were locked in a room with no other source of food than mosquitoes, comprehensive studies from across the country have found mosquitoes comprising at most around 3% of a bat's diet when the bat has consumed mosquitoes in the first place. Most bats will not bother going after mosquitoes due to large number they would have to expend energy upon hunting. It would more likely have to due with conditions within the marsh being more conducive to mosquito production.

    8. Re:So much for the food chain by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how self-centered are we?

      Very. Haven't you seen the mosquito's we grow in Canada? They're large enough to pick up small cats, and the occasional dog. There's a reason why anywhere north of Sudbury for those 3 special weeks, you hide in doors. All people will find is your dried withered husk on the ground.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:So much for the food chain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... noseeums, and plenty of other non-biting insects ...

      Whoa there! You guys must have massively different no-see-ums than we have down here in FL.

      Leaving malaria out of the picture, their bites aren't as irritating as mosquitoes for most people but there are a heck of a lot more of them and not only can you not see them, but you can't normally feel them land. And even as someone who's relatively tolerant, getting dozens of bites on your legs and feet in a few minutes is still pretty annoying.

  42. This is asking for a lawsuit! by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Mosquito for Urbanization, Nurturing, Colonization and Husbandry (PETMUNCH) is going to sue these people into oblivion!

  43. Oh no! by mellestad · · Score: 1

    Someone better call PETA!

    1. Re:Oh no! by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I don't think we have lasers large enough to fry PETA members yet. Better wait a bit before luring them in.

  44. An improvement suggestion by mi · · Score: 4, Informative

    An improvement in both safety and efficiency would be to use two lasers, each about 60% as strong as the currently used single one.

    The targeting computer would aim both lasers at the target frying it even faster than now. But, should one of the "canons" miss, or should an unintended target come into one of the beams, the "collateral damage" will be much smaller, because the other laser will not be aimed at the same spot.

    I think, the military lasers should use the similar technique — use multiple weak lasers frying the same target from dispersed locations. An unintended object (such as a civilian airplane) flying into any one of the beams will be safe, and taking out the entire installation will be much harder for the enemy. The set can have a cumulative power twice (or more) than is required to destroy one target, while each individual beam is still (relatively) harmless.

    When "healthy", such a setup will be able to destroy multiple targets at a time, and the enemy will only be able to reduce its capacity gradually, rather than all at once.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:An improvement suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      patent it then license it to raytheon

    2. Re:An improvement suggestion by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Of course, you would have just doubled the rate of failure as well by doubling the number of components you're dependent on by not providing redundancy. That said, it wouldn't be too tricky to introduce redundancy with your idea anyway.

    3. Re:An improvement suggestion by jasno · · Score: 1

      Depends... you could still do it with one laser and a beam splitter.

      Add a couple of piezo-electric mirrors and you don't have too many moving parts that will fail.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    4. Re:An improvement suggestion by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Hadn't considered that. Splitting the beam really would make a lot of sense and would accomplish the same end effect. It'd introduce a few more points of failure, sure, but not nearly as much as doubling the components would.

    5. Re:An improvement suggestion by mi · · Score: 1

      Of course, you would have just doubled the rate of failure as well by doubling the number of components you're dependent on by not providing redundancy.

      Against mosquitoes redundancy is, uhm, redundant. But if you must, you can offer an XL-model with, say, 3 lasers such that any two of them together can kill the bug, but any one of them is harmless.

      For military application I do talk about redundancy quite a bit — I'm proposing not two, but a large (variable) number of geographically dispersed small lasers. Small enough to be cheap, easy to operate (no dangerously charged batteries, for example) and not dangerous by themselves (you'll even be able to afford for some of them to fall into enemy's hands on occasion).

      Let's say, X units of something is required to destroy a target. If you have 50 lasers each producing 1/25th of X, you can afford to lose 50% of them and still be able to do the job. Better yet, as long as you have all 50 operational (or, say, 55), you can kill 2 targets at a time. Different targets may need more or fewer lasers — having many lasers you'll have the flexibility. They can be added to the system at any point, as well as remove for maintenance. You'll be able to perform partial upgrades to your setup. All the while, the enemy will be unable to eliminate the whole system by a single successful attack (such as with a suicide bomber, for example).

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:An improvement suggestion by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      >An improvement in both safety and efficiency would be to use two lasers, each about 60% as strong as the currently used single one.

      This is why the internet is ruining our country. It used to be you had to put on a tuxedo and hold a martini glass to hear this kind of garbage. Now it's everywhere.

  45. Imagine... by barfy · · Score: 1

    Imagine these lasers hooked up to your wi-fi using sim cards, and through the cloud be able to leverage better targeting systems, And be able to upgrade their firmware to support bigger and stronger targets, spiders and wasps. Until one day the entire network gets taken over by an unwitting team of military personnel. Oh Hang on... AFK. I'll BB...

  46. Are mosquitos a type of missle? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    When I saw the headline, I thought it was a dupe of the earlier article about Directed Energy Weapons but that Mosquito was the name of the type of missile.

  47. Fiction becomes reality by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    Star Wars Mosquito Defense System. Now where are our flying cars?

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  48. why just the females again? by alanshot · · Score: 2, Funny

    So why in the hell are we not nuking them all? why leave the males? So they can go find females that havent yet penetrated the perimeter and reproduce?

    I say nuke them all from orbit. And biting black flies too.. The island where I vacation every year in Candada is rife with the buggers. you can see dozens of swarms of skeeters the size of a small house (the swarm not the skeeters) hovering near the tops of the treelined fields at dusk, and the flies along the beach in some areas make it impossible to inhabit without a beekeepers suit (they bite through tshirts). One year I had to run a 1/4 mile off the beach because I was being swarmed by the flies. I could feel them bouncing off the back of my head as I ran... not fun times.

    1. Re:why just the females again? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      You nuke the females because they are the only ones that bite, and the purpose of the exercise is not to wipe out the population entirely (since that would severely mess with the food chain) but to reduce the biting population in your immediate vicinity.

      And, yeah, I'm totally on board with adding biting black flies, horse flies, and deer flies. We have all three in Maine, and damn those things can hurt.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:why just the females again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Candada candodo canditdit, sing along everybody!

    3. Re:why just the females again? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I ask Sam's question from LotR: "What do they eat, when they're not getting hobbit?" Given those swarms of flies, and given that they require blood to live and reproduce, and given that the scene seems devoid of warm-blooded mammals for obvious reasons: how the heck do those things live, much less prosper into huge swarms?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  49. Some may foresee a problem here... by monkeySauce · · Score: 1

    "You're implying that a group composed entirely of male mosquitoes will... breed... and bite?"

    "No, I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way."

    1. Re:Some may foresee a problem here... by natehoy · · Score: 1

      When the mosquitoes adapt, the machine just needs a firmware upgrade.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:Some may foresee a problem here... by monkeySauce · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except that the only guy that can upgrade the firmware supposedly left to raid the vending machine, but in reality he's gone to sell company secrets, expect he's not going to make it because he'll slide off the road, and while hooking up a winch to get unstuck he'll get ambushed by mosquitoes and die.

    3. Re:Some may foresee a problem here... by natehoy · · Score: 1

      That's OK, some snot-nosed little kid will utter "Unix! I know this system" and use a nonexistent and nonintuitive GUI to fix everything instantly.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  50. Re:yguo Fail It!? by IshmaelDS · · Score: 1

    Someones trying out their horrible AI to see if it will pass the turing test? You just failed by the way as you asked why "someone" would write that. :P

    --
    letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
  51. Sorry about threadjack but... by Auraiken · · Score: 1

    His name is Nathan Myhrvold... come on Slashdot... you used to be cool (in an ironic sort of way)

    TED Profile.
    Nathan Myhrvold on archeology, animal photography, BBQ ...(Not anything on the research in question)

  52. Can do similar damage with a camera flash by danceswithtrees · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I tried zapping mosquitos with a camera flash to see whether a strong pulse of light would disorient them. To my surprise, when the flash was held close to the mosquito ( 1"), the wings would actually be singed! They were very alive but could no longer fly with their crumpled wings. I used a rather powerful off camera flash-- one of the older Canon models at full power. Probably wouldn't work with the small flashes built into cameras.

    Flame on about cruelty to animals/insects but I think mosquitos might be one of the few things to garner less sympathy than lawyers.

  53. Almost there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's a step in the right direction, but it just doesn't quite beat the competition yet.

  54. From the guys who invented Windows... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Buggy assed bug-laser zapped my neighbor's dog and four year old, then blue screened and left the postman permanently blind in his left eye.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:From the guys who invented Windows... by Jahava · · Score: 1

      Why not? They have over 20 years of experience dealing with bugs. For years, Slashdot has called for Microsoft to be more proactive hunting down bugs ... and you complain when they are?

  55. sold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although: high powered laser + computerized operation (Windows probably) + beer (frequently) = what could possibly go wrong here.

  56. A Green Solution by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    This is also a solution that is more environmentally friendly than the existings ones such as oiling swamps, deet fogging, or using LP/Natural Gas Traps. Deet is a carcinogen and oiling swamps does damage to other species of wildlife. The system is, admittedly, genius.

    1. Re:A Green Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The oil most commonly used in mosquito abatement is a mineral oil. Mineral oil, as in baby oil, as a medicinal product, as an organic insecticide against softbodied insects and so on. It's only know deleterious health effect is as a cosmetic. It can place a layer upon the skin not unlike a plastic layer which can inhibit proper vitamin d production and shedding of body heat. As for DEET fogging, I have no clue to what you are referring there. The proper use of DEET is as a skin applied repellent in low percentage concentrations and as a clothing applied repellent in high concentrations. When used properly according to the label directions, DEET is perfectly safe. In fact, it is in the lowest toxicity grouping and is classified as a group D carcinogen. Group D is comprised of substances not classifiable as a human carcinogen. The most commonly used mosquito abatement products used in public health are very low toxic. Most less toxic than many things which people consume as part of their normal diet. The LD50 ratios on most larviciding and many adulticiding products is lower than that for products such as salt, sugar or coffee and in the case of some products less toxic than that incredibly dangerous substance, H2O. Any risk posed by the proper use of pesticides for public health reasons by trained and licensed applicators is far less than that posed by many insects of public health importance.

  57. Now all we need is... by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

    ... predator drones for mosquitoes! We must bring the war to the scourge of humanity.

  58. Organic Farming by seyfarth · · Score: 1

    Killing mosquitoes is outstanding. In addition this technology might be adaptable to farming to have a mobile robot find and zap insect pests. There would be no need for pesticides. Likewise perhaps the robot could identify pest plant species and zap them. Perhaps organic farming will be cheaper than using pesticides and herbicides.

    --
    Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
  59. What happens when... by walkerp1 · · Score: 1

    I walk by with about 10K of these buggers already sucking me dry? Do I get lit up in a fiery insect apocalypse or what?

    Wha? ZZZAP!

  60. picture? by hibji · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have a picture of this thing? It would be really interesting to see how it works.

  61. Yet another example of "Life Imitates Art". by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    from "Not Necessarily the News":

    Fly Wars, from RAID

  62. Summer parties by tzot · · Score: 1

    Add a discoball in the mix and then you can have a mosquito-free Abba and Bee Gees night every night during the summer.

    --
    I speak England very best
  63. Old news, One was made in the 80's by RAID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki4JKy4XkC4 ;)

  64. Mosquito Sausagefest by Fastball · · Score: 1

    Name for a metal band or an emerging trend in entomology? Let's go to our roundtable...

  65. Darwin says... by kclittle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... the laser targeting system listens for the precise wingbeat frequency of the female Anopheles Stephensi mosquito and then zaps only those.

    Darwin says, in a generation or two, the frequency changes...

    --
    Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    1. Re:Darwin says... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      the frequency changes...

      Sounds like something from Star Trek NG. I can imagine mosquito Troi and mosquito Beverly going up in flames. No word yet on whether it would target mosquito Wesley.

    2. Re:Darwin says... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Darwin says, in a generation or two, the frequency changes...

      So then we update the targeting software with the new effective frequencies.

      Booyah! Take that, Science!

      Intelligent design triumphs over evolution once again!

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:Darwin says... by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Booyah! Take that, Evolutionists! Creationism is more efficient! :P

      Who needs to "evolve" an ecosystem full of bugs if you can just write it in Perl.

    4. Re:Darwin says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Cycle the shield frequencies Mr Tuvok!

    5. Re:Darwin says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darwin says, in a generation or two, the frequency changes...

      So then we update the targeting software with the new effective frequencies.

      Well, that worked for the Borg. :-D

      Enable random shield modulation thingy!

    6. Re:Darwin says... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Darwin says, in a generation or two, the frequency changes.

      Right, just like people have evolved to be bulletproof, and bacteria have evolved to survive heat sterilization.

      Evolution doesn't mean everything eventually adapts. It only means the strongest survive. Change isn't costless either. Greater change requires more "cost". It may very well be the case that frequency changes are far too difficult of a change to come about. Who knows?

      --
      AccountKiller
    7. Re:Darwin says... by Mat'nik · · Score: 1

      In three generations the mosquitos will reverse the polarity..

    8. Re:Darwin says... by Vlado · · Score: 1

      Actually Darwin's evolution means that those best adapted to the environment survive, not necessarily the strongest.

      So, theoretically, the fittest female mosquitoes in this case will be the ones with slightly different frequencies. As a result their genes would likely spawn more of the same.

      Realistically, I don't see that sample size to be large enough to have a significant impact on the mosquito population overall. But even if it had, software update, like mentioned before, would solve that problem.

    9. Re:Darwin says... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Actually Darwin's evolution means that those best adapted to the environment survive, not necessarily the strongest.

      I guess I don't understand the distinction. Both those concepts in this context sound the same to me.

      So, theoretically, the fittest female mosquitoes in this case will be the ones with slightly different frequencies. As a result their genes would likely spawn more of the same.

      Evolutionary theory has moved on since Darwin. As I said there's a concept of cost of each change. If a change takes 100 mutations in 100 different genes that's a very costly change. The kind of fast change like bacteria becoming resistant to to a certain anti-biotic is normally a single or a few gene mutations, so it can happen very quickly. How do you know that frequency already varies to any considerable degree in the mosquito population? If it doesn't, how do you know how costly it might be? Unless you just happen to study them I'm guessing you're just making that up.

      --
      AccountKiller
    10. Re:Darwin says... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So god is a maintenance programmer?

      "Dear Lord, I have a constant that I'd like you to update. And Lord, if it's not too much, can you comment your code and remember to commit the change to CVS?"

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    11. Re:Darwin says... by advid.net · · Score: 1

      Darwin says, in a generation or two, the frequency changes..

      Spread Spectrum, that's what those female mosquitos will use for sure...

    12. Re:Darwin says... by jridley · · Score: 1

      Actually Darwin's evolution means that those best adapted to the environment survive, not necessarily the strongest.

      I guess I don't understand the distinction. Both those concepts in this context sound the same to me.

      Really? It's not hard to understand.

      Say you drop some apes into a place where the only food source is growing in the bottoms of holes 3 feet deep. Some of the apes are really strong, but others have really long arms. The strong ones are going to have a rough time getting food, the long armed ones are better suited for this environment. The strong ones will survive for a while by stealing food from the long armed ones, but eventually they'll lose if conditions don't change.

      In this context, the supposedly more fit would be buzzing at a different frequency. It's not at all obvious that those mosquitoes would also be stronger, or even more efficient at anything - there's almost certainly an evolutionary reason why most mosquitoes buzz at the frequencies they do. Ones that buzz at a different frequency could be far less efficient flyers, or they could be easier to swat, easier to hear and thus less stealthy, etc.

  66. Wearble version? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think a version of this that could be worn as a hat would have great utility as a mobile mosquito defense platform.

  67. Cost effective by crsuperman34 · · Score: 1

    Every municipality in South Louisiana will pay gorgeous sums to equip every telephone pole. This has to be much more cost effective--not to mention healthier (greener)--than the trucks driving around spraying chemicals in the air and ditches. The annual contracts for mosquito control services are usually well in the millions, even for smaller parishes.

  68. Eyeballs vs. balls by silverspell · · Score: 1

    (such as my balls)

    Assuming they are in your pants, they are probably quite safe. It's your eyeballs you should be really worried about.

    For some reason, this exchange made me think of:

    A Dying Tiger—moaned for Drink—
    I hunted all the Sand—
    I caught the Dripping of a Rock
    And bore it in my Hand—

    His Mighty Balls—in death were thick—
    But searching—I could see
    A Vision on the Retina
    Of Water—and of me—

    'Twas not my blame—who sped too slow—
    'Twas not his blame—who died
    While I was reaching him—
    But 'twas—the fact that He was dead—


    (Emily Dickinson)

  69. this isn't for public use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IV was contracted by TED to develop an anti-gates weapon due to 2009 presentation:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppDWD3VwxVg

  70. Sharks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But why would sharks be interested in killing mosquitoes?

  71. Charles Moore, 1983 by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    From "Interview With Charles Moore" Forth Dimensions, July/August 1983, Vol V, No 2:

    I did think of one use for a computer, though. Back in the Sierras there were mosquitoes. 1 could see a little solar-powered or laser-based zapper I wear on my head, that shoots mosquitoes. And any mosquito that comes within two feet of me is dead!

  72. Bugs by waitwonder · · Score: 1

    When Nathan Myhrvold left Microsoft I was wondering what was on his mind? Now I know....Bugs

  73. Getting Profitable Early by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    Sell a model I can buy that kills all female mosquitoes within range. I'll install one on the side of my house tomorrow. The Mosquito Magnet is only marginally effective and those run $250 these days. If this can really be done for $50, sell it for $100 and use the money to lower the cost in malaria areas.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  74. Yes, but what about the Scottish Midge? by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1

    Almost impossible to communicate the power of the tiny midge to people unaccustomed to them, but suffice to say currently there is no real effective defence against them.

  75. That would be... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ... one funny looking hat you'd be wearing.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  76. Every Frickin Insect Version?? by markass530 · · Score: 1

    I Want one with a dial to select other insects. $200 bucks easy sell

  77. Useless by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

    I don't see the point, you rarely find mosquitoes where you find sharks

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  78. Evolution? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    How many generations will it take for the females to become more male-like in appearance?

    Then when you start shooting down both sexes, how many more generations for them to start resembling a harmless species?

    How many generations for the mosquitos to develop shiny bodies the same color as the laser?

    Any other unintended evolutionary consequences? How long?

    Oh, and I hope the lasers aren't pointing up into clear air past the target. I'd hate to be a pilot in that case.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  79. Does the good excuse the bad? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    Wake me when they actually start selling this product? This seems like something too cool to go to market.

    Also, even if they do make a product this time, does that really excuse killing the products of other companies via patents on things they haven't actually built or sold? Then again, if someone robbed hundreds of people, then donated 10% of the proceeds or whatever to a charity named after them, people would defend them, so I suppose that they're only being consistent here if we excuse someone who practices patent trolling to kill their competitors, but who eventually makes a real product.

    Sure, it's good to do good things. But putting it forth as some kind of excuse is just lame. Call me when they actually repent of their patent trolling and promise to discontinue it, then we'll see if their reform is real or not. Otherwise, you might as well be selling indulgences.

    1. Re:Does the good excuse the bad? by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      They've designed more than just a skeeter zapper.

      http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=tr10&id=22114

      I'm honestly curious about this part: "Also, even if they do make a product this time, does that really excuse killing the products of other companies via patents on things they haven't actually built or sold?" Like?

      This isn't NTP (so far.) IV designs stuff. They built a prototype in this case. They haven't gone to litigation. It's a think tank that's working outside of a mega-corp's normal RAND department.

      Is it possible that, *gasp*, this company is actually trying to do good? Or do we just apply the 'patent troll' to any company that doesn't make tangible product? (BTW, ARM doesn't make the chips that go in the devices that use them. Does that make them a patent troll too?)

    2. Re:Does the good excuse the bad? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      > I'm honestly curious about this part: "Also, even if they do make a product this time, does that really excuse killing the products of other companies via patents on things they haven't actually built or sold?" Like?

      You should have followed a couple links from Grond's post:

      http://techcrunch.com/2008/09/17/nathan-myhrvolds-patent-extortion-fund-is-reaping-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars/

      Anyhow, the correct term isn't "patent troll", it's NPE (Non-practicing Entity). And you will note that I didn't call them that. Nor did the article linked (it called them a "patent bully").

      I don't care what we call them, frankly. I just don't like seeing people lock up ideas with patents and never let anyone use them. I don't like people patenting old ideas, doing fancy lawyering (but our idea is novel because it uses *four* knowledge bases... even though that's the only novel part and these things can easily be split or combined). I don't like reading Patently-O and seeing them give advice for how to prevent people from asking a court to make a patent bully go away by proving that they did not infringe, or how to get a patent even if the inventor doesn't want one.

      Basically, I don't like most of what I see going on with the patent system. I don't like obvious or gibberish patents or the self-important people who think that they're geniuses for having them (even if other people thought of those ideas first and implemented them better). I don't like how software patents never give any source code, even though they're supposedly obligated to disclose the best known way to implement the invention.

      There are so many problems with the system, I honestly wonder at times why we don't simply scrap it. Maybe there's a better way, but I haven't heard of one yet.

  80. Fly Wars spoof video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fly Wars is a decades-old hilarious (and prescient) spoof about this technology.

    Thanks to someone with a good memory
    who posted this to the NY Times article.

  81. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would anyone want w weapon that shoots down WWII British fighter planes?

  82. Prior Art - Fly Wars by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Ya ya, I know. But there's often an element of truth and vision in jest.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki4JKy4XkC4

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  83. Yes, but what about Canadian Deerflies? by Better.Safe.Than.Sor · · Score: 1

    This would make another 40% of Canada inhabitable.

    --
    It's all history, man. -anon
  84. pshaw! You think _you_ have big mosquitoes? by Dhrakar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here in the interior of Alaska we have to plant trees close together in our campgrounds. That keeps the mosquitos with the larger wingspans from getting through. Heck, some of them have their own landing strip at the airport. Our mosquitoes are big -- scary big.

  85. Will evolve to exploit bugs in targeting software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mosquitoes will probably evolve to "exploit" any and eventually all bugs in the targeting software. They will probably do it at a rate that seems surprising.

    Humans are probably their easiest food source, they will not be discouraged easily.

    I wonder if this inevitable "arms race" will be considered human directed evolution?

  86. But wait by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 0

    You'll need a buddy. After all, we humans need souls.

    --
    Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
  87. how long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    til the developers nerf it?

  88. Direct competition... by LSD-OBS · · Score: 1

    ... with Google Buzz?

    Couldn't help myself, sorry.

    --
    Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
  89. So many links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And not one of them leads to actual facts or specifications. Brilliant.

  90. At first... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ...I was going to say that Monty Python already did a sketch like this. But once I saw how many mosquitos it was capable of downing, I think I want one of those suckers to cover my backyard.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  91. DIE MOSQUITO DIE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DIE FUCKING MOSQUITO DIE

  92. Awsome by UK+Boz · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can die tomorrow knowing my life is now complete

    --
    www.boznz.com Simple solutions to complex problems.
  93. If You Actually Read The Fucking Article by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123680870885500701.html

    They don't have a lethal system.

    They have a targeting system that works on highly-illuminated mosquitos in a box in front of a reflective screen. The optics track the shadows. You wouldn't be able to sleep in a room with this device because it would have ONE REALLY POWERFUL lightbulb. And very bright walls.

    Also, there's nothing in the article about differentiating males from females. Except they say they can. I would assume by size, but they don't actually say, nor do they claim that it works, or that they even have a device or a method for doing so.

  94. Oh my goodness. by Artuir · · Score: 1

    Do they run Linux? Can I get a Beowulf cluster of these? :O

    The possibilities for awesome here are astounding.

  95. You say that .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... like if being cute didn't matter.

    Those animals, by the simple fact that we like to look at them, are important.

    If they are more important than others is a matter of personal priorities, but we humans value aesthetics and beauty, you refer to those attributes like if they were unimportant or disposable.

    And of course the fact that we are uttelry raping their natural environment should have some bearing into conservation, but given the depth of your initial argument I will not go into complicated socio-political issues with you.

  96. Video by Utopia · · Score: 1

    Looking at the video of the system
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNL_Q57Xn28&fmt=35

    The system doesn't look very compact, but very cool nonetheless.

  97. Star Wars Mosquito Defense System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the "Star Wars Mosquito Defense System" to me!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGkPMZxWPpA

  98. FTA: by hellop2 · · Score: 1

    “The women are bigger. They beat at a lower frequencies,” Mr. Myhrvold said.

    huh-huh huh-huh

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
  99. Mosquito Ringtones by muphin · · Score: 1

    your missing the main thing here, those kids with those mosquito ringtones, is it male or female??? dont wanna get zapped when your phone rings

    --
    It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
  100. We will all pay for this... by Mats+Svensson · · Score: 1

    ... when the space mosquitoes comes, and wants to know what happened to their primitive cousins.

  101. Too expensive for malaria? by wwwald · · Score: 1

    Maybe that's too expensive for use in preventing malaria in Africa but I'd buy one in a second!

    Am I the only one who finds this statement on the perverse side?