Slashdot Mirror


Mosquitos Have Little Trouble Flying in the Rain

sciencehabit writes with an interesting article about the (surprisingly not well studied) effects of rain on flying insects. From the article: "When a raindrop hits a mosquito, it's the equivalent of one of us being slammed into by a bus. And yet the bug will survive and keep flying. That's the conclusion of a team of engineers and biologists, which used a combination of real-time video and sophisticated math to demonstrate that the light insect's rugged construction allows the mosquito to shrug off the onslaught of even the largest raindrop. The findings offer little aid in controlling the pest but could help engineers improve the design of tiny flying robots." Bats, unfortunately, aren't so lucky: "...these furry fliers need about twice as much energy to power through the rain compared with dry conditions."

50 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A mouse could fall off a building and walk away. People, not so much. The smaller you are, the more resistant you are to long falls. It's why many dwarves become steelworkers.

    1. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Drishmung · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away, provided that the ground is fairly soft. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes

      On Being the Right Size J. B. S. Haldane in 1928

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    2. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by zero.kalvin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Force = dP / dt P = mass * velocity A mouse weights around ~20g , a horse around ~450kg. If we assume that both of them have the same velocity when touching the floor, the horse will experience a force that is ~22000 times higher. Easily explains the splashing... ( I could go more and calculate an approximation of the value force itself, but I think this is enough )

    3. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by linatux · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dropping a bus on a horse, a human or mouse at the bottom of a thousand-yard mine shaft will still wreck the bus. Wouldn't be good for the creatures either (probably kill the mosquito too).

    4. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by zero.kalvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AIUI, you assume wrong.

      I am aware of that, but I didn't want to complicate things, in case the reader was not a physicist. Sometimes simple assumptions can still give you a clear indication of what is going on.

    5. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Sulphur · · Score: 5, Funny

      AIUI, you assume wrong. The horse's terminal velocity is considerably higer (and considerably more terminal) than that of the mouse.

      and thus you strengthen his point. The mouse wins with conservative estimates. The mouse wins by more when you take into account more detailed explanations.
      Maybe he should have said "even if you assume..."

      This is called the principle of conservation of mice.

    6. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by zero.kalvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Give me a break, I wanted to write that comment that was as short, as quick, and as simple as possible. My conclusion isn't wrong ( in the literal sense ), I just made a "very" conservative estimation ( we do that in physics ). The whole point was to show, that the difference between a mouse and horse isn't small, but rather gigantic. I was not going into assumptions of density and its uniformity, or whether we can assume animals as spherical or not, or of buoyancy and drag factors. Now I agree with http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2894703&cid=40216663 , I should have mentioned that I was doing a very conservative estimation and the number is actually much higher.

    7. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by zero.kalvin · · Score: 2

      If you know the Horse's density and assume he is spherical ( I don't know why this assumption makes me laugh ) you can estimate his terminal velocity, same for the mouse. Now I might be wrong on this one but I would think that roughly both have the same density. If you do a simple calculation this would give you about ~3.5 factor more in favor of the horse ( the horse's terminal velocity following these assumptions would be 3.5 times higher than the one for the mouse). Now the relative surface of two animals is around 800 (again assuming same density and both as spherical)? So if I assume I didn't mess up doing all of this on the go, the relative Force/Area would be around 96 times higher for the horse.

    8. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by aliquis · · Score: 2

      I know a guy who as a child "saved" his guinea pig from an incoming dog by throwing it out the balcony.

      It didn't survived.

    9. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by FrootLoops · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, your two main assumptions are badly wrong.

      (1) The terminal velocities of larger objects is larger, and the effect is significant. The mouse hits the ground at a much lower speed than the horse.
      (2) The mouse and horse are not even remotely point particles so you should be considering pressure instead of force. You'd have to divide your 22000 number by the ratio of whatever bits land on the horse at once to the same for the mouse; this would be a fairly large number.

      To illustrate very approximately why larger objects have larger terminal velocities, consider two falling spheres of equal density, one of small radius and one of large radius. An object reaches terminal velocity when the energy it gains from gravity is perfectly canceled by the energy it has to give up to move air molecules out of the way. Let's compute each.

      Basic physics gives the first line of the following. Constant density and the definition of velocity gives the second, and the formula for the volume of a sphere gives the third.
      (energy gained from gravity)
      = (gravity constant) * (mass of object) * (distance it fell in a given time)
      = (different constants) * (volume of sphere) * (velocity of sphere)
      = (different constants) * (cube of radius) * (velocity of sphere)

      The other half is more approximate. The first line is pretty much trivial from the setup. The second line is from the formula for the surface area of a sphere and from the basic physics fact that the energy of an object is proportional to the square of its velocity. The rest is algebra.
      (energy lost to moving air out of the way)
      = (constants) * (amount of air moved per unit time) * (energy imparted to each molecule of air)
      = (constants) * [(surface area exposed) * (distance it fell in a given time)] * (velocity of sphere squared)
      = (constants) * [(radius squared) * (velocity)] * (velocity squared)
      = (constants) * (radius squared) * (velocity cubed)

      At terminal velocity, these two are equal. Simple algebra gives the answer from here.
      (constants) * (cube of radius) * (terminal velocity) = (constants) * (square of radius) * (cube of terminal velocity)
      (constants) * (radius) = (square of terminal velocity)
      (terminal velocity) = (constants) * sqrt(radius)

      The large sphere has large radius, so large terminal velocity. Incidentally this is the formula from the Wikipedia page I linked, though my assumptions were very, very approximate and are probably different from the ones used to derive it.

    10. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Informative

      I take it, then, that you don't understand the cube/square law. If you did, you'd understand why a mouse offers more wind resistance and has a lower terminal velocity than a horse. It's not really about physics, it has to do with the way the ratio of volume to area changes as an object scales up.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    11. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by vegiVamp · · Score: 2

      Ah, so *that's* where all that vacuum comes from - they mine it!

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    12. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Ragzouken · · Score: 4, Funny

      But your mouse remains safe, as predicted.

    13. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Strider- · · Score: 4, Funny

      What about a spherical horse in a vacuum?

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    14. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by quarkscat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Aside: This is only tangentially relevant to TFA, but I hope it gets a pass from the moderators and not modded down as OffTopic:

      Preface: Bats are kind of like mice with flappable wings. One would expect that they would have that knack of flying, pretty much instinctively. One would not expect them to thwart Darwin's Law, survival of the fittest, by doing 'stupid' things while flying, but ...

      True Story: I was driving home from work one night and was only a block away from home in a residential neighborhood, when something fell out of the sky and loudly hit the hood of my car. I stopped, engine still running and headlights on, to get out and see what had happened. A bat, with it's wings wrapped around something or other, had fallen out of the sky. As I was contemplating retrieving the combo windshield squeegee / ice scraper from the trunk to brush this poor dead creature off my hood, it separated from what it fell from the sky with and flew away. Almost immediately, a second bat roused itself and flew from the hood in presumed pursuit of the first bat. The only thing that I could figure is that those 2 bats were copulating in mid-air, lost control, and plummeted down to earth and landed on my car's hood.

      I'm not a biologist, nor have I ever played one on TV, but it would seem that the act of 2 small mammals copulating in mid-air would violate the base instinct of survival that falling out of the sky might negate. Unless ... unless they routinely know that such a fall is non-lethal, and other base instincts kick into play. Kids. You let them out to run around without supervision in the evening after a big supper (of bugs), and the next thing you know, they're getting into trouble. And yes, there was a full moon that night.

      Question: (Directed to anyone who might actually know): Was I fortunate to see a common occurrence, something that very few people have an opportunity to see, or were those bats engaged in very risky behavior that they managed to survive?

      Inquiring minds want to know, and Bing has so few good answers.

    15. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by RivenAleem · · Score: 5, Funny

      Okay, there's only one way to settle this once and for all. BRB

    16. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wish this was reddit so I could upvote all of zero.kalvin's posts. He deserves a lot more credit in this thread than techno-vampire's minor-nitpick sniping, and I think that would play out in a democratic voting scheme, but here on slashdot the best we can hope for is that the ones with mod points are smart enough to read the entire thread and make sure zero.kalvin gets more karma than techno-vampire.

    17. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by NFN_NLN · · Score: 5, Funny

      Force = dP / dt
      P = mass * velocity
      A mouse weights around ~20g , a horse around ~450kg. If we assume that both of them have the same velocity when touching the floor, the horse will experience a force that is ~22000 times higher. Easily explains the splashing... ( I could go more and calculate an approximation of the value force itself, but I think this is enough )

      Yes. But the real question is: What would happen to a bag filled with 22,500 mice (weighing a total of 450kg)?
      Would the mouse-bag make a splash like the horse? Or would each individual mouse walk away with a slight shock?

    18. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Zorpheus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah but if you assume that they touch the floor at the same speed, the amount of energy to be absorbed per body weight is the same for mouse and horse. The force per body weight is even lower for the horse since it has longer legs and therefore more time to slow down. But also the ratio of the cross section of the legs to the body weight is worse, which makhttp://science.slashdot.org/story/12/06/05/0112252/mosquitos-have-little-trouble-flying-in-the-rain#es it worse for the horse again.

    19. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by zero.kalvin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's way more complicated. You are talking about an n-body ( n= 22500 ) dynamics, if I am not mistaken this can be best handled by fluid dynamics. But even that is based on a lot of assumptions, for example will the bag hold ? if yes then it will behave like the horse. If not, then it depends on how fast will it tear, and how will it tear! Try this, take a melon and throw it out of a 10 story building, then another melon in ten plastic bags, and another in 100 plastic bags, and throw them. The result will show you what I mean.

    20. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by NFN_NLN · · Score: 5, Informative

      The simplified answer was actually the next two sentences in the essay:

      'You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away, provided that the ground is fairly soft. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes. For the resistance presented to movement by the air is proportional to the surface of the moving object. Divide an animal’s length, breadth, and height each by ten; its weight is reduced to a thousandth, but its surface only to a hundredth. So the resistance to falling in the case of the small animal is relatively ten times greater than the driving force."

      You are debating a single sentence of an essay that is an amazing read to say the least. I highly recommend reading it: http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html

    21. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by BagOCrap · · Score: 5, Funny

      The whole point was to show, that the difference between a mouse and horse isn't small, but rather gigantic.

      Thank you, sir! This would never have occurred to me if you hadn't brought it up. Now I better understand why my parents would never give me a horse as a child; it wouldn't fit in the cage with the mice, and it would splash if I accidentally dropped it.

      --
      -- Chaos, panic, pandemonium... My job here is done!
    22. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      A mouse could fall off a building and walk away. People, not so much. The smaller you are, the more resistant you are to long falls.

      Close.... the lower your mass to surface volume density; the more resistance you are to long falls.

      The most resistant objects to long falls are very large organisms that have very little mass, and therefore a higher ratio of surface volume to mass.

      The larger the object's horizontal cross-section w.r.t the ground, the greater the air resistance, the lower the velocity while falling.

      The lower the velocity towards the ground while falling, the lower the change of momentum at the point of impact.

      The lower the mass of the object, the lower the change of momentum at the point of impact with the ground.

      The lower the change of momentum at the point of impact with the ground, the lower the upward force that is exerted upon the object in the collission.

      The difference in damage between the two objects then depends on what the two different objects were constructed from. Different materials have different strengths; a titanium skeleton will probably fair better than something made out of fired clay.

    23. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Cap'nPedro · · Score: 2

      I had a quick look through some journals and this is the closest thing I could find:
      Mating Behavior as a Possible Cause of Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines, Paul M. Cryan, The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Apr., 2008), pp. 845-849, Allen Press
      Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25097617

      Bats are killed by wind turbines in North America and Europe in large numbers, yet a satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon remains elusive. Most bat fatalities at turbines thus far occur during late summer and autumn and involve species that roost in trees. In this commentary I draw on existing literature to illustrate how previous behavioral observations of the affected species might help explain these fatalities. I hypothesize that tree bats collide with turbines while engaging in mating behaviors that center on the tallest trees in a landscape, and that such behaviors stem from 2 different mating systems (resource defense polygyny and lekking). Bats use vision to move across landscapes and might react to the visual stimulus of turbines as they do to tall trees. This scenario has serious conservation and management implications. If mating bats are drawn to turbines, wind energy facilities may act as population sinks and risk may be hard to assess before turbines are built. Researchers could observe bat behavior and experimentally manipulate trees, turbines, or other tall structures to test the hypothesis that tree bats mate at the tallest trees. If this hypothesis is supported, management actions aimed at decreasing the attractiveness of turbines to tree bats may help alleviate the problem.

      The Mating System of Tadarida brasiliensis (Chiroptera: Molossidae) in a Large Highway Bridge Colony, Annika T. H. Keeley and Brian W. Keeley, Journal of Mammalogy , Vol. 85, No. 1 (Feb., 2004), pp. 113-119, American Society of Mammalogists
      Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1383984

      Focal animal sampling at a highway bridge revealed an aggressive and a passive male copulation strategy that may function as adaptations to different roost conditions. During aggressive copulation, the male separates a female from a roost cluster and restricts her movements during mating while he emits characteristic calls. During passive copulation, the male moves very slowly onto a female that roosts in a dense cluster. Passive copulations occur without resistance from the female and without male vocalizations. Both males and females mate with multiple partners, suggesting that mating is promiscuous.

      I'm an electronic engineering student, not a biologist, so someone else may find better information!

    24. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by sco08y · · Score: 5, Funny

      Give me a break, I wanted to write that comment that was as short, as quick, and as simple as possible.

      You didn't even take relativistic affects into account. What if the horse and mouse are being dropped near a large mountain? And what about the possibility of quantum tunneling?

      You're just lazy and sloppy, that's all.

    25. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Simplify the experiment.
      F=M*A
      Given two objects of equal velocity, the more massive imparts more force.
      The determining factor in the bounce vs. splash is how much energy is required to destroy the cellular bonds.
      Assume both objects are spherical with the same composition and density, and no outside forces such as gravity or air resistence, etc. This also allows us to assume the same amount of force applied to a given surface area upon impact.

      If the velocity is low enough, neither object will impact with enough force to break the structural bonds of the object.
      If the velocity is high enough, both will break.
      There is a "sweet spot" in the middle where the smaller will bounce while the larger breaks.
      This is because the force required to break the structural bonds does not increase with the volume or mass of the object... it's essentially a fixed constant.

      Now, when we're talking about dropping an actual mouse and an actual horse, things get vastly more complex. You not only have to worry about surface area, terminal velocity, impact angle, surface area of impact, but also the elasticity of each organism, and whether or not PETA gets wind of the experiment and interferes.

      So how does the mouse vs. horse debate apply to this story, or the claim about getting hit by a bus?

      "The team concluded that the raindrops deform and largely bypass the much smaller bodies of the mosquitoes."
      Oh, it doesn't fucking apply at all.

    26. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Funny

      A man, a horse, and a mouse walk into a bar...
      "Barkeep," the man says "I need 3 pints of beer and access to your roof."
      "Here you are," the barkeep says as he gives him the beer and keys to to roof.

      Then he looks at the horse and asks "Why the long face?"
      The horse pondered for a moment and then replied

      "Well, basic physics gives the first line of the following.
      Constant density and the definition of velocity gives the second, and the formula for the volume of a sphere gives the third.
      (energy gained from gravity)
      = (gravity constant) * (mass of object) * (distance it fell in a given time)
      = (different constants) * (volume of sphere) * (velocity of sphere)
      = (different constants) * (cube of radius) * (velocity of sphere)

      The other half is more approximate. The first line is pretty much trivial from the setup. The second line is from the formula for the surface area of a sphere and from the basic physics fact that the energy of an object is proportional to the square of its velocity. The rest is algebra.
      (energy lost to moving air out of the way)
      = (constants) * (amount of air moved per unit time) * (energy imparted to each molecule of air)
      = (constants) * [(surface area exposed) * (distance it fell in a given time)] * (velocity of sphere squared)
      = (constants) * [(radius squared) * (velocity)] * (velocity squared)
      = (constants) * (radius squared) * (velocity cubed)

      At terminal velocity, these two are equal. Simple algebra gives the answer from here.
      (constants) * (cube of radius) * (terminal velocity) = (constants) * (square of radius) * (cube of terminal velocity)
      (constants) * (radius) = (square of terminal velocity)
      (terminal velocity) = (constants) * sqrt(radius)

      The large sphere has large radius, so large terminal velocity. Incidentally this is the formula from the Wikipedia page I linked, though my assumptions were very, very approximate and are probably different from the ones used to derive it.

      In summary, this asshole is going to shove me off a roof just to prove a point, physics says they'll both survive, but I'm fucked."

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    27. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Talderas · · Score: 3, Funny

      Excellent, so I can toss mice off the top of my building all day long and not have to worry about killing them.

      Suck it PETA. Throwing these mice is intrinsic to testing the catacopter.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    28. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by bitt3n · · Score: 2

      You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away, provided that the ground is fairly soft. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes

      On Being the Right Size J. B. S. Haldane in 1928

      to be fair, the world has changed since 1928. These days, a man splashes.

  2. Figures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You have to work your ass off to keep the things you like alive/going (plants, cars, house, etc), yet pests like mosquitoes, bankers, and politicians you just can't get rid of no matter how hard you try.

  3. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by JimCanuck · · Score: 2


    Surface tension is a rather interesting study of fluids.

  4. The Wooden Wonder by rossdee · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, Mosquitos could fly in the rain. However they would have trouble dropping their bombs accurately and obviously the recon version wouldn't get good photos.
    The night fighter version would fare better with its radar, if there were any German bombers up there to intercept.

    But of course sometimes they had to fly in bad weather, such as just before D-Day.

  5. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by shadowofwind · · Score: 2

    Physics doesn't scale by size either. Strength is related in different ways to length and to cross section, which is length (or breadth) squared. Mass is proportional to length (or breadth) cubed. That's not even remotely the same. Dropping a bug a meter is not like dropping an elephant a hundred meters.

  6. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by maugle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But the bus analogy is still wrong, because the entire point of the article is that the mosquito is not smashed by the raindrop. Instead the mosquito simply merges into and falls with the drop, then escapes before the raindrop hits the ground.

    So, it's more like phasing through the front of an oncoming bus, landing comfortably in one of the seats, then escaping out the rear before the bus plows into a concrete wall.

  7. Mosquito's secret weapon by Grayhand · · Score: 2

    It's all the Scotchguard they spray themselves with.

  8. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by rgbrenner · · Score: 5, Funny

    *sigh* I don't understand these bus analogies. Can someone please give me a car analogy instead?

  9. Re:Why don't they? by siddesu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not where I live. When it rains, it only makes them more vicious. And the hotter/wetter it gets, the worse they are. It is unbelievable, they fly in packs of five, four lift the blanket by the edges, one sucks. Then they change.

  10. Re:Ants... by kdemetter · · Score: 2

    can carry a hundred times their body weight and I can carry thousands of ants.

    I wouldn't recommend it. They have a mean bite.

  11. Here's the video for it ... by knopf · · Score: 4, Informative
  12. Matter of chance by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If mosquitos weren't able to deal with rain, there wouldn't be a lot of mosquito's. They need water to reproduce in so they live in predominantly wet areas. Evolution made the rain resistant mosquito's breed and the non resistant ones extinct. Horses don't often fall down steep cliffs, nor do humans, so there isn't a lot of reason for them to develop a resistance against that. Mice reach their terminal velocity rather quick, so if they survive a 2m drop, they are much more likely to survive a 200m drop, since the difference in velocity isn't that much.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:Matter of chance by a_hanso · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stiiiinging in the raiiiin, I'm Stiiiinnning in the raiiiin...

  13. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by DeBaas · · Score: 2

    Just substitute bus by Ford F150 or Hummer, that's all

    --
    ---
  14. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by vegiVamp · · Score: 2

    Well, the mosquito would probably survive (the impact, not the drowning) when the drop it is in hits the ground, too. I often hit when I swat at flies (which are bigger and heavier than mosquitos), and they simply butt into the wall (with, relatively, quite some force), shake their head, curse at me and simply continue buzzing about.

    These little things are built like tanks, I tell you.

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
  15. Tiny Flying Robots? by guttentag · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The findings offer little aid in controlling the pest but could help engineers improve the design of tiny flying robots.

    Great! Because I was just thinking to myself, "we really need more tiny flying robots. If I have to wait 20 years for the CIA to solve the raindrop problem and weaponize these things, I'll die of boredom before videos of them assassinating people with them show up on YouTube."

    Too heavy on the sarcasm? Fortunately I don't say stuff like this out loud.

  16. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by rvw · · Score: 4, Funny

    But the bus analogy is still wrong, because the entire point of the article is that the mosquito is not smashed by the raindrop. Instead the mosquito simply merges into and falls with the drop, then escapes before the raindrop hits the ground.

    So, it's more like phasing through the front of an oncoming bus, landing comfortably in one of the seats, then escaping out the rear before the bus plows into a concrete wall.

    *sigh* I don't understand these bus analogies. Can someone please give me a car analogy instead?

    It's like a raindrop that hits a Yugo. The raindrop merges into the Yugo. The Yugo stops because the electricity fails. You get out, a little wet because of the leaking roof, but still OK.

  17. Re:Water Spritzer by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 2

    Add a bit of soap to the water. That tends to work a lot better in my experience, the insects get wet instead of having the water slide off.

    --
    Not a sentence!
  18. Effect of Rain on Mosquito Behaviour by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    In Winnipeg, it isn't that mosquitoes can't fly in the rain, they just don't like it very much. Usually, your basic Winnipeg mosquitoes just jack a car and drive to their next victim. If the driver's lucky, the mosquitoes will let him go instead of keeping him for an en route snack. If there's a dog or cat in the car...don't ask. It won't be seen again.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  19. Terrible analogy by LordNimon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When a raindrop hits a mosquito, it's the equivalent of one of us being slammed into by a bus. And yet the bug will survive and keep flying.

    In other words, it's definitely not the equivalent being slammed by a bus.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  20. Old news. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

    Mosquitos can easily fly in rain, and also in fog and snowy conditions too. In fact the Mosquito was faster than all the German fighter planes chasing it. So they completely dispensed with all the defensive machine guns, improving its bomb payload. Darned good for something made of plywood and glue. Later they painted it black and used it as night bomber.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  21. I routinely get smashed by giant bodies of water by Normal_Deviate · · Score: 3, Funny

    When I jump off a 10-ft diving board, a lake-sized glob of water smashes me at 20mph. Amazingly, I survive.