Slashdot Mirror


Flies See the World In Slo-Mo, Say Researchers

An anonymous reader writes "'The smaller an animal is, and the faster its metabolic rate, the slower time passes for it, scientists found. This means that across a wide range of species, time perception is directly related to size, with animals smaller than us seeing the world in slow motion.' No wonder it took so long to grow up!" Here's the original paper.

176 comments

  1. oh no by watcher-rv4 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Call the Judge Dredd!

    1. Re: oh no by Badblackdog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I get the same slow perception of time when I get baked.

    2. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I asked his secretary and she said that his reception was quite Frosty

    3. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. I Stayed in touch with him but lost it once his aids Oscar and Mike left.

  2. Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by Russ1642 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sitting in the left lane going ten under the speed limit while the world screams by.

    1. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      Seniors see the world at blazing speeds... [s]itting in the left lane going ten under the speed limit while the world screams by.

      Well sure. Everyone knows that children grow at an impressive rate. By the time they reach 18, they are twice as large as they were at age 2. Extrapolating from that, by the time they are in their late 60s, the average senior citizen is nearly 50 feet tall and thus perceives the world at a fraction of the rate we young people do. You can see it best in how slowly they change their opinions. From their lofty perspective, nothing has changed.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    2. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by robinsonne · · Score: 2

      You must know some really tiny 18-year-olds or some really big 2-year-olds! Most people I know are much more than twice as large as a 2-year-old when they become an adult.

      Unless you mean brain size, in which case I think you're being generous to many adults.

    3. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by omnichad · · Score: 1

      This is why it seems to take so long to turn off the left blinker.

    4. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by dpilot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually no. He's quoting the "pediatrician's rule of thumb", approximately.

      Final height as an adult can be guessed by doubling a boy's height at 2 years, or a girls height at 18 months. Worked pretty well for both of my kids. (one of each)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      I think you might live in a world of very large adults or very small children in fact.

      Given the extrapolation given was for height, height is what is being talked about. And the average two year old in the US is a little over half the height of the average 18 year old (here's one reference: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr010.pdf).

      If you mean weight, then sure, but then the extrapolation makes no sense.

    6. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Sitting in the left lane going ten under the speed limit while the world screams by.

      That's absolutely the fairest and most polite road behaviour in some parts of the world.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    7. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes: in those parts of the world where people drive on the left side of the road.

    8. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's so pollite in going under speed limits? Unless it's necessary, it's totally opposite of pollite to cause other people delays and endanger people.

    9. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I agree it's funny but it's actually backwards -- the older you get, the faster time goes. When I had six months left in the military it was forever. Now that I'm six months away from retirement, meh, six months ain't shit.

      I'm 61 and was talking about that with my Mom over the weekend. "Wait until you're my age!" she said. Hell, that's only 23 years, not long at all. Unless you are 23, in which case it's a lifetime.

      Even my 26 year old daughter has started noticing it.

    10. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by c0lo · · Score: 1

      What's so pollite in going under speed limits? Unless it's necessary, it's totally opposite of pollite to cause other people delays and endanger people.

      A senior driver may have slower reaction time, therefore it maybe necessary (patience, greenhopper, you may yet live long enough for a direct experience, unless your haste kills you before that). Other than that, picking the left lane is, in some parts of the world, the choice impacting the traffic the least.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    11. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You joke, but I really think there is something to this.

      When I was in first or second grade (1970s), the U.S. was in the middle of its metric conversion program. We were taught the size of a cm vs an inch, the weight of a gram vs. an ounce, etc. I came up with some equivalencies on my own to help me remember everything. A cm was about the width of my thumb at the time. An inch was the length of of my folded middle finger. A foot was about the length of of my fist to my elbow... (Obviously none of these work anymore because I was a lot smaller back then.)

      Then we got to time. How long is a second? I tried counting "one one-thousand, two one-thousand" in my head like my teacher had suggested. It was too fast. I eventually came up with a "one (pause) and a two (pause) and a..." chant which (for me) accurately measured out each second.

      I'm in my 40s now and if I try my old timing chant, it's too slow. Each second I count takes nearly 2 seconds real-time. The "one one-thousand, two one-thousand" mnemonic now works for me. This also matches my memories of staring at the second hand on the clock in class, waiting for the time to pass so school would end. I watch a clock (with a second hand) today and it seems to move almost twice as fast as I remember it moving back then.

      My timing hasn't changed. I started playing piano in second grade. When I listen to old tape recordings of songs I still play, my tempo hasn't changed. The only explanation I can come up with is that my verbal and visual processing has slowed down with age. My piano playing has had the tempo reinforced every time I hear a recording of a piece, so it gradually (to my brain) sped up over the years to keep pace with my slower processing.

    12. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed this at like, the age of 10 when I noticed summer break and the school year were both much shorter than they were when I was in kindergarden.

    13. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Fascinating! From my casual observations of men's height among subway riders, I figured about 1 in 20 guys were at least as tall as I am, and that table shows me right exactly at the 95% percentile! Science!

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    14. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6 months from retirement, eh? Sure hope you're not a cop. If you are, my condolences to your family, and here's to hoping your young doesnt-do-things-by-the-book partner puts two slugs right between the eyes of the guy that will inevitably kill you.

    15. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by rahultyagi · · Score: 1

      That's not science. just statistics. What it suggests is that the subway riders in your city come from the same population as the one that CDC report is about. (and that you did a pretty good job of sampling without possible biasing factors! :) )

    16. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember trying to count the number of times I could think a word in a second. Some word like "sausages" because it was close to dinner time. I could think that word 2.5 times/second. These days it depends on how hungry I am.

    17. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      When I was in first or second grade (1970s), the U.S. was in the middle of its metric conversion program.

      Yeah, that really stuck.

    18. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When I was in first or second grade (1970s), the U.S. was in the middle of its metric conversion program.

      Yeah, that really stuck.

      Oh, but it did. Now we use both SAE and metric measurements all over the nation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and in the Hubble

    20. Re: Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And somehow that is dtill fsstrr the modt dwings of a fly dwatter.

    21. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Or that the biasing factor happened to be exactly the opposite of the difference between his local population and the population the CDC used.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    22. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was in first or second grade (1970s), the U.S. was in the middle of its metric conversion program.

      Yeah, that really stuck.

      Oh, but it did. Now we use both SAE and metric measurements all over the nation.

      How many self addressed envelopes is it from New York to Seattle?

    23. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by goozer321 · · Score: 1

      Sober up, smack head.

    24. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Well, everyone knows that the likelihood of a statement being sarcasm is directly proportional to the ratio of exclamation points to sentences! Science!!

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    25. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I noticed it mostly in birthdays and christmas as I aged. When young it seemed like forever between them. Now old the time passes in a blink.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    26. Re:Seniors see the world at blazing speeds by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      There was a comedian, I don't remember who, who joked about that. He said "when you're five it's 'BIRTHDAY... Halloween....... Thanksgiving............. Christmas...............' When you're my age it's BirthdayBirthdayBirthdayBirthdayBirthdayBirthday

  3. well..that is obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This isn't exactly news. The speed at which they sample the world leads to time perception difference. Big surprise that when compared to our sampling speed it seems 'slow' but really it just means they sample faster -- their time perception of the passage of time is of HIGHER fidelity/resolution than ours is all this really means.

    1. Re:well..that is obvious by gl4ss · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This isn't exactly news. The speed at which they sample the world leads to time perception difference. Big surprise that when compared to our sampling speed it seems 'slow' but really it just means they sample faster -- their time perception of the passage of time is of HIGHER fidelity/resolution than ours is all this really means.

      you left out why I think they made the assumption. it's not just sampling rate, it's the possible sampling rate: less distance to travel in the brain since the brain is smaller..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:well..that is obvious by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      Not only are the distances involved much shorter but they are sampling much simpler images as well.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  4. Within a species? by PPH · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    People have shown in humans that flicker fusion frequency is related to a person's subjective perception of time, and it changes with age. It's certainly faster in children.

    What about differences in physical size between members of the same species? I've heard "He's pretty quick for a big guy." But nobody ever says that of smaller people. Its just sort of a given.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Within a species? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Well, big guys have big levers to actuate too, so that's part of it. But I also read once that a brontosaurus would take 3 seconds to feel a poke on its tail.

      I find it sort of interesting that those B movie versions of Jack and the Beanstalk that show the slow, lumbering giants trying to squish Jack while he relatively darts around - were probably right.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Within a species? by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Informative

      Correct. For those who don't believe this, go out in a field and catch a rabbit bare handed.

      As for the bronto, it's not really possible to know because we do not know what type of myelin sheathing they had on their nerves. It could be that their nerves propagated signals at 2mph (Iow end) or 200mph (highest). We don't know.

      If 2mph, a sixty foot animal's brain would get the signal in about three seconds, at 200 mph at .03sec. Or anywhere in between.

      Not really relevant though as the bronts had ganglia along their spines that did the reactions. Say the tail was 25 of that 60 and you have a little under a second low end perception time.

    3. Re:Within a species? by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      You must have read that quite a long time ago as there is no species called a brontosaurus.

    4. Re:Within a species? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Probably if you poked a Brontosaurus's tail, it would probably side-swipe the tail as a automatic reaction.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:Within a species? by Smivs · · Score: 1

      The same way there isn't a planet called Pluto!
      But it is true, the good old Brontosaurus is now known as the Apatosaurus.

    6. Re:Within a species? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I've heard "He's pretty quick for a big guy." But nobody ever says that of smaller people. Its just sort of a given.

      I've always wanted to work a number of reversed cliches into a story, with "He moved slowly for a thin man," being one of them.

    7. Re:Within a species? by Dr.+Zim · · Score: 1

      Did you mean autonomic reaction? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_nervous_system

      --
      (name withheld by request)
    8. Re:Within a species? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Is so!
      I saw one on the Flintstones.

  5. Truckers Diggers and Wings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Bromeliad-Trilogy-Truckers-Diggers/dp/0060094931

    This is the central premise of the Bromeliad Trilogy and gnomes... well, that and the box. And learning how to learn (chasing requirements)... sort of a philosophical fantasy book about project management.

    1. Re:Truckers Diggers and Wings by kulervo · · Score: 1

      Yes! I was hoping someone would make the connection. It's a rare day in life when you get to say that an idea in Terry Pratchett's fiction is scientifically validated!

      The idea in the book was that there were little gnomes that lived around/among us but were so small that they lived their lives on a different time frame. They were so fast and so discrete that regular humans rarely noticed them.

      Per Wikipedia there is a movie on the way.

  6. Makes complete sense by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember as a kid watching a sparrow fly through a chain link fence and thinking that kind of reaction time was impossible. Plus, when you look at the reaction time of smaller animals to a perceived threat (you trying to sneak up on one), we can't come close at our size.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Makes complete sense by Ogive17 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You haven't seen my reaction time when I spot a spider.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    2. Re:Makes complete sense by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've thought of this too every time I try to swat a fly that found its way into my house. Flies seem to be able to do aerial maneuvers in reaction to threats that you would think impossible given their tiny brains. I often wondered if it wasn't that they were so quick, but that (to them) I was moving so slow. This might also explain why they seem to like buzzing right by me when I'm trying to kill them. They're taunting the big creature moving in slow motion. "You think you can catch me? I'm right in front of you. Nope. Now I'm over here. Over here. Over here. Too slow. Try and catch me." *zips into another room*

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Makes complete sense by dpilot · · Score: 2

      Think about this for a moment from an evolutionary point of view. It make sense for the sampling rate of your brain to be geared to your body size - really to your ability to make your body move. In essence, if you could think/sample faster it usually wouldn't matter because you normally couldn't translate those faster thoughts into appropriate actions. Then add the fact that the brain is the densest user of energy in the body. To speed your thinking/sampling rate would likely mean burning more energy, and it usually wouldn't pay.

      It's simple conservation and moving toward a balanced design.

      (I say "usually" above when justifying slower thought because sometimes faster thinking might select a better course of action before starting to move. Also usually, once you've committed to moving, faster thinking might make you re-think your move when you're body is too slow to change course anyway. In that case, instead of "action A" (the original) or :action B" (the update) you might get some sort of hybrid "action C", which would be worse than either of the others.)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    4. Re:Makes complete sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      To kill flies (on a horizontal surface) with a high success rate, slowly move your hands near the fly so that your hands are about three inches above the surface and six inches apart. You should have the fly centered between your hands. That's the hard part-- getting into that position without spooking the fly.

      Now, as fast as you can, clap your hands once and leave them together. Usually the fly will fly straight up between your hands. Unfortunately, killing the fly may require some mashing your hands around, or you can catch-and-release the fly to the outdoors assuming you can get outside without the use of your hands. It is sometimes possible to maneuver the fly around so you can get it pinched between two fingers to free up one of your hands.

    5. Re:Makes complete sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But drop bears are so fast you NEVER see them.

    6. Re:Makes complete sense by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      I've thought of this too every time I try to swat a fly that found its way into my house. Flies seem to be able to do aerial maneuvers in reaction to threats that you would think impossible given their tiny brains. I often wondered if it wasn't that they were so quick, but that (to them) I was moving so slow. This might also explain why they seem to like buzzing right by me when I'm trying to kill them. They're taunting the big creature moving in slow motion. "You think you can catch me? I'm right in front of you. Nope. Now I'm over here. Over here. Over here. Too slow. Try and catch me." *zips into another room*

      Funny, I have no problem catching flies, even the tiny fruit flies. Perhaps it comes with all of that practice swatting mosquitoes and deer flies as a kid. Now, catching a fly with chop-sticks (Karate Kid) is an entirely different thing. I can't even catch food with chop-sticks unless I sharpen the ends with a pocket knife... (grin)

    7. Re:Makes complete sense by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 2

      I've thought of this too every time I try to swat a fly that found its way into my house. Flies seem to be able to do aerial maneuvers in reaction to threats that you would think impossible given their tiny brains.

      I thought it was because your hand creates a big buffer of air in front of it, like a bow wave. The fly is so small, it's easily buffeted ahead and aside, so any manoeuvring gets it out of the line of your hand. Even easier when your hand approaches a hard surface - then the air squishes out to the sides, and the fly goes out with it. This is probably easier to visualize in a body of water - float a cork or a small piece of plastic in your sink, put your hand in the water, then try to squish the item up against the side of the sink. It won't work most of the time, as the bow wave will push the item off to one side, and it only gets worse the faster your move your hand.

      I expect that's why fly swatters are just a mesh - so the air can flow through without creating an air buffer.

      --
      A recursive sig
      Can impart wisdom and truth
      Call proc signature()
    8. Re:Makes complete sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flies don't have brains

    9. Re:Makes complete sense by mikael · · Score: 2

      The trick is that flies don't think about flying like the way a human would fly a plane - they react by something called "optic flow". Basically flight control is governed directly by the relative motion of different areas of their visual field and the resulting neuron activity. Moving straight ahead causes all objects to move away from the centre of vision. Moving backwards, causes objects to move towards the centre of vision. Turning will cause a couple of areas to remain static while others move rapidly. Reaction to threats is simply "if a shadow rapidly gets larger then fly away towards a bright patch of light."

      Though I am sure that a couple of times that I've missed swatting a large fly, they fly back and around to inspect what attempted to hit them.

      It's known that bees can recognize and memorize different 3D shapes like flowers, and that this can be applied to human faces as well.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    10. Re:Makes complete sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iv'e tried vacuuming up houseflies, but found that no matter how quick I was with the nozzle, they would react and fly out of the way. No air cushion needed (but an air cushion surely does help the fly to get out of the way, since once airborne it's affected by air currents.
      But if I move the nozzle towards the fly very slowly, it will not react to the threat until the airstream starts tugging at it, and by that point it's already too late. Apparently it either doens't perceive the slow movement, or doesn't see it as a threat.

    11. Re:Makes complete sense by Skapare · · Score: 1

      My nephew, when he was a kid, chased down and caught a chipmunk with his bare hands. I'd never seen him move so fast. I doubt he can do that now.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    12. Re:Makes complete sense by MiniMike · · Score: 2

      Reaction to threats is simply "if a shadow rapidly gets larger then fly away towards a bright patch of light."

      So that's what I've been doing wrong. Next time I have to swat a fly I'll use a flashlight.

    13. Re:Makes complete sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pray tell, why suffer the pest to live?

    14. Re:Makes complete sense by Phiu-x · · Score: 1

      Karma!

      --
      This is a stolen sig.
    15. Re:Makes complete sense by matfud · · Score: 1

      Try slapping them from behind. They can still see you and react in the same way but can not get out of the way fast enough.

    16. Re:Makes complete sense by matfud · · Score: 1

      Sort of. The compound eyes never seem to produce an image. Not really enough neural matter there. Most reactions are based on differentials within the eye and between eyes. Finding food does not appear to be a function of the eyes (in flies). In bees it does to a small extent but more so the navigation mechanisms they use. Similar with ants. They follow the trails of scouts to find food. The scouts seem to wander almost randomly.

    17. Re:Makes complete sense by matfud · · Score: 1

      Interesting to note that arachnids primary eyes are not compound. Some even show planning ability when shown a sceen.

    18. Re:Makes complete sense by matfud · · Score: 1

      Humans have a distributed nerous processing system to help with signal speed issues. If you burn your finger your arm will move before the signal has a chance to reach your noggin let alone be processed and interpreted by it. Sample rate is the wrong term. response time is better but still not a great term. Whatever you call it it is variable and at different speeds within a single entity (depending on what the input is). Human stereo hearing is another example. Cross talk between the singnals from your ears can be handled to such a fine degree you can determine the origin of a sound.

    19. Re:Makes complete sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can also sense and react to air pressure changes around them as well.

      Cockroaches are notoriously noted for this, having two special appendages on the ends of their butts just for this.

      But I remember hearing about this speculation a long time (in /. years) ago, too, on some PBS/Nova show...

    20. Re:Makes complete sense by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I was just using his term. Even though as you say, reflex actions don't get back to the brain before being processed, they still travel further in bigger organisms. I suspect nerve propagation rate is relatively constant, so of course bigger organisms will be able to sense and move more slowly. Roughly speaking, of course. As you say, we have phase response between our ears, and that's not slow, but the ears are relatively close.

      I guess my other point was where thinking is involved, we don't (or didn't) need to think fast enough to double-guess our actions, and it was energetically unfavorable to do so.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    21. Re:Makes complete sense by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Some of the most interesting spiders to interact with are the jumping spiders. They'll spot you across the room and track you as you move toward them, turning their body to face you the entire time. They seem to keep a 3D map of the world around them, as well, as evidenced by their resistance to being herded into a jar behind them if they saw you put it there. Fascinating stuff!

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    22. Re:Makes complete sense by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Human sound localization doesn't depend on response time as much as it depends on predictable timing between the two auditory inputs.The two inputs are compared to each other and the processing isn't especially fast (like the burned finger is fast). Sound localization mostly depends on a massive amount of differential spectral analysis, though. You can get a huge amount of information by the resonance of outer ear structures and the attenuation of certain frequencies by body parts.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    23. Re:Makes complete sense by mikael · · Score: 1

      Flies have some sensory hairs on the back that pick up any sudden changes in air movement. Some actually have a three individual compound eye facets to pick up sudden changes in light. Got to admire the design or the evolution. Mosquitoes do the same thing using one of their legs. The only way I can squish one is to throw a cushion at it.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    24. Re:Makes complete sense by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Yellow jackets will chase you several hundred feet. They really hate running small gas engines (chain saw, weed eater) and especially concentrate on stinging the handle. I want to know, what do they think it is?

    25. Re:Makes complete sense by mikael · · Score: 1

      A gas engine gives off carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide compounds), as well as create vibrations that sound like something like a bear trying to claw its way into the tree or nest. The handle would be the closest object that resembled an extremity like an ear, leg or tail.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    26. Re:Makes complete sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had good luck doing that but instead of clapping I flick a finger.

    27. Re:Makes complete sense by matfud · · Score: 1

      I know. I was using it as an example of how sample rate is the wrong term. The timing differences between signals for each ear are significantly smaller than signal propagation time. However clever differetial processing can handle such small timescales. Yeh it will take you a while to determine the source of the sound as it is a higher level function but the raw signals (as in nerve signals (frequency pulses)) are handled at a much finer granulatrity than would be expected if you just looked at the 'specifications'

    28. Re:Makes complete sense by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Fly Swatters also have a lever effect which is probably the most effective part of them. The holes my help slightly. For every inch you turn your hand the end of the fly swatter moves several inches, thus amplifying your speed.

    29. Re:Makes complete sense by volmtech · · Score: 1

      They probably smell the sweat on the handle. They ignore big things though. I tore into a nest as big as a bath tub with a front end loader. I was safe in a cab and drove next to the hole to watch them. Thousands of them making tight orbits like an animation of the electrons in an uranium atom. Not a one of them flew up to the window or around the motor.

    30. Re:Makes complete sense by matfud · · Score: 1

      And they are cute.
      Spiders cannot move thier eyes so move thier bodies, it is quite obvious when they are looking at you. The retina is relativly small for the size of the eye. However they can move the retina and they seem to scan the world by moving it around.

      A number of years ago I saw a film of a jumping spider trying to attack another spider (in a web). after a number of approaches failed the jumping spider dissapeared from the shot only to apear a while later on a twig above and offset wrt the web. Let its self down on a thread and then swung pendulum style towards the other spider until it could grab it.

    31. Re:Makes complete sense by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      That's because when they take off they jump backwards. I use a grabbing motion coming up from behind the fly. My hand being 2 or 3 inches above the surface. The fly jump up to take off and quite often ends up in my fist. Trying to squish them can be tricky so a lot of time I just throw them at a hard surface to stun them and then finish them off afterwards.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    32. Re:Makes complete sense by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Or rather, slightly behind the fly, since most of 'em seem to take off backwards. (When I'm in practice, I get 'em on about half the attempts.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    33. Re:Makes complete sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of that is that flies leap backwards as they take off.

    34. Re:Makes complete sense by causality · · Score: 1

      That's because when they take off they jump backwards. I use a grabbing motion coming up from behind the fly. My hand being 2 or 3 inches above the surface. The fly jump up to take off and quite often ends up in my fist. Trying to squish them can be tricky so a lot of time I just throw them at a hard surface to stun them and then finish them off afterwards.

      The very best method to kill flies I have found is with a spray bottle of some kind of glass and surface cleaner. Something like Windex will work, or something stronger with chlorine/bleach will kill them faster. It's better to use the kind of bottle that lets you adjust the output from spray to stream. Stream is more effective but the mist will work if you get close enough. Give it a few practice squirts and you can easily refine your aim (if you ever do any target practice, this will be trivial). Nail 'em with a single squirt and they drop, crawl around a bit, and die. A single shot and they don't get back up. A follow-up shot makes them die faster, though I can't help think that this must be a very nasty and unpleasant fluid in which to drown.

      It's much easier than trying to squash them with your hand and less unsanitary too, though definitely less sporting.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  7. No wonder.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

    ....I can't swat the damn things. They have an unfair advantage!

    1. Re:No wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slowpoke ;-)

      I drop-kicked one as a kid.

    2. Re:No wonder.... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      ....I can't swat the damn things. They have an unfair advantage!

      Pro-tip: If you want to kill a fly, use two hands, one on each side. Then clap your hands together. They are faster than one of your hands, but not both.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:No wonder.... by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Which one?

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    4. Re:No wonder.... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Which one?

      Your choice.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  8. Bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for snails! This makes their life really boring: slow moving, plus slow motion. Probably as boring as an average slashdotter.

    1. Re:Bad news by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Actually, creatures with a slow metabolism have slower perception of time as well, as the title of the paper says. The European eel, blacknose shark, and tokay gecko had the slowest, third slowest, and fourth slowest reaction times out of all animals surveyed, and they're relatively small but have very slow metabolisms.

      Snails probably aren't that much better.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  9. Splattt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, they can read the front page of the newspaper, before it squashes them. Handy!

    1. Re:Splattt... by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      So, they can read the front page of the newspaper, before it squashes them. Handy!

      By the time they've read it they probably *want* to die.

  10. Have you ever tried to swat a fly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    You practically have to be on meth to catch one. And then the problem is with the spiders in the corners of your eyes.

    1. Re:Have you ever tried to swat a fly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then the problem is with the spiders in the corners of your eyes.

      You clearly go too long in between blinking if spiders are setting up home in your tear ducts...

    2. Re:Have you ever tried to swat a fly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have spiders in your eyes?

      Is that like having a botfly under your skin?

      You might want to see a doctor about that.

    3. Re:Have you ever tried to swat a fly? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      And then the problem is with the spiders in the corners of your eyes.

      I don't want to burst your bubble or anything, but chances are, it's the spiders who're catching the flies. Just ask the old lady.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:Have you ever tried to swat a fly? by Ferrofluid · · Score: 1

      AC's joke is that people on meth tend to hallucinate things like bugs and spiders.

  11. So flies are 4 times as twitchy as we are? by Lew+Perin · · Score: 1

    Then why is it ever possible to swat a fly?

    --
    Sorry, I forgot there are ads on the Web; I use Lynx.
    1. Re:So flies are 4 times as twitchy as we are? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I suspect it's because speed is no cure for stupidity.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    2. Re:So flies are 4 times as twitchy as we are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you move your hand slower, it will seem to the fly that your hand is stopped. Then, apply force!

    3. Re:So flies are 4 times as twitchy as we are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because 4 times as twitchy isn't enough to avoid our attacks every time, just most of the time.

      We have the advantage in depth of perception, and we can launch a strike against a fly before it is even aware of a threat.

    4. Re:So flies are 4 times as twitchy as we are? by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fly swatters flick faster than we can move our own hands. In other cases, we can strategically hit one step ahead of where we think they'll be.

    5. Re:So flies are 4 times as twitchy as we are? by Cyko_01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      just because their brain processes things faster it doesn't mean they can move fast enough to get out of the way. Consider the size of a flyswatter in relation to the size of the fly

    6. Re:So flies are 4 times as twitchy as we are? by c0lo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then why is it ever possible to swat a fly?

      Why... that's elementary! The flys are so bored to death by watching you in slo-mo, some will fall asleep.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    7. Re:So flies are 4 times as twitchy as we are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer to wait for one to land near the edge of a table, sneak my hand under that same spot, then bring my hand up over the edge and down on the fly in one swift motion. By the time it can see my hand, it's already within an inch of the fly, and it can't become airborne fast enough. You can't move faster than the fly, but you can outsmart it.

    8. Re:So flies are 4 times as twitchy as we are? by Baby+Duck · · Score: 1

      I don't know about flies, but some insects, like roaches, have air current sensors near their back legs. If they feel an air current rushing towards them, a signal is sent to their legs to start running forward. This detect/react cycle bypasses the longer trek to the brain and then back down to the legs. With flies and mosquitoes, if you slowly creep up on them with a hand, swatter, tissue box, shoe, etc., and THEN quickly strike, your kill chances are greater. The time difference between them detecting an air current and being smooshed is a lot less. You'd think they'd detect/react to a HUGE object gaining proximity and blocking more light, but nope, they don't.

      A fly-swatter is a double-whammy for a fly. The holes means less air resistance, so we can swing faster. Holes also mean less air current rushed at the fly, so they are less likely to detect/react to it. You can also "snap" your wrist so the swatter travels over a wide arc. Not only will you get a fulcrum effect for faster speed, but less of the air current is directed at the fly, so they don't react as well.

      --

      "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

    9. Re:So flies are 4 times as twitchy as we are? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      I personally like 'sneaking up' on them. Move your hand in slowly and flick them with your finger while thinking, "Stupid fly! I bet that hurt!" Then they buzz around like they're all drunk, because it won't kill them...the first time.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    10. Re:So flies are 4 times as twitchy as we are? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Flies also tend to take off backwards, so you can estimate which way they're going to go when they take off and plot accordingly.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:So flies are 4 times as twitchy as we are? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      A badminton racket is even better[1]. The strings are open enough that the bow wave is negligible, but too close for a fly to pass through without at least getting a wing clipped (in which case you finish it off with the bayonet). Smaller & more maneuverable than a tennis one.

      [1] One that belongs to your flatmate that you don't like is better still.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. Wow latency time dependent on die size by moteyalpha · · Score: 1

    Who would ever have thunk it. Time of flight of a signal is dependent on distance.
    Next they will tell me that ping times are smaller for nearer nodes and I will be astounded and mystified.
    I am looking forward to overclocking flies for super slo-mo, however.

    1. Re:Wow latency time dependent on die size by Ferrofluid · · Score: 1

      Well, just because a hypothesis seems like it would be true, doesn't mean that it is necessarily true. It's good that scientists are actually studying this to find out, instead of just assuming. That's the point of science, really. To test out hypotheses and learn new things.

  13. Insect, meet windshield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't imagine what it's like for those pesky little buggers that are raining down on my windshield each day.

    1. Re:Insect, meet windshield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I was flying along happily, buzzing happily full of summery joy, when the sky came out of nowhere and hit me. I hate karma."

  14. So Ents see life fly by? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm, this would seem to contradict Tolkiens Ents, unless Trees metabiloc rates are faster than we think.

    Giants, Elephants and Whales likewise should be the Tweakers of the Animal/Fantasy kingdom.

    Quicklings, probably do have have high metabolisms, and think the world moves too slow for their tastes, so Gygax got it right?

    Elves are about the same size as Humans so there must be some Prozac in Lamnas Bread.

    1. Re:So Ents see life fly by? by ekgringo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you've got it backwards and Tolkien was right. As I remember, the Ents were complaining that the much smaller hobbits were being too hasty. Their Entmoot took several hours just to get through the meet & greet stage and it took them a day or two to come to a decision to do something.

    2. Re:So Ents see life fly by? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      As I remember, the Ents were complaining that the much smaller hobbits were being too hasty. Their Entmoot took several hours just to get through the meet & greet stage and it took them a day or two to come to a decision to do something.

      ObligatoryFlameBait: So, the Ents work 10x faster than the US Congress?

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    3. Re:So Ents see life fly by? by mark-t · · Score: 2

      But.... [spoiler alert]... But wasn't the decision that took them all day to arrive at a decision to not do anything at all? In fact, they only really decided to do something after they saw what Saruman had done, and the decision to act then was made almost immediately.

  15. Adrenaline by muhula · · Score: 1

    Moments before a car accident, things seem to slow down and reaction times increase... because adrenaline would increase your metabolic rate

    1. Re:Adrenaline by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      It's not just adrenaline. It's also focus. When you concentrate on one input, you sample it at a much higher frequency, so it does seem that time slows both during the event and later in your memories... because you have so many of them.

  16. Doh! by turin39789 · · Score: 2

    I read that as 'FILES'

  17. Guy's been crashing around the forest for years.. by intellitech · · Score: 0

    "I HURRRRRRRRT MY ELLLLLLLBOWWWWWWWWWWWWW"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe2dqPBm6zo

    Bwahahaha.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
  18. Makes sense, actually by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

    Higher sample rate = more samples per second ~ more frames per second = slow motion. Shorter nerve lengths as well...

  19. God's time by pellik · · Score: 1

    So an omnipresent being (everywhere, the size of everything), should have a time scale which relative to ours approaches zero.

    1. Re:God's time by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Or time has no meaning for such a being, which is vastly different than saying it approaches or touches zero. Think Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen.

    2. Re:God's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is also why beings living on the surface of neutron stars are two dimensional disks for all practical purposes.

    3. Re:God's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also why it's so difficult to read the mind of A'Tuin.

  20. So the movie Epic got it right by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Hey, don't judge...it was my week to chaperone the pre-teen girls on movie night.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  21. Epic by tippe · · Score: 2

    Funny timing. I just had a "movie night" on Saturday with my kids and saw "Epic" for the first time, whose premise is based on this idea (insects and small things which live in slo-mo world, or rather, that they see themselves as moving normally while they see us "big people" as large, slow moving, bumbling idiots).

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

      FYI: a certain popular by-mail movie rental company's movie release dates don't coincide exactly with the official dvd/blu-ray release dates, so there are a lot of people who will be watching Epic for the first time tonight.

      ("A lot of people" includes me, unless the post office screwed up.)

  22. No, dammit, they see into the FUTURE... by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    ... at least I am convinced of that every time I try to sneak up on one and kill it...

  23. I thought this was well known by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    I honestly though this was common knowledge already. Maybe I'm a little slow.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:I thought this was well known by NIK282000 · · Score: 1

      They have a very specialized and very simple set of hardware and software that only has to do a few jobs, flying, eating etc. so they can devote all their processing time to doing those few things and they do them one at a time. Bigger, more complex animals have a lot of extra stuff taking up their brain time, social behaviour, non-automatic body maintenance or hunting, all of which are far more complex tasks then a fly while it flies. If you sit and watch one you will notice that flies act like really poorly programmed robots, they have vague objectives and use the same set of reactionary rules over and over to achieve them. Flies have no foresight, they are always reacting and thus MUST perceive things fast to survive as a species.

      --
      Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    2. Re:I thought this was well known by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      I honestly though this was common knowledge already. Maybe I'm a little slow.

      Yes, I distinctly remember a scene from a documentary which portrayed a fly escaping being swatted by a rolled-up newspaper -- in super-slow-motion, to indicate that this was actually how the fly perceived the incident. I watched it in the early nineties.

      It might have been the "Time" episode of a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersense">the series Supersense , although I'm not entirely sure. It was a brilliant series in any case.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    3. Re:I thought this was well known by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      Found it! :)

      (The documentary referenced in my sibling post, that is. It's from 1988.)

      The fly-swatting scene is in the second-to-last episode on that page, from about 20:30.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
  24. The rate is different, but is it also variable? by djpretzel · · Score: 1

    And if so, by how much? It's one thing to say that flies perceive time differently than we do, but I'm curious as to whether: 1. Among many flies, there is variance from fly to fly (both independent and dependent of relative size), and if so, what that variance is... 2. For a single fly, whether there is variance based on age, environment, time of day, etc. It's always seemed to me like those with an extraordinary talent at something, esp. an athletic or musical talent, are able to slow down time when performing this talent. I'd tend to say that perception of time should more and more be considered a sense, like sight, sound, taste, etc.

  25. I figured this out decades ago ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    ... when I was a kid wondering how flies could so easily see the fly swatter or my hand approaching. My guess was that since their brain was smaller, signals didn't have so far to go, and could be processed faster ... and they would see the world from this faster-brain perspective as a slow world.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  26. Less processing == faster processing by Theovon · · Score: 1

    Fly neurons aren't terribly different from ours. There are just fewer of them, doing less sophisticated processing. So the amount of processing that is done can happen in less time. In other news, Gedit is smaller and faster (at simple text editing) than Libre Office.

    This is one of those situations where the intuitively obvious is now scientifically established in a way that it wasn't before, I guess. But that's important, because a lot of intuitively obvious things are wrong, so they all have to be tested.

    1. Re:Less processing == faster processing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So flies have RISC processors while humans have CISC processors?

    2. Re:Less processing == faster processing by tippe · · Score: 1

      Your comment reminds me of a novel called Blindsight by Peter Watts about an alien species that threatens Earth and humanity despite not having any individual or group consciousness. The author makes a claim that our consciousness slows us down and puts us at a severe disadvantage compared to other species (like the aliens) which can think much faster than us because they don't have an additional processing layer of consciousness to slow them down. I thought it was a really good book, and worth reading in my opinion.

  27. Silly conclusions - shorter neural pathways by ace37 · · Score: 1

    While size would matter, I don't see why metabolic rate should have anything to do with it. It's also funny to hear it described as 'time going slower.'

    The nervous system pathways for flies are much shorter. Therefore, flies have lower lag. Go figure.

    Just like an L2 cache on a computer processor, since the speed of information travel is pretty well fixed for the selected technology, using shorter path lengths yields faster response times provided the tasks are simple enough to benefit from it. Reflexes in people are like this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflex Detailed thinking has a lot more overhead. And while stimulus-response is more rapid for reflex type behaviors, the speed of thought is the same. (An L2 cache won't change the speed of light.) Using reflex is just a more efficient arrangement for certain types of tasks.

  28. Makes sense by kimvette · · Score: 1

    It makes total sense. Think of it like shrinking a processor die - by bringing the transistors closer together you decrease the distance the signal needs to travel to be processed. Compare the size of a human brain to a fly's brain; 100,000 neurons and 10 million synapses that are packed into a space smaller than 1 mm^3 vs. a human's 87 billion neurons and 10^15 synapses for the entire nervous system, with the brain alone comprising 1250 cm^3 of volume.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  29. First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Signed,

  30. I learnt this at school pre-1976 by Skiron · · Score: 2

    I always remember a science teacher telling us about this at school (what year, I can't remember, but I left school in 1976), and his statement was; "If a fly watched a film, it would see a still frame for a few seconds, then the next frame etc., as time moves more slowly the smaller the animal".

    1. Re:I learnt this at school pre-1976 by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      He didn't know that was true. He was just pulling shit from his ass. The fact that 40 years later he was proved right proves nothing, other than the fact that you remembered it.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  31. Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a fly.

  32. Speed LIMIT is an upper bound, not a requirement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speed LIMIT is an upper bound, not a requirement.

    In a 75 mile per hour zone, 65 is a perfectly fine speed, depending on the experience and capability of the driver. Likewise 55 in a 65 limit. 45 in a 55 is perfectly legal. 30 mph limits very frequently have spots that are posted as 20MPH recommended and even 15 or 10 MPH required at times (School zones, hospital area, etc.) Nobody is endangered by someone driving 10 miles below the speed LIMIT unless the other drivers are arrogant, dangerous assholes.

    The primary responsibility of the operator of any motorized transit is safety, followed by resource efficiency, etc. Minimizing time to destination is far, far down the list for any competent and knowledgeable driver. Emergency services may be an exception, but they have special training, and they still put a big emphasis on safety.

    You, however, are an arrogant asshole and therefore by definition a poor operator and obviously incapable of understanding your responsibilities. Please surrender your license immediately.

  33. No, a cat does not "got my tongue". by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    I wondered about this 30 years ago. It's more an issue of mass than anything else. You can move faster, so your brain operates more quickly to compensate. Whales and elephants even slower.

    I would hypothesize an elephant brain in a vat tied in to a mouse body would speed up accordingly, and it would be less related to brain size (and intra-neural distances) than what it has to accomplish.

    Similarly a human mind in a virtual world might speed up if the world's physics were sped up AKA had lowered mass relative to energy. This will be an interesting experiment for Occulus VR.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:No, a cat does not "got my tongue". by Ferrofluid · · Score: 1

      > This will be an interesting experiment for Occulus VR.

      How would this be different from the decades of accumulated anecdotal evidence from people playing video games? I know from personal experience that just because I'm playing a fast-paced game, doesn't mean that my perception of time will eventually slow down. As I progress through a game's learning curve, I get better, but this is more of a twitchy reflex type of thing. I don't really feel my conscious thought processes speed up at all.

  34. Does that mean by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    Flies eat it and you smoke it?

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  35. Fat People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That must be why fat people driver slower than everyone else. They have a slower perception of time cos they are bigger.

  36. Fruit Flies by jtnix · · Score: 1

    Explains why those pesky drosophila are such artful dodgers!

    --
    She blinded me with science, she tricked me with technology. ~ Thomas Dolby
  37. How to get back at flies. by mindwanderer · · Score: 2

    This is probably why you can cup a fly with your hand if you do it slowly enough; any motion that seems slow to us will be imperceptible to the insect. It also makes it impossible for the fly to sense the air displacement.

    --
    :wq
  38. I had this theory ages ago for cats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was always called an idiot for it.

  39. Some related thoughts by freality · · Score: 1

    very cool to see more empirical work on this!

    I used the basic resonance model to figure this out for humans.. seems to work well:

        https://sites.google.com/site/pablomayrgundter/mind

    Cheers,
    Pablo

  40. Slo-Mo? by Bootsy · · Score: 2

    Flies See the World In Slo-Mo? To them it passes at regular speed, we are just slow moving creatures to them. Watch an elephant. Or better if possible a big dinosaur. Do we see the world moving in Slo-Mo because we aren't the size of a dinosaur? It's only a perspective thing, every creature has the perspective of life moving at the "regular" speed of course.

    1. Re:Slo-Mo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in other words, from Treebeard's point of view Merry and Pippin are running around and speaking really fast.

  41. So my cats are smarter than me? by MXB2001 · · Score: 0

    glsk;dfg Argh, get off the keyboard!

    --
    01/01/01
  42. Re: Speed LIMIT is an upper bound, not a requireme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not buying it. Time waste due to traffic conditions literally adds up to cost lives in man hours lost. There are highway engineers who should be executed for their blunders under an eye for an eye system. Similarly, people with driving habits which create or exacerbate traffic are being the selfish ones, taking the most limited resource on this planet, other people's time.

  43. The fly part is not new, the correlation is by amaurea · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I skimmed through the paper itself, and it seems like flies are only mentioned in passing. The paper mainly concerns itself with vertebrates, and their new result is that they have tested the hypothesis that smallness of body and high metabolism correlate with the flicker fusion frequency of the visual system, i.e. how fast a light has to flash before the flashing becomes invisible. They find the hypothesis to hold (like your teacher suspected).

    The fact that flies have a very high flicker fusion frequency (270 Hz vs. 60 for humans under ideal lighting), has, however, been known for a long time, and is not a new result from this paper. In fact, houseflies have 2.5 times higher flicker fusion frequency than even the smallest and most active vertebrates tested in this study (actually, looking at their graphs, it seems like the housefly would be a huge outlier if they had included it).

    The flicker fusion frequency is related to, but not the same thing, as how often an image needs to change in order to be percieved as motion. This difference is why 50-60 Hz CRT screens are annoyingly flashy to many, while 25 fps movies look fine. In the latter case, each image only changes slightly.

    For a fly, watching a 25 fps movie would probably be similar to watching an 8 fps movie for a human.

    1. Re:The fly part is not new, the correlation is by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      If i remember correctly, Octopus have an extremely high flicker fusion frequency as well. (heck, I think I learned that from a /. article ages ago)

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  44. Old, old "news". 30 year old "news" in fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That the house updates its vision at 200 fps has been know for decades!!! At least since the 1980s

    Searching Google Scholar for musca-domestica+photoreceptor+biochemical gives too many hits from the 1970s and 80s just to find a good paper which actually shows it was known back then, but it was

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=musca+domestica%2Bphotoreceptor%2Bbiochemical&btnG=

  45. ANTHROPOMORPHIA: Anthro.po.Morph.ia (noun) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anthropomorphia, a form of insanity in which a delusional subject (human) imagines that animals, objects, imagined entities, etc. have human intellectual capabilities, including self-awareness, understanding, emotions, reasoning, ability to syllogise, awareness of the concept of time and so on. Anthropomorphia is extremely common. Some scientists define it a precursor to human intellectual development, pointing to evidence that children develop awareness that "a rock tripped me!" before they recognise they tripped over the rock (which some never do).

  46. Away with Musca domestica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder they're so damn difficult to hit. (Hint: They take off backward.)

  47. Re: Speed LIMIT is an upper bound, not a requireme by mikael · · Score: 1

    My favorite one is having the on ramp of a freeway before the off ramp - so you have two streams of traffic trying to cross each other. Now if you swap them round, you clear one stream of traffic in time for another one to get on.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  48. Re:ANTHROPOMORPHIA: Anthro.po.Morph.ia (noun) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to got dog-walking at the local RSPCA. They would really get excited when they saw humans coming up with leashes to let them have a bit of run and walk through the country lanes. Otherwise they would get depressed and just sit and lie on their blankets. The ones that actually didn't have the ability to move fast due to arthritis or bandages were known to sigh.

    I also helped train feral kittens and a cat to live with humans. The first lesson was to show the mother cat how to go through the cat flap. First I held it open, then let her push her head through. Then I showed her that it was possible to push it open with a couple of fingers. She understood that part, and was able to push her way through the catflap. I thought teaching the kitten would be even harder, but he had watched her and just shot straight through.

    They also had the trick of the little one sitting in the middle of the kitchen looking so small and cute and begging for food, while the other hid in the shadows.

    Why shouldn't animals be able to plan ahead and be aware of time? It actually only takes a small amount of processing power. Same with remembering smells or objects.

  49. Re:Speed LIMIT is an upper bound, not a requiremen by aXis100 · · Score: 1

    I disagre. Statistics show your risk of being involved in an accident increase when you are travelling significantly less thn the limit.

    The best speed to drive is the same speed as everyone else.

  50. Whoa by sharklasers · · Score: 1

    Flies See the World In Slo-Mo, Say Researchers

    Fly: What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets?

    Morpheus: No. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.

  51. What about ultra-mega-fauna? by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Now what happens when we take it to the other extreme? What about a massive life form the size of a planet, or a solar system? How would it perceive time? Its metabolic rate would by necessity be much slower than ours, so would most likely perceive time in very fast motion and, if the life cycle was anything like ours, could have a lifespan of millions of years.

    Not terribly exciting, perhaps, until you consider this:

    The speed of light in a vacuum is fixed in any given reference frame, and measured in distance over time. However if time is very large (but still perceived as "normal" from their point of view), they would never have to deal with relativistic issues when approaching c, such as requiring infinite energy. So, with adequate propulsion, they could achieve immense speeds (again, from their own point of view) across the universe.

    I think that's kind of cool.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:What about ultra-mega-fauna? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "What about a massive life form the size of a planet, or a solar system? How would it perceive time? Its metabolic rate would by necessity be much slower than ours, so would most likely perceive time in very fast motion and, if the life cycle was anything like ours, could have a lifespan of millions of years."

      Or maybe not; its metabolic rate might be much faster, and perceived by us as a 'sun'.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  52. small animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that mean midgets see things in slow-mo?

    1. Re:small animals? by CoolHnd30 · · Score: 1

      Bringing up midgets does indeed bring up interesting possibilities. One would think that experiments with time perception could be done comparing/contrasting midgets with larger size of people of the same age to further explore the possibilities of time perception relating to size of a creature.

  53. Re:Speed LIMIT is an upper bound, not a requiremen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody is endangered by someone driving 10 miles below the speed LIMIT unless the other drivers are arrogant, dangerous assholes.

    You obviously meet different slow drivers than I do. I frequently come across assholes who like to build up a tailback a few miles long behind them on major roads, with nothing in sight ahead, going 50mph on a 60mph road, driving right out on the middle line. When you finally get a clear stretch of road to overtake them, you find yourself doing 70 and them keeping up with you. And then when you finally floor it to avoid the oncoming truck and get ahead of them, they start flashing their lights at you like you're driving dangerously. Thankfully there aren't too many people like that around, but I come across them often enough.

  54. Remember, one nano second is about 25cm by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

    So a small fly brain can convert visual processed data into action faster than we can, if the biology is based on the same basic neurotransmission chemistry. Not surprised here.

    --
    "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
    1. Re:Remember, one nano second is about 25cm by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

      Ooops, conversion error, that should be 30cm.

      --
      "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
  55. Deja-Vu by roedb · · Score: 1

    They discovered this again? Haven't we known this for a long time? I remember seeing a show in the 80's. I think it was Blue Peter on the BBC - a childrens science show. Where they simulated what a Fly sees with a Slow motion camera and explained how perception of time is different for insects and humans.

  56. Re: Flies See the World In Slo-Mo, Say Researchers by Zanadou · · Score: 1

    This idea, that the perception of the passage of time is in direct relation to the size/mass of the observer, was a central theme of the science fiction novel Dragon's Egg.

  57. whoever modded this down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has absolutely no sense of humor.