Slashdot Mirror
Flying Snake Mysteries Revealed
Rambo Tribble writes "Researchers from Virginia Tech are reporting they have uncovered the secrets behind the genus Chrysopelea's aerodynamic feats . These ophidians are capable of gliding some distance while appearing to slither through the air. The BBC's article on the revelations hosts a short video of the phenomenon. At the heart of Chrysopelea's feat is a remarkable ability of the snakes to alter their body's cross-section. Finally, snakes that don't need to be on no stinking plane." The paper [PDF] has some more cool pictures, too.
When seized by hawks or other raptors and a clumsily dropped, one may find a totally pissed off rattlesnake landing on their hat or shoulder.
Not quite the old Death From Above maneouver, but it'll do until we're piloting 'Mechs around.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The PDF contains one tiny, worthless picture of the snake.
Like it or not, pictures are still a more efficient way of communicating data than text. By an order of magnitude. Also, cool snake pictures!
Herodotus in his History mentioned flying snakes in Arabia/Egypt. Many considered it one of the more fanciful tales in that work.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
I wonder how that one evolved. A billion snakes leapt to their death until ... ?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
"Finally, snakes that don't need to be on no stinking plane..." ... ... ... ???
Agreed, and this sentence no verb either.
why haven't we killed them all yet?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What has /. turned into? Discovery Kids?
All geeks are kids at heart.
Where once we openly drooled at the view through the candy store window, we now drool at the view through the gadget store window (or web site).
We also still like to see what makes things tick.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
hmm, no.
A photograph is an out of context snapshot of time. They need context for accuracy.
Written descriptions can be far more efficient at communicating information.
Better yet, use both.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This story is only one word away from being a Cards Against Humanity favorite.
Like it or not, pictures are still a more efficient way of communicating data than text. By an order of magnitude.
You've lost me on that...can you show me a graph?
Sorry, only have spark lines.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Without that information, I doubt we've revealed the real mysteries.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
I remember hearing this same story (regarding flattening of the body) already in the 90s.
hmm, no.
A photograph is an out of context snapshot of time. They need context for accuracy.
Written descriptions can be far more efficient at communicating information.
Better yet, use both.
Yes, of course nobody is saying you should abandon text. While we're being picky, GP didn't say what he meant by efficient. Efficient use of the producer's time? Efficient use of the consumer's time? Efficient use of page space? bandwidth?
A good photograph, chart, or video can accomplish in seconds what it would take hours of puzzling over a few pages of text to understand.
Why does this sound so much like the makings of a B horror flick to me? (When it happens, just remember that you read it here first, folks.)
-- Alastair
You're a few years late. Let me handle that one for you:
SNAKENADO!!!!!!!!!
sure! how bout a bar graph...
Efficiency of Medium
text ##################
pics ########
However, this is not at all news. It's been known for years how they do it.
As God is my witness, I thought those things could fly.
No brain, no pain.
Yeah, who wants pictures? Here's a video of the snake in action: http://www.nbcnews.com/science...
It's really uncanny to see it suddenly going from a free fall into a glide that looks to be on par with what we'd expect from a paper airplane. And later in the video they show it actually pulling off a turn as well, which is even more insane to consider. Jumping from a tree in the forest, I could easily see this thing traveling quite a way.
... with these "new" discoveries that really aren't.
I learned about how the snakes create an aerodynamic profile of their bodies over 10 years ago.
Nothing new here folks. Move along now.
I should add:
I even saw a video about it. And 10 years is a minimum figure... I really think it's closer to 20, but I don't remember for sure.
I quite literally see nothing new here. It's like the researchers did not even look at prior research before deciding to study this.
These things come in cycles, when a new generation is ready to be introduced to a whole new breed of nightmares.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
New generations are supposed to learn things from the older generations. That means picking up a book and watching National Geographic once in a while.
The fact that they didn't do their homework is not an excuse to call this "new research". It's re-inventing the wheel, which helps nobody.
I know what you mean in the sense that /. articles are often "olds" instead of news
However for me there are two other considerations;
It may be news to me -- and possibly others -- as is the case with this article
More importantly I usually get more insights on the topic from the discussion it generates than from the article itself
Anyway, thanks for pointing out this is actually "olds" -- good to know!
That looks like a factor of two, not an order of magnitude. Maybe you should spell it out next time...
"... the goes on to back up the significance of those changes with fluid dynamics modeling, which it only cites one previous paper for."
The fluid dynamics is all fine. BUT... look at the titles of both OP and the research paper:
"Flying Snake Mysteries Revealed"
(There is no mystery. It was already known that the snake flattens its cross-section to an aerodynamic shape.)
"... how a bluff body cross-sectional shape contributes to gliding performance"
The (known) cross-section is an obvious airfoil-shape. We know basically "how" the cross-section leads to gliding performance. It may be that some actual fluid dynamics analysis has led to some better understanding of the details, but the title gives the impression that the basic aerodynamics were not already well understood.
The actual research may be new, but it is titled (and presented by OP) as though the BASICS weren't already known. The abstract does clarify it somewhat, but that doesn't change the fact that the title is misleading.
Many stories contain one tiny, worthless sentence written by a Slashdot Editor.
To their credit, they did a significant amount of modeling and testing to see if it was enough to account for what the snakes are capable of. Unfortunately the article completely fails to grasp the actual results of the study. They found that while the shape does significantly help, they were unable to reproduce the magnitude of the snakes results and determined that there is something else that we haven't yet found. In other words, the title should have been "Flying snake mystery solution deepens".
"Seems to contradict "The actual research may be new,"..."
Repeat: the title of both the paper and OP's article give the impression that this is not new research, and that the basics of the snake's aerodynamic profile were not already know.
But then, you knew I wrote that already, and were looking for something to argue with me about.
It was just a joke. Why so nasty?...does somebody need to take his widdle nap?...
"Not the same AC, and I can't say if he has a grudge or not. But it looks like either you're either grabbing at straws or seeing something that is not there to try to blame the original authors for the typical usual bad science reporting crap."
I am blaming them for a slightly misleading title. Nothing more.
Okay, I was wrong that this wasn't original research. BUT my basic point still holds: the title of both OP and the paper strongly suggest that it's NOT original research. And yes, that's their fault.