Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spiders Can Fly Hundreds of Miles Using Electricity (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: On Halloween in 1832, the naturalist Charles Darwin was onboard the HMS Beagle. He marveled at spiders that had landed on the ship after floating across huge ocean distances. "I caught some of the Aeronaut spiders which must have come at least 60 miles," he noted in his diary. "How inexplicable is the cause which induces these small insects, as it now appears in both hemispheres, to undertake their aerial excursions." Small spiders achieve flight by aiming their butts at the sky and releasing tendrils of silk to generate lift.

Darwin thought that electricity might be involved when he noticed that spider silk stands seemed to repel each other with electrostatic force, but many scientists assumed that the arachnids, known as "ballooning" spiders, were simply sailing on the wind like a paraglider. The wind power explanation has thus far been unable to account for observations of spiders rapidly launching into the air, even when winds are low, however. Now, these aerial excursions have been empirically determined to be largely powered by electricity, according to new research published Thursday in Current Biology. Led by Erica Morley, a sensory biophysicist at the University of Bristol, the study settles a longstanding debate about whether wind energy or electrostatic forces are responsible for spider ballooning locomotion.

98 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Anti-darwinism by bugs2squash · · Score: 1, Funny

    good - now they'll have to deny electricity exists. That should be fun...

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:Anti-darwinism by sheramil · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well... Can you see electricity? Nope.

      (A blinding, blue-white bolt of lightning strikes AC)

      Thor has spoken.

    2. Re:Anti-darwinism by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      But electricity is needed to keep Earth's flat disk together.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Anti-darwinism by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's like gravity, just a theory with no proof. :-)

    4. Re:Anti-darwinism by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Technically, that's just really hot arc plasma. The electricity itself is not visible.

    5. Re:Anti-darwinism by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      I would say it's the hoped for response from an exceptional example of artistic trolling. A seldom seen example of thought and art combined rising to the top of a cesspool of brutish, self-righteous proclamations and accusations.

      Or hell, maybe he really believes the crap he wrote, we do live in a world of ant-vaxxers , flat earthers and Justin Bieber...

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    6. Re:Anti-darwinism by olesk · · Score: 1

      Well... Can you see electricity? Nope.

      (A blinding, blue-white bolt of lightning strikes AC)

      Thor has spoken.

      Thank you sir - made my day!

    7. Re:Anti-darwinism by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Unsure how that's relevant, though. Witnessing a first-order result of something invisible is pretty good evidence of the invisible thing. You may begin giving your alternative explanations for what's ionizing that gas.

    8. Re:Anti-darwinism by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Can you see electricity?

      I can see ionized air that it is passing through well enough.

      Can you produce it?

      Yes?

      You just take it on faith that electricity exists don't you?

      No.. I may have to take the underlying QED in faith because that's a little harder to observe at my level, but electricity? Definitely not.

      Have you ever actually been to a coal plant?

      No

      Are you there when the electrons pass through wires?

      No

      You aren't there. YOU take it on FAITH.

      Definitely not. I take it on understanding, having generated electricity with moving magnetic fields and wire, and having powered things from that generated power.

    9. Re:Anti-darwinism by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Or he left it there to hopefully save some poor hill person from finding the parody post insightful

    10. Re:Anti-darwinism by gnick · · Score: 1

      It's like gravity, just a theory with no proof.

      Proof? There's obvious proof that gravity is a hoax. When I drop a pencil, I can observe the ground rushing up toward it at 9.8 m/s/s. This is proof that disc-Earth is under constant linear acceleration. You might think we'd reach c after about a year, but for an explanation of why that doesn't occur I refer you to Einstein's papers on the subject. Of course, you have to read them in the original Hebrew before they were censored by NASA.

      Besides, if gravity is real, and our planet is a sphere, then which way is down brainiacs?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    11. Re:Anti-darwinism by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      "but many scientists assumed "

      Isn't this against their religion?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    12. Re:Anti-darwinism by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Ummm... no, I don't take things on faith other than the idea there is some sort of higher power and I'm not it and I don't take that on faith either, it is a model built on axiom that has been extremely effective in allowing me retain the idea that every idea and external thing can be used as a form of entropy for personal growth while retaining the ability to break out of the box reasonably consistently.

      I can, have, and do produce electricity pretty effortlessly.

    13. Re:Anti-darwinism by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Right, just don't forget, that means you can see something happen when you brush your hair. Electromagnetism has been a useful model but like every piece of philosophy but especially science and maths it is just that, a model and not a definition of reality, forget that and you box yourself into the idea that model being useful for many things or lasting a long time means it is the TRUTH instead of a form of very effective hammer. Do that and assume every model has to explain the results of the last and you might just get lost in a system too large where your models all have to decay because they've grown too large and they limit your ability to look at old incompatible models and recombine them in ways that provide useful tools.

    14. Re:Anti-darwinism by shaitand · · Score: 1

      It's pretty good evidence of some kind of interaction, correlation doesn't equal causation and it certainly doesn't automatically make the abstraction reality. Electricity is a model, we made it up, when things didn't work with the model we changed the definition, we added properties. That just means we've built a tool and the tool is useful, just because we can define a hammer and use it for things does not make it part of physical reality, to anyone not entangled in your model it isn't a hammer it is an abstraction they may or may not even perceive. We don't know there isn't an intelligence in rock on a relative time so out of sync with our own that our interaction appears mostly constant. We only know we've been able to do stuff by pretending that is true, not that there isn't other stuff we could do by building a new model with incompatible math and logic if the first models resulted in irrational elements... which they all have there is no reason to assume we can't build highly conflicting models which produce better tools than current models. Models have axioms, axioms aren't truths they are something we pretend is true in order to build a tool. Remembering THAT axiom is the only way I've found to minimize overly entangling yourself with the previous model.

    15. Re:Anti-darwinism by shaitand · · Score: 1

      No you have a memory, a thing we've shown via video and images is the least objective evidence, a consensus of others, others you have no proof exist only your inability to ALWAYS predict their actions alongside a memory that will surely confirm you can not predict your own actions and therefore you can't know the others aren't you. You have sight, which could just as easily be a field of distortions as reality. You have no objective path for distinguishing between reality and non-reality except memory (see above), your senses (which you'll note, we've determined are subjective instead of the ultimate tool of objectivity and removed from our models), anecdotal evidence which we consider the least reliable form of evidence, and a system of logic otherwise largely built on the idea of counting working... except that none of us can establish that there are any two things.

      Maybe, just maybe, given how useful this model has been there could be others that toss out major principles of the ones we've built on it that are much simpler to use for various tasks than giant mega models that get so complex we forget how to store them in the trunk under the bed, keeping it like Newtonian physics, without losing the ability to embrace enough irrationality and entropy to build simple new tools, like new maths.

    16. Re:Anti-darwinism by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Up and down are always perpendicular to widdershins.

    17. Re: Anti-darwinism by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Yes, and since all of our objective models have contained irrational elements remaining skeptical of them is a great way to use one of our powerful tools to expand objectivity and axiom and built new models. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, you want to keep the tools, especially the logical ones, that would be throwing away the baby with the bathwater, but we also want to be able to step back and remember there we can keep both if we remember there is a bathroom, and we can do even more if we remember there is a house and build a kitchen, and if we blend relativity and shake things up, say modeling reality as entirely consistently of observers with relatively as the constant instead of time.... what can we do with that without now needing to come up with an insane uber model that beats everything we've managed in the past couple years for every purpose or losing the ability to explain the existing model?

    18. Re:Anti-darwinism by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Again, so?
      As I said, the first-order effects of electricity are readily observable. Sure, the underlying theory behind it may not be, but that's hardly relevant. I don't care if god is pushing little electroangels through the air. So technically, it just doesn't fucking matter if I can see it while gauging its existence.

    19. Re: Anti-darwinism by shaitand · · Score: 1

      If by the GP you mean me, yes, that is in fact close to where I'm coming from. I've been trying to redefine my philosophy using the most basic logical tools in science, math, and greek models which have given excellent objective results, while studying philosophy and religion from around the world, assuming all of it was useful while the only I could be certain of was that because I can always have an idea, and ideas change over time even in your own mind, none of those ideas were exactly the same observation point as mine. I even looked at ancient occult systems as well as tibetan mystic systems, etc. Many of those systems contain tools that certainly can be combined with tools developed in scientific philosophy if you just allow for each to be a hop on mental routing table and can provide tools that definitely can be consistently imagined. If you can develop the imagination canvas as an objective tool and map it back to something objective we can model on a computer and make that mapping recursive enough, we can certainly build some very powerful tools.

      I could be wrong about any of these things but you aren't going to disprove the base concept behind what I'm saying, any one of these systems alone represents a box that can be shown as irrational using the basic logical tools that have lead to computing and space flight, including many steps along the path and that are core to that model. There IS a wisdom to be found in that which is a valuable contribution and can lead to a greater consensus with less conflict without losing what we've gained through our most successful tools. I haven't built one model to release and sell for some profit from this, I've built many tests, both logical and objective including code, honed through discussion, debate, and embracing those who are different.

    20. Re:Anti-darwinism by shaitand · · Score: 1

      No but I don't know of too many people saying that who remember science is a system based on axiom that was known and understood to be faulty logic. It's a tool for building tools. At no point can Evolution ever conflict with religion because at no point is science anything but a model for building useful tools and not something you are supposed to take on faith. Evolution is a logical tool, we can build a chain of information and patterns on it, that doesn't mean there aren't conflicting patterns to be found if we divide by a consistent but different way, say using the lose abstract concepts in evolution and a couple other pieces of existing models and building new fundamental models on them.

      If your current model says the human brain is the most powerful supercomputer we've ever devised, have you ever considered that if your current model is getting in the way of finding the value in the patterns they are finding and instead resulting in you concluding all those supercomputers are evil idiots you might be able to find common ground by embracing a more flexible model that allows more entropy and allows new kinds of consensus? For maintaining healthy skepticism you certainly are throwing away an awful lot of pattern matching power because of lack of skepticism in the previous results of your own model (and I mean all of us).

      Have you considered that refusing to look at "occult knowledge" means that you could be throwing away powerful tools for developing much better definition in representing reality INSIDE your brain by visualizing it mapped on reality, and that by combining that with something like bone conduction audio and the now shown to be easy to teach system of echolocation and proof it can be mapped to a virtual space you might just be able to an insanely easy way to project things onto an actual screen in the mind. Simply because we've developed models that assume no "soul" or similar concept doesn't mean we can't exploit tools developed in models that DIDN'T use that axiom and as long as we remember the models are tools and not reality we can build "faith" in the tools.

      Now, go back to telling me to keep progressing in my craft until someone will listen or entertain the possibility that my chosen craft has been listening to everyone with conflicting views for the last 30 years developing information tools and philosophy and trying to find a rational way to embrace the irrationalities without throwing out the value in the different systems, largely intentionally rewriting my own personal view through a combination of roleplaying while learning and applying the core concepts of observation, hypothesis, testing, revision, with skepticism of all views and most importantly myself throughout. They taught us that in school and called it the scientific method, I had the crazy idea we could use the tools logically in our heads to keep growing WITHOUT losing the concept of thinking outside the box. Maybe, just maybe, I'm trying to introduce the concept to those who have the education to understand the concept and do the most with it if I can break them out of their box hoping they'll be able to notice there IS a pattern in what I'm saying and run with it.

      When I've come up with something non-disruptive I've shared it here where we used to find legions of experts in their fields, debated, adjusted, revised, remembering rhetoric isn't the same as being right.

    21. Re:Anti-darwinism by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "As I said, the first-order effects of electricity are readily observable. Sure, the underlying theory behind it may not be, but that's hardly relevant. I don't care if god is pushing little electroangels through the air."

      So... your view is paying lip service to the idea you could be wrong but entangling your perspective with an idea that doesn't allow you get results from a conflicting model the longer your current model goes without recognizing the more entangled you get and more trapped in the ideas of the model and the harder it becomes to see that the model you are using is very valuable and contains concepts which if loosened and disentangled from the assumption that you can't go back and divide things a different way if you always assume that having been successful the way you are doing it means it is the ONLY way things can divide.

      Do you really think there aren't valuable tools that have been discarded by using "physical" reality as a higher power just because someone declared them "irrational"? Electricity carries the connotation of the model, it is innately entangled with that explanation of the observation. If you keep confusing the fact, the observation, with thing never intended to be fact, how are you going to be able to keep an open mind and test for tools that blend that effect with other ideas and collapse into other patterns that could have more utility for different things?

    22. Re:Anti-darwinism by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      First off, I want to congratulate you on literally the most egregious run-on sentence I have ever seen.
      Second, how could a lack of care about the underlying theoretical pinnings of a physical phenomenon with easily visible effects that can be modeled easily enough with just that, in response to someone making a joking (I hope) retort to being able to deny electricity exists be construed as entanglement of... well, anything?

      I think the word emitting part of your brain works a lot faster than the part that forms coherent thoughts.

    23. Re:Anti-darwinism by shaitand · · Score: 1

      You are definitely right on that last bit.

      It's entanglement of thought with previous thoughts. There are multiple paths to patterns that are very similar in a loose logical way, those are looser patterns that contain a greater possibility space by virtue of being less defined, but the more you define them, the smaller the possibility space becomes. Because we are passing these ideas across generations, and both reusing the words and have brains filled and encumbered by previous ideas and thoughts it actually becomes very hard to separate the two. For instance, depending on who you talk to and when evolution means a different thing. The more confidence you've gained both in your definition and the higher collective of brains that it's built on, the smaller the possibility space from at least one perspective...... but there isn't one two or three perspectives, we've given mathematical proofs for infinity (although what that means, again, depends on the context and model).

      Because you are building your idea from a root of chain that is literally intended to reduce probability space as rapidly as possible (ie, make it objective), if anything, you are magnifying the impact. Working from the assumption that there is some sort of neural pattern behind every other observer shade/perspective/aspect/what have you behind each of those other ideas of evolution which represents a tool, if nothing else it is a filter, and more likely their idea DOES have some useful model of logic behind it and that idea held by many of them is the result of a larger and more powerful computer is a very easy concept that doesn't really conflict with any rule of rationality or religion I've known yet it does something magical, it proves there is value in everything everyone is "wrong" about while at the same time not requiring giving up what you've up till now. Electricity was a concept produced in one model/hypothesis... you can't use the same word to describe it in a different model without creating a hyper model where the two are now being logically entangled, the new with the previous. That reduces your capability to keep the two separated and remember a model is not reality, it is a tool. We have a model of the atom... you know the absolute smallest indivisible thing, that was the definition, if you find something smaller IT IS THE ATOM in this model if you are following it objectively and you were wrong about what you thought was the atom not wrong about there being an atom. You can disagree, that is fine, understanding what I'm getting at only requires admitting that there is a path of logic behind what I'm saying and retaining and/or improve your ability to understand and take advantage of any logical concept makes you more flexible and therefore stronger.

      That is what I'm saying. I'm not at all arguing with the value and utility of the concept of electricity or in denial of the amazing tool we've built out of it I'm just pointing out that pretending models of reality are the things themselves, the nobel ideals, if you will, to bring back something from older model that provides tools with value makes it more difficult to actually apply the principals we pay lip service to in order to argue with those who disagree with us. I offer this entire thread about denialists even happening and not being started by a denialist as proof. You are educated, you know full well that if you try YOU could make the effort to start making their argument for them... in the interchange you make them stronger with better logic AND find out something of value, even if it just a way of healing a divide... a concept that can be used in a logical model with practical application later.

      Don't embrace false dichotomy.

  2. Spiders are very wise by mykepredko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    “Trust me, Wilbur. People are very gullible. They'll believe anything they see in print.”
      E.B. White, Charlotte's Web

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    1. Re:Spiders are very wise by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And since they've been unable to reach said political leaders, they've sunk to harassing lower paid flunkies in public restaurants.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Spiders are very wise by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It was amazing the amount of hatred and number of threats directed at the flunkies working in that restaurant in Ontario.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re: Spiders are very wise by meglon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Bill hit 50% or greater in virtually every election he was in. The only times he didn't, there were strong third party offers that soaked up votes. He did loose two elections, but then out of over 20 years of politicking, i'd have to say that's pretty good.

      As for Hillary, you may not like her because you've been conditioned to by the fascists at Fox News, but here's two things to remember.... Even if that was the only reason she was in politics, she still had a far better and more effective career that Trump the dickless draft dodger. The second thing to remember is... she won the popular vote over Trump.

      So you have Trump in office, with the help of Russia, years of republicans in congress abusing their offices to denigrate Hillary, and all the neo-nazi pieces of shit are happy. Back when i was young, we knew the Nazis were the fucking enemy of this country, and Russia was our enemies decades. And lets be clear, if you agree with a neo-nazi's positions and support one... you ARE a fucking neo-nazi; you may be too fucking stupid to understand that, but it doesn't change the fact that's what you are.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    4. Re:Spiders are very wise by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Well, for that matter, the real danger of Trump is that nobody can afford to make him a lower paid flunky like they did to Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    5. Re:Spiders are very wise by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, for that matter, the real danger of Trump is that nobody can afford to make him a lower paid flunky like they did to Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

      Except Putin, you mean?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Spiders are very wise by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      No, Putin is Trump's flunky (if he ever wants Trump Tower Moscow built, that is).

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    7. Re:Spiders are very wise by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      You think rich men can't be bought for anything but exorbitant prices?
      Some rich men need no more. Trump is quite clearly not one of those kind. There's no reason to think he can't be bought for the price of a niece piece of beach property in Gelendzhik. Beyond that, there's no reason to think he wouldn't sell the inferior of his two daughters for a cheeseburger.
      Some poor men need no more.

    8. Re:Spiders are very wise by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      *nice

    9. Re:Spiders are very wise by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I think Trump is telling the truth when he claimed during the primary that he needs neither money nor possessions. His name alone, when licensed properly, is enough for him. I'm surprised you don't understand that. Just look at the contracts he has negotiated over the past 40 years: All the risk has always been on other people.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    10. Re: Spiders are very wise by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      "she won the popular vote over Trump"

      Is this a warning about the dangers of the popular vote or just a redundant promulgation?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    11. Re: Spiders are very wise by meglon · · Score: 1
      Well, lets see.... the coward posted:

      Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the votes.

      How legitimate is that, really?â(TM)

      I would think, given that, that most anyone could understand the context in which it was written.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    12. Re:Spiders are very wise by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      His name alone, when licensed properly, is enough for him

      Enough for him to make money- yes. Enough for him ?
      I'm surprised you don't see right through that, when all available evidence is to the contrary. The man is still monetizing his presidency. He clearly doesn't have enough.

    13. Re:Spiders are very wise by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Enough for him to make money *AT ANYTHING*. Why is it you think he doesn't pay subcontractors? And yes, of course he is monetizing his presidency- and that's why he owns puny politicians like Putin and McConnell, because all they can see is the money POWER brings, which is nothing in comparison to the Trump name.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    14. Re:Spiders are very wise by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1
      You missed the point, with a nearly comical whoosh.
      That man needs more than money. In fact, he has more of that than he needs. There are other currencies when buying politicians. In fact, they're preferred since literal bribes are illegal.
      Trump would sell out an entire class of people to get a golf course somewhere he wanted one, but could not put it.

      and that's why he owns puny politicians like Putin and McConnell

      OK, you're just a fucking idiot.
      Putin would have that man straight up killed if the cost ever dropped below the return. Beyond that, Putin is one of the richest humans on the planet, while Trump is barely a blip at the bottom of the world's billionaires. Why are you so in love with that con artist?

    15. Re:Spiders are very wise by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      What makes you think Trump wouldn't do the same to Putin, if the profit were enough?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    16. Re:Spiders are very wise by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, Putin is Trump's flunky (if he ever wants Trump Tower Moscow built, that is).

      Putin couldn't care less who builds stuff in Russia. But Trump is desperate to put his name on more stuff, and always has been.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Spiders are very wise by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      If Putin wants to be able to export natural gas, he has to go through Trump to get to Germany now.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  3. Obviously by sjames · · Score: 2

    They build a charge by scuffing across the carpet. Humans can't fly because with only 2 feet we can only generate 1/4th the charge.

    1. Re: Obviously by sjames · · Score: 1

      The subject of this discussion is spiders

    2. Re: Obviously by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      He was referring to Darwin calling them insects.

      I'm guessing that would have been valid for the time due to taxonomy being a relatively young and emerging field, so that any creepy crawly thing was considered an insect.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    3. Re: Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or maybe people back then weren't pedantic, attention-seeking, virgin autists who don't understand the basic social nuances of communication.

    4. Re: Obviously by JustOK · · Score: 1

      The whole 'bug vs insect' debate was quite acrimonious as well.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    5. Re: Obviously by quenda · · Score: 1

      Yes, spiders are not insects.
      That guy really needs to read a book on zoology.

    6. Re:Obviously by Agripa · · Score: 1

      They build a charge by scuffing across the carpet. Humans can't fly because with only 2 feet we can only generate 1/4th the charge.

      That explains why aircraft cabins are carpeted.

    7. Re:Obviously by sjames · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Offering passengers drinks and such is purely a secondary function.

  4. Antigravity powers? by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

    This proves spiders are alien life forms!

    --
    Rick B.
    1. Re:Antigravity powers? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      No, you're thinking of water bears.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMaWjP1Ukp4

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Antigravity powers? by JustOK · · Score: 1

      *WE* are the aliens.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  5. No "Spidernado"-movie was made, yet? by ffkom · · Score: 3, Funny

    How come Hollywood has not turned this into a monster-movie, yet? I mean, they made multiple such movies about flying sharks...

    1. Re:No "Spidernado"-movie was made, yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Time for a spin-off.

    2. Re:No "Spidernado"-movie was made, yet? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there.

  6. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We just need to harvest this silk then we have easy space travel. To think we've been fucking about with rockets until now.

    1. Re:So by tsa · · Score: 1

      Imagine the savings on fuel!

      --

      -- Cheers!

  7. I wonder if plants do it too. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if plants do it, too.

    A number of plants have windborne seeds surrounded or mounted beneath a thready structure. (Dandelions, cottonwood, and milkweed come to mind immediately.) Other structures could also get some assistance from electriec lift. Charge would be a good thing to look for.

    We already know that plants use piezoelectricity to increase cell growth on the concave side of a loaded branch in order to grow upward or outward. Why not another electrical hack?

    Why should spiders - or the animal kingdom in general - have all the fun?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:I wonder if plants do it too. by MonteCarloMethod · · Score: 1

      We already know that plants use piezoelectricity to increase cell growth on the concave side of a loaded branch in order to grow upward or outward.

      HAH! This is really cool. Can you point me to a reference somewhere? I'd love to read about this. Cursory googling is polluted by articles about small scale energy harvesting. Second and third levels of search turn up 20 year old German papers on the material properties of wood without mention of the influence on plant growth.

    2. Re:I wonder if plants do it too. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      We already know that plants use piezoelectricity to increase cell growth on the concave side of a loaded branch in order to grow upward or outward.

      Can you point me to a reference somewhere?

      Wish I could. I saw that in a civil-service-level electrical engineering trade journal some time in the 1950s or early '60s (that I found in a pile of discarded magazines, when I was a kid with a serious electronics hobby.)

      The article was about engineering around possible problems with a high voltage cross-country DC power transmission line. The concern was that trees under the line would grow to "seek" one of the wires, then short the line.

      (Solution was to swap the + and - lines from time to time, so the distortion would average out and the trees would grow straight until they could be cut. I notice, though, that they mostly ran it through the desert east of the Sierras (and somewhat west of Hawthorne NV) - on REALLY high poles. B-) )

      (Another worry was that, if the went into the "one wire's down so use grounds at both ends to complete the circuit until it's fixed" mode, they'd foul up the small voltage between the rails that detects trains for the signal systems.)

      Animal bones do that, too. Put a pair of electrodes across a bone and give them a small voltage. The bone will grow a big hemispheric lump around the + wire without (any mentioned) erosion around the - (if I recall the polarity correctly). This makes sense: If the bone is bending enough to activate the mechanism it should be both straighter and stronger. Article had a nice piece of artwork of that. (Sorry: Also decades old and pre-Internet, so good luck.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  8. Re:Where do they put the batteries? by Narcocide · · Score: 2

    They're not using batteries. They're just pulling the electricity from the atmosphere directly, like the original Tesla intended. Not like the corporation usurping his name intends to do.

  9. Re:Where do they put the batteries? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    People that they bite are the batteries.

  10. scalability by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    I'm just wondering if this technology can be scaled up to something human-sized. Could this improve the efficiency of personal aircraft designs?

    1. Re:scalability by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      The electric potential becomes dangerous at the power levels you need to lift heavy objects.

      Jet engines are dangerous too. Bring on the electrically charged flying machines - at the very least drones...

      It would also prevent drones from getting stuck in trees, which would presumably burst into flames if an electrically charged drone hit one.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    2. Re:scalability by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      I'm just wondering if this technology can be scaled up to something human-sized.

      It might be interesting to use it, not as primary lift, but as trim lift, on a dirigible.

      With essentially neutral bouyancy it doesn't take a lot to make the difference between climbing, hovering, and dropping. Meanwhile, the craft has an enormous area to acquire force from the charge's interaction with the atmosphere's ambient field, while the shape is just about ideal for avoiding corona losses.

      You'd want to go zero charge for tethering or landing, to avoid a big spark discharge followed immediately by (if not a fire) a change in lift. (Though an isolated and zero-charged region around the mooring attachment might do the trick.)

      This could be much less of a hassle than dynamic lift (which requires motion relative to the air for the elevators to bite into), ballast/gas volume adjustment, or gasbag temperature adjustment.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  11. Re:Where do they put the batteries? by JustOK · · Score: 1

    no batteries, they get the electricity from the web

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  12. Spidey sense by JustOK · · Score: 1

    The implications for Spider-Man are profound.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  13. Re:for once by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    IG Nobel prize candidate?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  14. Thus by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Spiders invented electric vehicles before humans.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Thus by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

      Take that, Elon!

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

  15. Re:Five long years... by dryeo · · Score: 1

    and look how much better the slashdot comments used to be. Used to find gold here. I don't know what this is here now, but it is not gold.

    The first post is about politics, though more civil then now, much the same.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  16. A fantastic example of "doesn't scale"? by istartedi · · Score: 2

    I think perhaps this is a fantastic example of something that "doesn't scale". If we tried to build a flying machine that used electrostatic forces, we'd just break down the air resistance and create lots of lightning bolts. The spider only needs a little force, because it's tiny. Electrostatic force is enough to fly a spider without throwing sparks.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re: A fantastic example of "doesn't scale"? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Googled. It looks to be electromagnetic, not electrostatic. They're using a conductor passing through a magnetic field as a motor/generator. The spiders are using a statically charged filament.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    2. Re: A fantastic example of "doesn't scale"? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Where, precisely, do you think the motive force comes from with their statically charged filament?

    3. Re: A fantastic example of "doesn't scale"? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      The potential difference between the Earth and sky. Since opposites attract, it pulls them up until they reach equilibrium. After that, it's probably a slow parachute-like descent; but perhaps there's also some way for them to accumulate charge at one level of the atmosphere and get pulled to another.

      In other words, same thing as lightning but not enough potential difference for a bolt to occur. Instead, the spiders "hair" stands on end and pulls them towards the opposite charge.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  17. WE ARE DOOMED by Jedi+Holocron · · Score: 1

    Doomed, I tell you. DOOMED!

  18. What Electrostatic Forces? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    From what I understand, the most significant force is the pull towards magnetic north. Do all these spiders drift north?

    And since pure magnets do not even have the force required to do anything noticeable(they are not even particularly light), now in the hell does a spider? How does a spider generate more electromagnetic force per mass than the strongest magnets ever devised? I have never heard of any technology where humans were able to create something that hovered using ambient electrostatic forces.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re: What Electrostatic Forces? by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      Likely it uses electrostatic forces to fine tune the 'air foil' on the fly.. note it's not flying in vacuum; so surely it's riding on the air/wind however slow the wind may be. By minutely n instantly adjusting the airfoil, you can create the lift needed.

    2. Re: What Electrostatic Forces? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How does a spider generate more electromagnetic force per mass than the strongest magnets ever devised?

      It doesn't. It doesn't generate any notable EMF.

      I have never heard of any technology where humans were able to create something that hovered using ambient electrostatic forces.

      What does that have to do with anything?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re: What Electrostatic Forces? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      How does a spider generate more electromagnetic force per mass than the strongest magnets ever devised?

      They don't. They're holding on to a really good static charge accumulator, and then using the Earth's magnetic field to get a little bit of lift out of it. You can do it too, but the electric potentials required to move you noticeably are going to be more than enough to bridge the distance from your tether to the ground (your head)
      You likely wouldn't survive the experience.

    4. Re: What Electrostatic Forces? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      But what is the difference between a static charge, and an electromagnet?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re: What Electrostatic Forces? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I'm confused by that question...
      The spider isn't generating the force...
      The spider web accumulates a static charge, being a long enough tether, there is a potential difference at the anode, and current will flow, which means the Lorentz force is now giving some force to the spider system. The spider is just along for the ride.

      As I said before, the problem with a human is the amount of current/charge required to lift you.
      The necessary insulators (air, and the tether) break down at currents required to generate enough lorentz force to lift your mass.

    6. Re: What Electrostatic Forces? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      I don't mean (why don't we use this to allow humans to fly), but why for example junkyard electromagnets do not float when such high current is run through them (ar they at least lighter?). Certainly they must have a higher energy potential per mass than the spider and its silk?

      Or do electromagnetic forces work completely differently than electrostatic forces?

      Are these spiders even drifting primarily north, or is this not even related to magnetic north in the slightest?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re: What Electrostatic Forces? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Are these spiders even drifting primarily north

      Good question. I'd bet they do, though.
      I suspect local weather patterns have a lot more to do with where they end up, though.

      I don't mean (why don't we use this to allow humans to fly), but why for example junkyard electromagnets do not float when such high current is run through them (ar they at least lighter?). Certainly they must have a higher energy potential per mass than the spider and its silk?

      OK, I think I see what you're asking.
      The problem there is density.
      It would take a very long and very powerfully charged electrodynamic tether to lift a human. It would have to push against a lot of the earth's field. Your electromagnet is quite dense, and is pushing on a comparatively small amount of flux from a very weak field.
      I imagine it would levitate diamagnetically against the ground long before it could produce enough teslas to levitate its own mass against the very weak field from the Earth. If its mass were stretched out to interact with as much of the Earth's field as possible, it would stand a better chance. A lot like a web in the air will fly, but rolled into a ball of silk, will not.

  19. Re:Disgusting, evil monsters. by renegadesx · · Score: 1

    Spiders are only pure evil in Australia. Everywhere else they are an annoyance at best

    --
    Make SELinux enforcing again!
  20. Spiders are not insects by bart_smit · · Score: 1

    Old Charlie was wrong about one thing, if his diary quote is accurate. Spiders are members of the Arachnida class, while insects belong with the Insecta. Eight legs vs. six legs. http://www.differencebetween.n... Perhaps he hadn't gotten around to inventing these classes yet?

  21. This Musk guy must be behind this by eminencja · · Score: 1

    And there is no doubt that the article was sponsored by Tesla!

  22. Re:Disgusting, evil monsters. by meglon · · Score: 1
    You got the right words, just wrong order...

    "eat flies and help us"

    It should be: they "fly and eat us. Help! There, i fixed that for you. I hope it makes you feel better. Well.. ok, i may have failed at that goal.... LOOK OUT, ABOVE YOU!!!!

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  23. Re:Of course it scales! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The only problem would be the amount of strands and the strength of the isolation. The main body might need its own fanning-out structure to offer enough surface area for that many strands.

    It's cube-square law all over again. If you try to fly something larger by the same principle, it won't work because there's too much mass to area.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  24. Re:Where do they put the batteries? by Merk42 · · Score: 1

    no batteries, they get the electricity from the web

    What's the URL?

  25. Re: Disgusting, evil monsters. by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    Objectively speaking, you're right. The republicans definitely lost the weaponizing-state-apparatuses-to-harm-your-political-opponents game, and it was their own fault. After the shit show they trawled Clinton through, they should have been far more careful on who they let into the Oval Office

  26. Re:Disgusting, evil monsters. by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    South America has some Australia-worthy species, but otherwise, ya. If you don't live in one of those places, don't bitch about spiders being evil. They don't chase you down and try to kill you

  27. Does Elon Musk know? by geowash01 · · Score: 1

    Quick, someone tell Musk how they do it.

  28. Re:Where do they put the batteries? by JustOK · · Score: 1

    POE

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  29. Re:Five long years... by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

    Being able to compare both the comments and the way the submission was worded was fascinating. Thanks for linking that.

  30. Re:"axioms retain ideas as entropy" by shaitand · · Score: 1

    Really, is it difficult to understand the idea of all thoughts as patterns and that producing an endless string of values that are nearly without pattern but not entirely, so they can then maintain internal coherence requires entropy for pseudorandom generation? The patterns and thoughts of the other conflicting paths of observation continue to provide this entropy, each provides a first step in a new sequence of logical division which will collapse in a new way that remains coherent and consistent later so long as the seed remains the same.

    We can model this in other forms now. Pseudo random number generation, the algebraic concept of being able to multiply in any order but it mattering which way you divide. None of these need be THE truth, we can model and demonstrate these patterns therefore there is a rational and objective validity to the PATTERN. The brain is an analog neural net which uses information. If you fully define the math you limit yourself to that exact system of math and the chain of ideas in it. Accept that a loose logical concept that has worked in one place can be reused in others and that if you can even think it you've already proven that your mind if capable of using it and therefore it is a valid tool of LOGIC in contexts. This pattern requires very little faith because we've modeled it objectively, abstracted it, virtualized it, tunneled it, used it to synchronize disparate systems believed to be operating at the speed of light. We have demonstrated the need for new entropy both in continuing to produce results that can't be predicted and in biological systems where a lack of entropy results in recessive traits.

    If you are trying to build a chain of thought that continues to allow you to keep an internal blockchain of mental programming starting from this one "seed" pattern contains what you need to create a list of values which always collapse into the same result, and to use new information to use the blocks in that chain as start points for new models. Do you have a better idea for an extremely simple yet powerful place to begin using your own brain as the computer you program instead of burning away the world performing computation entirely on weaker systems that are difficult and expensive to build and share?

    This is built from the idea that I can think there is an invisible unicorn behind you, I can imagine it moving, if I can do so then I can MODEL it that way IN MY BRAIN. Models of mathematics, counting, algebra, geometry, and of course computing have done amazing things by proving we can build tools from behaviors we don't know but that we are able to model. They lead to us doing amazing things with THIS concept. If you want to retain its power in the simplest form all you have to do is think it and continue to build on it, all the best proven methods of extreme memory amount to some form of chaining the information. I can model it, the best models for building human memory have utilized it, and you can understand it WITHOUT telling your brain how to represent it, letting your brain do the work.

  31. which Darwin is this? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Is this the same Darwin who brilliantly discovered that the theory of genetics was just some preposterous, religious nonsense made up by some Jesus freaks?

    Or was it the Darwin who thought some some human sub species (i.e. "whites") were better than other sub species?

    Oh, yeah. Let's pass that guy the microphone ...