Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

NYTimes Year in Ideas 167

Posted by michael from the when-ratbots-attack-a-fox-special dept.
jonbrewer writes "The New York Times is back again with their "Year in Ideas" and one that Slashdot missed this year was the RatBot. As featured in the BBC and Business 2.0 earlier this year, these critters are trained to navigate mazes based on remote stimuli. Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Yes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NYTimes Year in Ideas More

NYTimes Year in Ideas

Comments Filter:

  • Missed?? (Score:4, Funny)

    by martingunnarsson ( 590268 ) <martin&snarl-up,com> on Sunday December 15, 2002 @03:04PM (#4892752) Homepage
    I don't think /. missed the rat-story, I even recall it was a dupe!

    • Re:Missed?? (Score:2, Informative)

      by SteweyGriffin ( 634046 )
      It was covered here [slashdot.org] and entitled "Rat Mind Control".
    • Eh? Well, the term RatBot had yet to appear in Slashdot... Google Slashdot [google.com] for ratbot and see...

      • There's a simple reason why... Meaning, in this case, they obey the /. robots.txt file [slashdot.org] It seems quite comprehensive, and (as a result) searching Slashdot is very difficult.

        (Some time ago I posted a comment ranting about the /. search sucking, that they denied Google via the robots.txt file, and some hopeful solutions... but I can't seem to find it. How's that for irony?)


        • No, the simple reason is that the poster is not too bright.

          Try this [google.com].

          • Impressive. (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Raetsel ( 34442 )

            Wow.

            Damn.

            Would you look at that.

            If I were talking about electronics, I'd call that a 'sneak circuit.' All the subdirectories the /. editors didn't include in the robots.txt file are indexed by Google.

            (At least, I figure they overlooked this... give it a few days, then check for an updated exclusion list.)

            On the other hand, I still can't seem to dig up my old comment... and not for lack of trying, either. I suggested a donation fund for a Google Search Appliance, archives on CD for /. subscribers so you could grep the database... that kind of thing. If anyone else manages to dig it up, I'd sure like to know how you found it!

      • Re:Missed?? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Old Wolf ( 56093 )
        Why use Google to search Slashdot when you can use Slashdot's own search, which doesn't miss anything ?? (and has more useful search parameters)

      • Eh? Well, the term RatBot had yet to appear in Slashdot

        And the quake2 community is quite thankful for that ;)

    • Uncoveror.com [uncoveror.com] covered the roborat story, and the slippery slope this leads down, such as the plan to create remote control human drones. [uncoveror.com] While slashdot did not miss this one, a lot of other news outlets did, and this outrage must be stopped! Unethical isn't an adequate word to describe turning living creatures into automatons.

  • hrmm (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I am Mickey of Borg.

  • Hmm.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RaboKrabekian ( 461040 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @03:08PM (#4892765) Journal
    Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Yes.

    How is this any more unethical than the thousands of other experiments performed on rats and mice? Would it be unethical to remote control a human in this manner? Of course. Would it be unethical to perform any number of experiments on a human? Yes - which is why we do it on rats and mice.

    • Re:Hmm.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kypper ( 446750 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @03:27PM (#4892886)
      I think we need to get past this 'ethical' bullshit on animals. So long as they aren't screaming in absolute agony and we're sitting there laughing at it, of course... but this image of cruel scientists performing sadistic acts on animals, then doing the actual research to ensure funding remains intact is crap. Psychologists and Biologists, in most animal-testing cases, are simply trying to test hypotheses in order to improve our understanding of the world around us. Is that so fucking hard to understand??

      • Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sebmol ( 217013 )
        It is not hard to understand at all. But the question remains: who are we to decide that we can employ other animals for our own purpose, specifically so when it comes to testing and experimentation?

        • Re:Hmm.. (Score:2, Interesting)

          by kypper ( 446750 )
          I think that about the time we started tweaking genes and 'playing god' as so many people like to put it, that's when it became ethical. If we're going to tweak genes and alter brain functions/chemicals (and we are, no matter how many people protest), then SOMETHING needs to be the focus of the experiments. Personally, I think we should just do the experiments on the current Whitehouse administration, but that's just me.

          • Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)

            by sebmol ( 217013 )

            Genetic experimentation can rarely be ethical. The problem is that the outcome of genetic experimentation is supposed to be an altered new lifeform, which never got a chance to make the decision whether he/she/it wanted to be altered in the first place. That's where I would see the real ethical dilemma.

            As to the White House administration, let's not go there. For all we know, they might already be the outcome of said genetic experiments <g>

          • Personally, I think we should just do the experiments on the current Whitehouse administration, but that's just me.
            Well, ideally we'd like the experiments to tell us something useful about human beings.
        • For that matter, who are we to decide that we can employ air molecules for our own purposes?

          • Air molecules aren't alive. They don't breathe, move or grow. They are one of the elements crucial to life (as we know it).

            By breathing, we just do what every other animal on the planet is doing. Other animals breathe, eat and dump their shit whereever. Other animals don't, however, experiment with other animals for their own gain. That's a human trait.

            • By killing other living things, we just do what many other living things do on this planet.

              • Yes, but the purpose matters. Aside from humans, lifeforms kill other lifeforms because (a) they are hungry or (b) they are trying to defend themselves. I have yet to see or hear about a case where a cat injected formaldehyde into a mouse to see how it reacts.

                • Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by scotch ( 102596 )
                  Well, cats do fuck with mice and other animals with no apparent intention to eat them, and they certainly aren't defending themselves. Sure they don't have formaldehyde, but they still act in ways that meet neither a) nor b) in your post. You probably haven't heard of a lion using a crossbow to hunt antelope, either. The technology you brought up is a bit of a red herring.

                • Re:Hmm.. (Score:2, Interesting)

                  by Malor ( 3658 )
                  Of all the analogies to choose, this was one of the worst. Have you ever seen a cat play with a mouse? It is VERY cruel. If cats could understand formaldehyde, I have no doubt whatsoever that they'd gleefully inject a mouse with it... well, except for the fact that it would ruin lunch.

                  Cruelty is very much a part of nature. A fox will kill every hen in a henhouse just because it can. Wolverines fight just to fight; they are nasty, cruel animals.

                  We may be the only animal that can experiment on others... but we appear also to be the only animal that can feel guilty about it afterward.

                  By the logic of your argument, because animals don't feel guilty, we shouldn't either.

                  • Hmm, I guess this would be a situation where my own knowledge falls short to reality to make an educated guess. If this is indeed factual, it appears that more research on my part is necessary.

                    must research...find truth...

            • Other animals don't, however, experiment with other animals for their own gain.

              This isn't quite true...
              Female cats, for instance, will deliver prey to their kittens so they can learn to kill. Of course, kittens aren't really very good at it, so they have to practice. The prey is tormented (since the kitten hasn't figured out how to kill it effectively), allowed to flee (or escapes), and re-captured over and over. All this cruelty just so a SINGLE animal (the kitten) can gain from the experience and survive.

            • I'd like to see precisely where you draw the line between patterns of chemical reactions and `life'. Here's a really interesting introduction to self-replicating structures even simpler than viruses: Subcellular Life Forms [ucr.edu]. I think it does a lot to show that the classification of things as `alive' or `not alive' is just an arbitrary human distinction.
        • Who are you to decide that we can't?

          • I don't get to. It is up to everyone to make their own decisions in their lives. All I stated was what I believed to be wrong. What you do with that is up to you.

          • What an amazing piece of logic. Who am I to decide that i can't not run you over with my car? I think somewhere along the line, someone made the decision that they can perform tests on animals...
        • But the question remains: who are we to decide that we can employ other animals for our own purpose, specifically so when it comes to testing and experimentation?

          We are humans, top of the food chain. What we say goes.
        • As usual, decisions are either made on the basis of empathy (accurate or inaccurate) or on the basis of power. And they can't be made on the basis of empathy unless the power is present first.

          If the power exists, and is available to many people, then some people will use it for their ends, some will ignore it, and some will try (rightly and wrongly) to use it to the benefit of others. Which position does less damage is sometimes arguable.

          We only allow lab rats to live because they serve our ends. If you deny them the opportunity to be useful, you condemn them and their entire line to death. Is this more ethical? Less?

          I trust, by the way, that you are a vegetarian, and don't wear any leather. Otherwise, consider whether or not your argument is hypocracy, or just fear of new things.

          I'm not a vegetarian. I don't wear leather solely because I'm allergic to it. And these experiments don't give me any qualms because of the conditions that the rats are subjected to. (Don't ask me about various cancer tests. I'm still working on that bolus. [It doesn't go down easily.]) But I feel both hope and dread from these experiments. These could be steps along the way to a direct neural connection to the computer. Hope/fear! Joy/dread!

      • Then you'll see how fun it is to be injected with cancer and grow tumors the size of a baseball. I wonder if the fact that the scientists aren't laughing at you will be some comfort to you then?

        I'm not completely against animal testing, but your in the wrong here trying to brush off the topic of ethics when discussing animal testing. There are ethics involved and they are not "bullshit".

      • Re:Hmm.. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by bethenco ( 578272 )
        No kidding; I couldn't agree more.

        I get frustrated when people suggest we need to halt some area of research until we can determine if it is `ethical'. How the hell do we do that, and we should we? Would someone please define precisely what `ethical' is and why it matters, because as far as I can tell, the term ethical is just used to denote a bunch of vague, spiritual, fuzzy feelings that vary from person to person.

        As for all the people who are worried about reincarnating as rats or whether we ought to "employ other animals for our own purpose", I think these concerns only make sense in the context of some metaphysical world view. If you don't want to ruin your karma or go to hell, then don't experiment on rats. But please stay out of the way of the scientists; not everyone sees things the way you do.
      • I think we need to get past this 'ethical' bullshit on animals.
        I am agnostic, but some religious guy once said "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself". God or no-God, this is probably one of the best moral-guiding principles anyone has ever articulated, and as far as I am concerned, animals are just as deserving of being "others" as much of the scum in this world that we consider human.

        Thus, the question is - would you be happy about some geeks sticking electrodes into your brain just so that they could see whether they could force you to turn left or turn right in a maze?

    • Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sebmol ( 217013 )
      Actually, any experiments with rats and mice are unethical in my book. The momeny we employ them to our gain, we assume the arrogance to believe that we are more important than those creatures. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with human testing if the subject/participant volunteered under free will to be experimented with. I don't see how that could be unethical.
      • See thats the key. its unethical in your book. Ethics are a metter of personal opinion and personal belife. Me, I think its fine to do experiments on mice in the name of science, but YMMV.

      • Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RaboKrabekian ( 461040 )
        I'm sorry, but I disagree completely. Call me egomaniacal, but I do think that I, and all other human beings, are more important than mice. Period. End of argument.

        If experimenting on animals can save the lives of humans then I'm all for it. Humans are more important.

        • Sure thing, egomaniac.

          Seriously though, what is important and what is not is highly based on our individual values. Personally, I don't think human survival is more important than animal survival. I am also aware, though, that that places me into a small minority on this planet. But who said you had to be in the majority to be right?

          • From your original post in this thread:
            we assume the arrogance to believe

            And from your most recent in this thread:
            But who said you had to be in the majority to be right?

            Who said only animal testing advocates were arrogant?

        • Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mgblst ( 80109 )
          Yes, please save the Humans, they are down to 6 Billion in number...
    • Umnh... did you read the original article? It's probably no more (or less) unethical that offering a person candy or booze to do something. In fact, subjectively it's probably the same feeling.

      That said, I do resent having to go to work each day just to get paid. Isn't that unethical? Well, it's the same kind of stimulus-response (a bit more indirect, of course).

      What's unethical is not this kind of training of rats (this is less unethical than electric shock avoidance conditioning). What might be unethical about this is how you use it afterwards, and what you train them to do.
  • be slaughtered to examine its organs. Seems like "the high life" for a lab rat to me.
  • If you want Slashdot to stop posting reg-required NY Times links, please respond to this comment with comments and suggestions. They could get a partnership with NYTimes, they could simply not post NYTimes links, etc. Keep in mind that the editors have stated that they have a policy [slashdot.org] of not linking to reg-required sites. So why then do they insist on posting all the NYTimes links?
    • I agree. I find this annoying as well.
    • FFS, give it up.

      The Slashdot editors, when they added the no reg-required sites policy, specifically stated that NYTimes is exempted due to the large amounts of interesting articles in the NYT.

      It takes 30 seconds to sign up, and you can provide completely fake info. If you're too lazy / thickheaded / fucking stubborn to do that, then use one of the random login generators or wait for a Karma Whore to post the contents.

      I, for one, don't mind giving the NYTimes a little info for their content. If you do, put up and shut up - find a different way to get the content and stop whining about it.
    • The first link was not registration required. Click it. You get the page.

      (Of course, you can't actually click any more links on the page without getting reg-required, but still)

  • had to be said (Score:3, Funny)

    by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @03:12PM (#4892795)
    Imagine a beowulf cluster of ratbots...

    sorry I tried not saying it, but I couldn't do it

  • NYTimes: Idea of the year chosen by SlashDot (Score:5, Funny)

    by dagg ( 153577 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @03:14PM (#4892806) Journal
    NYTimes idea of the year chosen by SlashDot members:
    • Is it just me, or do none of those work anymore?

      =(

      -Berj
    • Really, is it that hard to register? Type in fake info if you want. It's so much easier to click the link and have it work than to go to the trouble of generating a new login each time.

      • Type in fake info if you want.

        Misrepresenting your identity in a contract (the ToS, which you agree to by providing your information and submitting the form) may constitute fraud in your jurisdiction.

        • Unless both parties of the contract show sufficient proof of identity, the contract can't really become valid. Confirmation through an e-mail address is rarely sufficient proof of identification. Credit cards, SSN's, DL's and national ID's may though.

          The nature of so called "contracts" online is still highly debatable. As long as there is no way to sufficiently guarantee that the person clicking on the "I Agree" button is really who they say they are, it should prove rather tough on either party to enforce the terms of the contract.

        • So using fake info is fraud, but deluging the registration system with random strings (which presumably also don't represent your real info) every time you read an article is better?

          • deluging the registration system with random strings (which presumably also don't represent your real info) every time you read an article

            That would be fraud or theft of service as well.

  • I wonder how much longer before the evil powers of this earth have human armies augmented and controlled by a similar mechanism...
  • Interesting how the press seems to dismiss the cruelty issue by reporting the researcher's point of view at face value. Here's the last sentence from the National Geographic article:

    And, Talwar said, "there is no cruelty" involved in operating robo-rats because the animals are never intentionally killed or harmed.

    And here's an excerpt from the BBC piece:

    "Our animals were completely happy and treated well and in no sense was there any cruelty involved," he said.

    Nope, no cruelty at all. Aside from drilling holes in the rat's skull, attaching wires into his brain, and mounting a control box permanently behind his head.

    I think it's a lot of inhumanity for a little gee-whiz. Especially since there's no critical look at whether full-fledged robots could be developed to perform these functions. Yet another example of brutality done to animals with no clear payoff. Surely, research in small-scale robotics is producing, or will soon produce, devices with the mobility and functional characteristics of rats.

    The sad thing is that I'm probably going to be modded down for raising these concerns. Time and again, a sizable portion of Slashdot posters seems to stick up for animal research, no matter how cruel and no matter how pointless. Now I'll stand back and give people a chance to post all about lifesaving animal research, ignoring the fact that so much of what's done is useless fluff, much like these remote controlled rats.

    • Re:Creepy? Or Just Pointless? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kypper ( 446750 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @03:41PM (#4892980)
      Nope, no cruelty at all. Aside from drilling holes in the rat's skull, attaching wires into his brain, and mounting a control box permanently behind his head.

      The brain has no pain receptors. Human patients have been drilled into and probed without any pain whatsoever.

      • Are you saying... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Schlemphfer ( 556732 )
        that if somebody held you down and drilled holes in your skull without your consent, you would not consider this an act of cruelty? What time can we schedule your appointment? :P
        • Anytime you want. But you have to do it too; we're making a distinction between humans and mice here. Cruelty to animals is generally considered such because of pain or unnecessary death, not because of "consent".
        • Mice cannot legally consent, as they do not reach 18 years of age. Thus, their guardian must consent for them. As the parents of the mice are also under 18, guardianship is given to the researchers caring for them (think of 'em as foster parents ;-).

          Heehee...

          • See that's exactly the problem. There is no way that someone else can rightfully consent in my place. The whole idea of age of consent and what comes with it is a mere legal device trying to at least somewhat fix the much more fundamental problem of parent-children relationships.

            GPL: Free as in herpes? I almost choked on my coffee laughing about that one. It's hilarious! Good work :-P

    • Re:Creepy? Or Just Pointless? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @03:49PM (#4893033) Journal
      Time and again, a sizable portion of Slashdot posters seems to stick up for animal research, no matter how cruel and no matter how pointless.

      I'm just happy my angioplasty was "cruelly and pointlessly" tested on dogs before it was tried on me.

      But I suppose you forego most drugs and medical procedures so as not to benefit from animal testing.

    • Re:Creepy? Or Just Pointless? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bytesmythe ( 58644 ) <bytesmythe&gmail,com> on Sunday December 15, 2002 @04:05PM (#4893118)
      ignoring the fact that so much of what's done is useless fluff, much like these remote controlled rats.

      While you also ignore a few facts of your own...

      1. Animal experiments are very expensive. If there is really a way to do an experiment without animals, it will be done. With animals, you have to keep them comfortable, fed, watered, and pay staff to care for them.
      2. All animal experiments have to have special approval. You cannot proceed without it.
      3. There are very tight regulations related to the treatment of animals in experiments. Pretty much any procedure more invasive than a simple injection requires anesthesia.
      4. No one does these experiments to be cruel or evil. Experiments are done with the intention of learning something important. This is not the laboratory equivalent of a 7 year-old pulling the wings off flies.

      Neurological experiments absolutely cannot be performed on anything other than a living biological organism. The idea here isn't just to create remote controlled rats, but to discover how we can advance new technologies related to the brain. Modern probes that can monitor the firing patterns of 4 individual neurons simultaneously? The idea that we can now partially enable the blind to see [go.com]? Do you think that the experiments required to pull this off were performed on neurons in a petri dish? Of course not, and it wouldn't even be possible. Perhaps one day in the future if, heaven forbid!, you are ever tragically paralyzed in an accident, you will perhaps thank the researchers who come up with remote control [newsfactor.com] technology [sciforums.com]. I know if it were to happen to me, I'd be very glad to have a way to communicate with my family, or take care of myself instead of being a complete burden.

      Especially since there's no critical look at whether full-fledged robots could be developed to perform these functions.

      Many researchers devote their time to developing small-scale robotics, but nothing is close to being anywhere near as agile as a biological organism. But again, the research isn't just about controlling rats; it's also a way to figure out how to interface with the brain. Given the paralysis scenario, what good would a robotic "supplemental" body be if you couldn't control the damn thing? When that kind of technology comes about for general use, you'll have researchers, rats, and monkeys to thank for it.

      The sad thing is that I'm probably going to be modded down for raising these concerns.

      Well, I've got one point left, but I chose to reply instead. Besides, I don't mod down. ;)

      • So basically what all this comes down to is that the end (i.e. human health and welfare) justifies the means of getting there (i.e. animal testing)? This planet disgusts me.

        • The real question you're asking is do the ends justify the means?

          Well, sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. It depends on what the ends are and what the means are.

          For instance, if we could cure AIDS or cancer tomorrow by sacrificing just ONE monkey to an experiment, would that be worth it? I would say so. I would NOT, however, advocate brutally torturing every chimpanzee in existence for hours on end just to end navel lint.

          Both of those positions are ludicrous extremes, obviously. We have to be able to strike a balance between the ends (enriching human life) and the means (experimentation on animals). I think, in general, we do a good job of this.
    • You are aware during brain surgeries on humans they are kept awake and required to continue talking?

      Just checking.

  • An Idea For The NYT (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Discontinue requiring "free" registration.
  • I don't know about you, but I don't think there is anything "cool" about animal cruelty. This has no realistic medical applications, and only the rat really knows how painful this experiment is.

    Now, if we could wire Michael up with this kind of thing and send him a signal to stop squatting [sethf.com] on the censorware.org domain, that wouldn't be ethical either - but it would definitely be cool.

    • Uh, how does knowing the frontal lobe and motor cortex inside and out such that one could actually control someone via remote control not have realistic medical applications. This could bring out all new cybernetic solutions to motor fuction difficulties and, as it also demonstrates the workings of the brain, could lead to alleviation of lesions etc therein.
      • Uh, how does knowing the frontal lobe and motor cortex inside and out such that one could actually control someone via remote control not have realistic medical applications.
        That's a silly argument. Consider an analogy:

        Cosmetics manufacturers could argue that their experiments increase our knowledge of the skin and its reaction to various chemicals. Some time down the line this knowledge could help us cure all sorts of skin diseases.

        That argument wouldn't get them very far with most thinking people, and nor does yours.

    • This has no realistic medical applications

      No, but if you'd RTFA you'd have noticed the part about using rats as a cheaper, more effective alternative for rescue dogs.

      I'd say that's realistic (and worthwhile).
      • No, but if you'd RTFA you'd have noticed the part about using rats as a cheaper, more effective alternative for rescue dogs.
        Actually I did RTFA, and that is one of the lamest pie-in-the-sky excuses for animal torture I have heard in a while.
        • pie-in-the-sky?

          Building collapses (lets say in an earthquake). You send a rat with a small video camera attached in, remote control it, and search out people trapped below.

          Sounds useful and entirely possible.
          • You send a rat with a small video camera attached in, remote control it, and search out people trapped below.
            Yeah, in a cartoon. How would you control it? "Go left", "Go right" would be meaningless in the complex environment of a collapsed building. It would be incredibly difficult to explain to the poor mutilated creature which direction you wanted it to go in - but even if you could, on what criteria would you direct it? The only meaningful criteria might be smell, but since you are controlling the rat, you don't have the benefit of its sensory knowledge. If you start claiming that this could be achieved, then I reinvoke my "pie-in-the-sky" claim about this whole thing.

  • Crying baby translator... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by doormat ( 63648 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @03:44PM (#4892997) Homepage Journal
    I saw that as one of their ideas.... wasnt that a simpsons episode with homer's brother??
  • I always think about mind reading when I hear about these things. Is this a signifigant step in that direction? I'm not too worried about the rats, but it would be creepy if the govt. could use the same technology to read my mind and find out that, say, I'm thinking about how to circumvent DVD protection, or something. Anyone know how fine-grained a view of the rat-thoughts they can see?
  • The von Hippels have also compiled a long list of animals that could benefit should Viagra ever be made available in Africa, including baboons, gorillas, chimpanzees and spotted hyenas.

    Hm, you probably wouldn't want to meet a gorilla on viagra...

    Ofcourse, if they start giving viagra to wildebeest, would they have to be renamed to gnu/horny?

  • You Can't Stop The Ratbots (Score:5, Interesting)

    by USC-MBA ( 629057 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @04:29PM (#4893284) Homepage
    One common theme (aside from terrorism, of course) clearly stands out from among the NYT's long list of ideas. What do all these have in common?
    • Botox Parties
    • Featherless Chickens
    • Ratbots
    • Genetically Modified Saliva
    • Cooling Atheletes From The Inside Out
    The answer is they are all about using technology to enhance or modify biology. There is a human impulse to go above and beyond the constraints of biological limitations. This is because the imagination will always overflow and escape the boundaries of our bones, nerves, and muscle.

    This impulse to strive, excel, and improve is at the heart of what makes us human. The striving imperative motivates everything from mountain climbers to astronauts, to the market economy itself. To stifle this urge would be to stunt our very humanity.

    As a libertarian I strongly support any efforts by striving, creative individuals to transcend the forces that constrain humanity. "Ratbots" may seem creepy to timid animal rights fundamentalists, but I prefer to see these kinds of experiments as an exciting beginning, as one tiny step on the part of humankind into a new world of freedom and possibility.

    • As a libertarian I strongly support any efforts by striving, creative individuals to transcend the forces that constrain humanity

      This may transcend the abilities of the species, but Oy! does it constrain the liberty of the individual on the business end of the remote-controll.

      Now's the time to tell Congress not to let the military spend money learning how to remote-control people.


  • I encourage the Open Source Foundation, et al.
    to take the NY Times to task over the name of
    the subject article/activity:

    www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/magazine/15OPEN.html

    (It's about a woman, whose website asked for
    money; she managed to collect over $13,000
    to help pay off her $20,000 credit-card debt,
    by telling her story & "begging" online...)

    That's -not- the idea of Open Source, folks.
  • I remember reading Ringworld by Larry Niven. I talks about a character being a "Wire Head," someone who is addicted on electronic pleasure. In their society, it is considered socially unacceptable to have such an implant. Some alien races have even developed a remote device that can do the same thing from afar - which have been baned by treaty.
    It's a great book that every Good Geek must have in their library

  • Implications are severe and unforseen (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:02PM (#4894350) Journal
    What happens if WalMart (or an "unrelated" corporation) were to put these things into poor, 3rd world natives?

    What if by providing just enough food to survive, squalor for sleeping quarters, and no particular pay, but lots of "pushing the pleasure button" they were to get a group of people willing to work for free?

    Would it be cruel? You talk to these people, and they are smiling, happy, and working 16 hour days in relatively dangerous conditions, with their "happy button" being pressed anytime their output increases some small amount.

    How long before our "free market" makes this a reality? How many people would sign up, knowing that they will be forever "happy"?

    How many people are willing to do this using drugs, to get the same effect, despite the risks?

    This is not something that's possible, it's inevitable, as there is a clear financial reward. Making it illegal won't prevent it.

    Where do we draw the line? As somebody who's frequently rather sure I have the answer, I have to say this one baffles me.

    Toto, we aren't in Kansas anymore!

    • You can't just ban it though. It'll still happen but the devices will come from the third-world instead of reputable medical companies.

      Make abuse of it illegal, make it illegal to give to someone else. And make it cheap.

      If it's cheap (and easily available) and it's a crime to supply it, chances are that it'll be easier to get legally (and turn yourself into a veggie) than be strung along by someone else.

      But, if these things do get invented, and I imagine they will, it'll effectively be a cheap and painless (joyful even) mode of suicide. Kids that sniff gasoline today might decide that dying of pleasure is much better than living in a hellhole. And how are we to stop that, or do we?
  • This is SUCH a dupe- they the same artivle last year!

    (See subject)

  • Murder rates most interesting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Goonie ( 8651 ) <robert.merkel@be ... g ['ra.' in gap]> on Sunday December 15, 2002 @08:55PM (#4895140) Homepage
    On my quick browse through, perhaps the most interesting idea was the one on murder rates.

    Basically, murder rates have remained essentially static over the past few decades, while other types of crime such as assaults have become more common. Why are murders different?

    The hypothesis is that improvements in medical treatment have meant that people who would otherwise have died of injuries are now surviving, and thus the murder rate has gone down. Evidence includes the fact there was a decline in the murder rate in the years after the Vietnam War, where improvements in trauma surgery made their way back into the civilian health system.

    I don't know if it's true or not, but it's certainly an interesting, plausible, and quite disturbing idea.

  • I'd think it should be obvious that most habitues of slashdot are already master botters.

Slashdot Top Deals

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Close