First Automatic Identification of Flying Insects Allows Hi-Tech Bug Zapping 99
KentuckyFC writes "Entomologists have never been able to identify flying insects automatically. But not through lack of trying. The obvious approach is to listen out for the frequency of the wing beat. But acoustic microphones aren't up to the job because sound intensity drops with the square of the distance, so flying insects quickly drop out of range. Now a group of researchers has solved this problem using a laser beam pointing at a photosensitive array. Any insect flying through the beam casts a shadow of its beating wings that can easily be recorded at distances of several meters. Using this new device, the team has created a dataset of millions of wing beat recordings, more than all previous recordings put together. And they've used the dataset to train a Bayesian classifier algorithm to identify flying insects automatically for the first time. That opens the prospect of a new generation of bug zappers that kill only certain insects or just females rather than males. That could have a big impact on human health since mosquitoes and other flying insects kill millions of people each year. It could also help in agriculture where insects threaten billions of dollars worth of crops."
And the product name? (Score:4, Funny)
The Dalek Bug Death Ray?
Re: (Score:2)
Exterminate!
Exterminate!
Hey, wait, what will all the pest control companies do?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Couple it with this, and you could have a selective bug zapper that only killed "bad" insects.
Though I think OP's idea of only killing female mosquitoes (because they're the ones that bite) is misguided. Male mosquitoes lead to more female mosquitoes. If there is one insect that I think could safely (and even beneficially)
Re: (Score:2)
s/mosquitoes would be them/the mosquito would be it
Re: (Score:3)
It only takes one male to fertilize countless females. If you want to eliminate a species, you focus your efforts on the females, not the males. We could lose 90% of the human male population tomorrow and our population would be back to normal in a generation or less. If we lost 90% of the human female population, it'd take centuries to get back to our present population. Males simply don't affect population much; kill off a bunch, and the remaining ones have more sex partners.
Re: (Score:3)
"It only takes one male to fertilize countless females. If you want to eliminate a species, you focus your efforts on the females, not the males. We could lose 90% of the human male population tomorrow and our population would be back to normal in a generation or less. If we lost 90% of the human female population, it'd take centuries to get back to our present population. Males simply don't affect population much; kill off a bunch, and the remaining ones have more sex partners."
That's true of humans, not mosquitoes. The reason is the low birth rate of humans. But mosquitoes breed prolifically.
It is true that males can fertilize many females. But because of their high birth rate, this means that killing off the females does not restrict the population for long. At most a few months.
But kill off the males -- or better yet, as they have done with both mosquitoes and flies sterilize the males but let them mate -- and they produce no offspring.
That's why most fly and mosquito
Re: (Score:2)
But mosquitoes breed prolifically.
Yes, but even so, female insects can only make so many eggs at a time. Male insects aren't limited to how many females they can fertilize. But I guess the ultimate question is: what's the biggest limiter of population in mosquitos? Obviously it's something environmental, not their birth rate.
But still, my point is, if you just kill off males, you're not doing as much damage as killing off females; the remaining males will just mate more. Now if you sterilize the males
Re: (Score:2)
Not an entomologist, but it seems you have some awfully mammalian assumptions here.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an entomologist either, so you could be right. Still, even though insects lay eggs instead of gestating, I'd think there's a maximum capacity to how many eggs a female can produce in a given timespan, even if she's surrounded by males.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's some problems with your assumptions (though they might even out some as you said); women are fertile more years than that, though the level of fertility is much lower in older women and there's higher risks of problems. (I'll also assume we haven't lost our medical technology here, so no more risk of a woman dying in childbirth than now.) Also, while some women are highly fertile and can have a baby a year, not all are; many aren't very fertile at all and have a hard time conceiving. Also, not all w
Actually... The Paraguay war proves this is wrong (Score:3)
In the 1860s, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay allied in a war against Paraguay [wikipedia.org]. This war caused the death of ~60% of the Paraguayan population, including ~90% of its adult males. The social effects are still present today, over 140 years later: The country is the most machist in Latin America (which is not an easy feat!), because it became not only normal but positive for a man to have several women. Of course, it also destroyed Paraguayan economy, and to this day, Paraguay is the poorest country in South Ame
Re: (Score:2)
Well, mosquitos are probably pollinators as well as well as an important food source for lots of other creatures, so killing them all is going to have side effects. Plus there's the whole ethical issue of killing beings that not only have done you no harm, but are incapable of doing you harm - should you be the sort that concerns yourself with such things.
Meanwhile there isn't a sexually monogamous animal on Earth (plenty pair-bond monogamously, but that's a completely separate issue), so just like stray c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure mosquitoes aren't pollinators? Most plants are pretty good at getting their pollen to stick to the insects that feed on their nectar. And *male* mosquitoes are harmless - they lack the mouth-parts to be able to bite us even if they wanted to. Killing them accomplishes nothing - the mostly don't even generate that annoying buzzing sound when they fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except I think mosquitos, as annoying as they are, are still part of the food chain and are still food to a number of other more useful insects and animals, including spiders and frogs. And the larvae are eaten by a few wate
Similar to... (Score:2)
potential evolution experiement (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It will select against all species members with characteristic audio signature allowing the non-charcteristic to breed.
Software can adapt much faster than DNA.
Old Old Old (Score:1)
This was done years ago. You set setup cameras, a light, and a white strip of paper along a doorway or something similar. The cameras watch for a small shadow, the software calculates the bug's location, and a quick laser zap burns off the bug's wings.
There's also that awesome Star Wars mosquito laser defense system,
Re: (Score:2)
That's not at all what they're doing.
In your case, they're just killing anything with wings. The summary makes it pretty clear that the laser is only used to cast a shadow to identify what flying nuisance machine it is. It's the difference shooting everything in sight and only shooting hippies/commies/terrorists/bad guy of the day.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Old Old Old (Score:4, Informative)
"In your case, they're just killing anything with wings. The summary makes it pretty clear that the laser is only used to cast a shadow to identify what flying nuisance machine it is."
The list of insects I would allow entering my house is rather short.
Re: (Score:2)
The list of insects I would allow entering my house is rather short.
You keep insects out of a house with screens. But how do you keep only unwanted insects out of your garden, or for that matter, off of your patio? Your patio veg would appreciate some pollination, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
The list of insects I would allow entering my house is rather short.
Agreed. But since I they come in anyway, I have arrived at an uneasy truce with the spiders. (no dangerous spiders in this area)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot: not even reading the summary since at least 2003. Probably longer.
Re:Millions of people. (Score:4, Informative)
I think they mean flying insects carry diseases that kill thousands or millions of people. Not necessarily the insects directly kill people like a bad SyFymovie.
malaria, for instance (Score:5, Informative)
According to the WHO, malaria (spread by mosquitoes) killed between 473000 and 789000 people in 2012. Add in a few more similar diseases and it could plausibly be "millions of people".
Re: (Score:3)
Even if it wasn't, our constant struggle to defy nature is astounding. The thing is, nature will always win. Death is inevitable and frankly, things like disease and famine are natures way of population control. Just look at some of the modern day diseases and their resistance to antibiotics for an example of nature getting around the problem. Until humans can face the fact that death is around the corner, the more wast
Re: (Score:2)
Just because death is inevitable doesn't mean we should stop fighting against it. Suppose you were diagnosed with a disease that was fatal if untreated but that could be cured with a month of uncomfortable/painful treatment. Would you opt not to treat it because death is inevitable anyway? Or would you treat it to extend your life knowing that you are going to die at some point even if the treatment is successful?
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on the quality of life I will have after the treatment and what is involved in the treatment in the first place. If the quality of life goes below my standards, then yes, I would refuse treatment and live life to the fullest for the time I have left. If the treatment is worse than the disease then yes, I again would refuse treatment and live what life I have left to its fullest.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said nature was "intelligent". It is resilient though. And if it was advantageous for a species to survive to have laser defenses, then that is what will happen in some form or the species will go extinct. In both cases upstream dependent species will be effected.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to forgo vaccinations and medical treatment, go right ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
In some cases I have. For example, I stopped trying to rid myself of the flu virus through the totally ineffective flu vaccine. Haven't had a single instance of the flu in the ten years I stopped getting the vaccine. But the thousands of strains of the flu virus is exactly the kind of mutations I am talking about. Nature will always find a way.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, you're not impressing anyone with your tough-nose naturalism. Mosquito bites me because that's it's nature. I murder mosquito with prejudice as often as I can because that's my nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to take a look at this ... When I saw the AC's comment, I couldn't help but remember this. http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff... [purrsia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You and me both.
Re: (Score:2)
This targets specific insects, and has no feeding requirements. Birds which are fed enough millet won't bother insects; birds which are underfed will consume the population wholesale and then starve off, limiting effectiveness. Getting birds to control the insect population is difficult.
Bug zappers may kill 2000 insects, with a dozen being biting insects and the rest being beneficial insects like ladybugs and dragonflies. The same goes for birds. This technology attempts to blacklist mosquitoes, leav
Re: (Score:2)
And killing a bunch of mosquitoes will mess up something in the food chain. Can we stop playing God with nature?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we kill enough mosquitoes and other insects so we can allow "much reduced use of pesticides", it means we killed enough to mess something up in the food chain. As for the bees, nature will make sure another species takes over...
Re: (Score:2)
Been here before (Score:1)
Population Bomb (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Murderers!!! (Score:3)
Now how do I get one for my backyard? :-)
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
Let's see, an automated laser that can fry bugs from several meters away based on learned heuristics in an optimal
environment and then presumably ment to operate within close proximity of humans.
What happens when this system overshoots it's target or misidentifies some random body part or body accessory as
a target?
Re: (Score:3)
Keep it all in a 2d plane with grates on it, like a bug zapper. I haven't heard of any bug zapper deaths, though I have faith that the crowd here at Slashdot will find an example.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
I haven't heard of any bug zapper deaths, though I have faith that the crowd here at Slashdot will find an example.
My brother's girlfriend's nephew's cousin swallowed one whole. As soon as he plugged it in, game over.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't know.
[Quietly takes down laser bug zapper from across the street from KOMO helipad.]
Re: (Score:2)
You have a bug zapper which is able to detect not only distinguish a mosquito from a fly but also distinguish a male mosquito from a female mosquito. You are worried that it will be unable to tell the difference between you and a mosquito.
I do not know what to say to that.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a bug zapper which is able to detect not only distinguish a mosquito from a fly but also distinguish a male mosquito from a female mosquito. You are worried that it will be unable to tell the difference between you and a mosquito.
I do not know what to say to that.
You don't think a fluttering piece of paper, fabric, etc... might not eventually cause a false positive?
Also, unlike in star wars, lasers don't actually stop after a short distance. If you are using them to
either target and/or kill the target, they will eventually miss or go right through, etc... A backdrop
would solve the problem but then that kindof defeats the advantage of being able to identify them
from several meters away.
Sexist Pig! (Score:3)
That opens the prospect of a new generation of bug zappers that kill only certain insects or just females rather than males.
Males are the throwaway gender. Need to get the egg bearing females to reduce the population. Then the males will fight over the remaining females until they're also reduced.
Win-Win!
[John ]
Re: (Score:1)
I suspect this is more in reference to mosquitoes. It's only the females that drink blood & transfer diseases.
Still, my first thought was...why bother? Just kill 'em all.
Re: (Score:2)
Only female mosquitos suck blood. Therefore, only the females are a health threat to humans.
Related TED Talk (Score:1)
https://www.ted.com/talks/nath... [ted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I really like that talk, and considered building one for my sometimes mosquito-ey back yard. Unfortunately, the laser bit is a problem. It's actually quite powerful. The DIY versions use a surplus tank laser rangefinder which is very not eye-safe. Blinding the neighbors or the dogs seems like a bad idea. There are "eye safe" lasers, but that just means you dump all the energy into the cornea, not the retina. I don't know if that would hurt, injure, or cause long term damage. Also, buying one of them
Re: (Score:2)
Refinement of previously demonstrated tech? (Score:1)
I remember seeing this [ted.com] TED talk some time back where they had constructed a working rig. At least working under laboratory conditions. Is that the precursor of this?
Re: (Score:2)
I instantly thought of that talk too. They were essentially doing this many years ago.
oblig (Score:2)
Here come the mosquitos with frikking lasers strapped to their heads!
Or,
Can we adapt this to identify hot female humans? (and not zap them)
Or,
ahhh,, nevvamind
Oh wow (Score:2)
"Would you like the $20 bug zapper that kills all bugs, or the $1000 bug zapper that for reasons unknown allows some bugs to live?"
"I think I'll take the $20 model, thanks.."
It must, absolutely must (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's all fun and games (Score:2)
until someone has a ringtone that sounds too much like an insect....
Re: (Score:2)
i'm ok with device that destroys phones with obnoxious ringtones. I'd like to bring one on the train with me in the morning
I remember this from 2009 (Score:2)
I remember this from a Slashdot article back in 2009.
New laser system targets mosquitos [slashdot.org]
this is just radar system for insects.. (Score:1)
So they invented a new military grade radar system for consumer usage in and around the home.
The military has had these systems (directed-energy radar systems) for use in human targeting for decades. A few capabilities include tracking heart rate, breathe, license plates, and brain waves (mind reading/altering). Fully patented since 1974 by Robert Malech. Details here: http://www.oregonstatehospital... [oregonstatehospital.net]
There are other uses of radar technologies coming into the consume land including personal cell "cellular"
Re: (Score:1)
BTW: the targeting mechanisms for radar can be expanded from any object. Lets say, from humans, to "ice" on the road, to "insects" in the air, to air planes, to missiles, to neurons, to cellphones, to specific people in a database, to cells or bacteria, to even specific types of atoms/material deposits..
To asteroids, to stars, to planets, to specific energy signatures of any kind - whether those energy signatures be "the color red" or the appearance of a girls face, or radio signals from DNA, or whatever..
New sci-fi flick coming to you... (Score:1)
"That opens the prospect of a new generation of bug zappers that kill only certain insects or just females rather than males."
It'll take the sci-fi people about six months to take off with this. Here's the opening script:
(Boy wanting to get rid of his old girlfriend): "Hey babe! Why don't you get out of the car and come inside to my place? See, it's safe: I'm walking inside..."
(Girl with innocent look): "Sure..."
(Policeman standing in front of laser-burnt pile on floor with girly bits of cloth sticking out)
Similar to the Bill Gates funded laser? (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Then what? (Score:2)
OK, you've identified a bug that happened to fly past your tiny laser beam. Ignoring the zillion other bugs in your yard that did NOT fly past your beam, now you need to track this bug to confirm its location before you:
1) Turn on/off a gigantic bug zapper that will zap ONLY the bug you've targeted. And you'll do this by instantly powering up a large UV lamp and power grid that draws your moth straight to your flame?
2) Shoot the bugger down? With what, a missile? A laser? How long is your gun targeting
David Brin predicted this in _Earth_... (Score:2)
...although I think he cast it as a Star Wars spinoff. I'm liking this idea, especially if it's subject to Moore's Law-style cost scaling over time.
Prior art (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4tPrcePdGM
But, But... (Score:2)
Are they trying to make (Score:1)