Bark Beetles Hate Rush Limbaugh and Heavy Metal 220
Aryabhata writes "According to scientists, climate change and human activity have allowed bark beetle populations to soar. They decided to fight the beetles by using the 'nastiest, most offensive sounds' that they could think of. These sounds included recordings of Guns & Roses, Queen, Rush Limbaugh and manipulated versions of the insects' own sounds. The research project titled 'Beetle Mania' has concluded that acoustic stress can disrupt their feeding and even cause the beetles to kill each other."
Pitiful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly they fail at knowing anything about actual metal.
Re:Pitiful. but accurate (Score:3, Informative)
I would think G&R and Queen would be really offensive to anyone who likes metal.
Re: (Score:2)
"they're not metal."
LMFAO. I smell someone born in the 90s.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Could've been worse, they could have tried Jethro Tull [wikipedia.org]...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Tell that to a tuba player, wussy
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You called?
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you fail at knowing what was considered 'Metal' back in the 60's, or 70's, or 80's.
Hint: Metal doesn't fucking exist, per-se. It's classified as 'Fusion'
P2P insecticide (Score:2)
Thanks for the tip. Now go get the complete discography [btjunkie.org], and rescue your trees from the bark beetles!
I'm a BARK BEETLE! (Score:2)
It now explains EVERYTHING!
Including being named Gregor Samsa.
Did they ever consider... (Score:2)
Glenn Beck [theonion.com]?
Re:Did they ever consider... (Score:5, Informative)
Go for the gusto. Play Obama's latest SOTU speech. It's nasty, offensive, AND completely untruthful for a 3-in-1.
Congratulations -- you're officially part of the far right. [cbsnews.com] Under 17% of speech watchers disapproved of the speech in general, let alone found it "nasty, offensive, AND completely untruthful". Even though democratic viewers outnumbered Republican viewers 2:1, independents were well represented, and combined with the fact that you expressed much more than simple disapproval, this places you solidly in the right-wing column.
It may be a surprise for you to learn that most of America doesn't think the way you do. They don't view Republicans as an oppressed minority suffering from an evil socialist conspiracy. 58% actually view them as obstructionists [washingtonpost.com]. Heck, over 10% of Scott Brown's vote came from Obama voters, who were overwhelmingly trying to punish the democrats [boldprogressives.org] for not getting enough done (82% of Obama voters who voted brown support the public option; 86% of Obama voters who stayed home do).
Nearly half the population believes in creation (Score:2)
I mean literally, humans were put on this Earth by God in present form less than 10,000 years ago.
"58% actually view them as obstructionists"
I wonder what the percentage was back when Bush was president and the Democrats were blocking every nominee he had, especially Eric Estrada (and they were blocking him for reasons of racial pandering, not even over a real issue!).
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what the percentage was back when Bush was president
I don't know the final tally, but as of 2005 during the "nuclear option" threat, the Democrats had confirmed 208 of Bush's judicial nominees and filibustered 10.
especially Eric Estrada
The guy from CHiPs and Sealab 2021?
Re: (Score:2)
The those Obama voters who supported Scott Brown are idiots of infantine proportions.
Not really. Brown voted for Massachusetts' equivalent of Obamacare.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the Republicans, when in the minority they are SUPPOSED to be obstructionist. The system is supposed to have checks and balances. Obama with Democrat control of the House and Senate means there's no checks and balances.
No, that's not the way it's supposed to be. When you're in Congress you are suppose to think rationally and vote along lines that are in the interest of the citizens of the United States. Now, if a member of Congress votes against a bill because they believe that bill goes against public interest (not public opinion) then there's no issue. If a Congress person decides to vote against a bill simply because the opposition party proposed it then they are failing at their job. It seems that now more member
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should hand the country back to the guys who nearly drove it over a cliff these last 8 years. We did re-elect George Bush, so you can't count that out.
Re: (Score:2)
So we're more alike then we thought... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't tell Jack Thompson!
Queen != Heavy Metal (Score:2)
Not much else to say, really.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Caused the beetles to kill each other (Score:2)
o/~ Here we are! Born to be kings, we're the princes of the uuuuuuniverse o/~
+5 Flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if this article would have made it to the front page of ./ if it hadn't provided an opportunity for certain folks to get a political jab in again at the "evil republicans".
Re:+5 Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if this article would have made it to the front page of ./ if it hadn't provided an opportunity for certain folks to get a political jab in again at the "evil republicans".
Ah, yes. Republicans. Nature's eternal victims.
Re:+5 Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, look at all of the powerful people conspiring to take away the rights of Republicans:
* Illegal immigrants
* Gays
* The poor
* African-Americans
* Environmentalists
* College professors
* Peaceniks
* Atheists
* Potheads
How do you stand up against such massive, organized forces when all you have on your side is caucasians, the wealthy, and evangelicals? It's no surprise that Republicans are so oppressed.
elp, elp, Im being oppressed! (Score:2)
The republicans aren't oppressed, they are just disliked because they are hypocritical dickheads. They are about the most pampered pack of 'victims' I have ever seen.
I con only imagine how they would whine and carry on if they actually were oppressed...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rei(128717) makes a statement that is not just wrong but either deliberately misleading or just plain ignorant and gets modded +5 insightful. I make a response with factual information and get modded -1 troll for disagreeing with him and showing his falsehoods.
I love the hypocrisy of Slashdot. "Conform to our non-conformist believes or DIE!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy: Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice.
Now, if I could name *one* atheist, or let's say just moderately religious Republican...
Re: (Score:2)
Easy, me. I am fiscally conservative, socially moderate atheist republican. I hate the way the religious wackos have taken over the party. And, I hate the way current republicans are acting like no-tax-and-spend Democrats. If it keeps up, I am going to have to switch to independent or start my own party.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if this article would have made it to the front page of ./ if it hadn't provided an opportunity for certain folks to get a political jab in again at the "evil republicans".
Oh, it would have been posted for the Beetle Mania pun. The bit with Limbaugh was just icing on the cake.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to go for the trifecta and offend independents?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, strictly speaking he's a corporate apologist, and it just happens that he and the Repubs tend to work the same angles of obfuscation and the same banal talking-points.
Also proven disruptive to Beatles... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Front page news? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is some front page news that some people dislike Rush Limbaugh and some old music?
How about this? I kill the black mold in my shower by showing it pictures of Rachel Maddow.
This isn't news for nerds. This is stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
The part where loud noises disrupt animals? That's news to you? You should get out of your mom's basement and visit the country a little more often. You strip away the politicization of science, and the article is empty.
Re: (Score:2)
Certain sounds caused them to attack each other? And hunters make little wooden whistles that cause ducks to land in front of them. And certain chemicals will make all sorts of animals think they're fixin' to get a little pootang. Is any of that "news for nerds"?
So why the need to point out that the scientist thought Rush Limbaugh was obnoxious? Are you denying that the article mentioned Rush Limbaugh?
The article tried to use some "science", that demonstrated nothing, as a political laughing point. The
So, any loud noise will work? (Score:4, Interesting)
Limbaugh may be obnoxious and rude, but I can't think of anything particularly offensive about his voice that I don't hear pretty much every day walking down the street.
Likewise, Guns & Roses and Queen aren't especially anything other than loud - nothing especially offensive about the sounds of either.
Did they consider trying a really offensive noise? Like a jet engine spinning up? Or a Shuttle taking off? Or a machinegun firing?
Or even Ozzy doing whatever he was doing when he thought he was singing?
Re:So, any loud noise will work? (Score:4, Interesting)
Dude, his voice is so annoying his own ears couldn't take it anymore and shut down.
I'm kidding, of course. His hearing loss was actually the result of him being an unapologetic oxycontin addict.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should he be apologetic? He became addicted to oxycontin as a result of taking it to relieve the severe pain from his back surgery. Jeez man, revel in others' pain, much?
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly don't revel in most people's pain but I love it when some fat rich ignorant twat who thinks he's allowed to do something the common man can't do. He's a damn hypocrite and I can't wait to see him suffer a slow death.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying he should not regret breaking the law? Even after he breaks the plea-bargain he made with the prosecutor? Instead we should be understanding of a drug smuggler's plight and be lenient?
Tell me, what political party is he a pundit for and what is their stance on the actions you propose? I can tell you what Rush Limbaugh suggested.
"Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river, too." -- Rush Limbaugh 1995
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm confused.. is he right, or wrong? Because you SEEM to be arguing he's wrong, but you want him held to that standard..
okay, I get the hypocrisy angle, but has it occured to you that maybe he's had his eyes open by his own experiences with it and maybe sees it differently now?
If what you suggest were true, if he has had his eyes open by his own experiences and sees it differently, then there should be no difficulty in him apologizing. Now if it isn't true, if his eyes are still closed even after his own personal experience, then all that's there is an oblivious hypocrite who finds apologizing difficult because of the contradiction. Apparently, it seems the case may be the later of the two.
If this cognitive dissonance is by choice or by ignorance doesn't matter to me. A firm opin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why should he be apologetic? Because most people who are prescribed Oxycontin do use it as directed, and don't become addicted to it. And if you do develop an addiction, you wouldn't be so colossally stupid as to try to hide it and refuse treatment to wean you off it. Otherwise you run the risk of...wait for it...other medical problems. Get it now? Oh, poor Rushie, he's in so much pain. Too bad it's because he's too fucking fat, rich, and self-entitled. He stepped into his own shit and he has nobody
Re: (Score:2)
It's not revelling in his pain. It's the fact that he is a hypocritical jerkwad. He has referred to so many other people who take drugs as "human filth" (and that's when he's feeling charitable), but when he is addicted to drugs and illegally obtains them, we're all supposed to "pray for Rush" as he goes into rehab.
So, for most human
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kidding, of course. His hearing loss was actually the result of him being an unapologetic oxycontin addict.
Can you imagine what his show will be like in 20 years?
The Impressive Pundit: Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, the libwals wish to distwoy...
Re: (Score:2)
And yet he still gets off to callers calling him "professor" on his show.
Re: (Score:2)
However, in report
Re: (Score:2)
Or even Ozzy doing whatever he was doing when he thought he was singing?
I'd much prefer to hear him sing than talk.
better representation (Score:5, Informative)
He and his colleagues found that while Limbaugh and the heavy metal initially bothered the beetles, the insects mostly ignored the sounds after a while.
The researchers next decided to record and manipulate the beetle-produced sounds. They focused on an aggression call produced by males of the "tree killer" Dendroctonus species.
By making this call longer and louder than usual, they altered the beetles' behavior.
Apparently if you want to alter beetle behavior, using sounds that beetles understand is more effective. Just like Rush Limbaugh is more effective at making human subjects froth at the mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
It's that his talking is longer and louder that makes me froth at the mouth. At least it would if I listened to him.
Scientists' Opinions on Music and Politics (Score:2, Informative)
Right up there with Lady Gaga's perspectives on Quantum Mechanics or Keith Olberman's taste in pop music.
Thanks, I'll pass.
The opposite must be true (Score:3, Funny)
This means that Obama's speeches would really encourage pests to grow and have healthy development?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This means that Obama's speeches would really encourage pests to grow and have healthy development?
Well, it's worked that way in the federal government so far.
Re: (Score:2)
oh snap!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like they only tried "rush," "heavy metal," and manipulated beatle noises, and rush and heavy metal came out *below* beatle noises.
They did not try white noise, other radio commentators (Al Franken, perhaps), other genres of music, or even other animals. Also unmentioned is whether they tried silence.
I think a more appropriate title would be "Biologists manage to get paid for amazingly inadequate experiment, while making jabs at completely unrelated fields they really don't know much about."
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand, you're right, their jab at Limbaugh was unfair. But it got them headlines. And it could also have been spun to be pro-Limbaugh.
On the other hand, I see no reason to presume that their opinions on either music or politics are in any way less knowledgeable than yours. They may not agree with you, but that doesn't mean that they don't have reasons as valid as yours.
E.g., to you it may be important to distinguish between Guns & Roses and Heavy Metal, but to someone primarily interested i
G&R? Wimps! (Score:2)
When I had to get family of raccoons out of my attic I played Brujeria [wikipedia.org], Melt Banana [wikipedia.org] and John Zorn's Naked City [wikipedia.org] for an entire night. That did the trick.
Just shows (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently have no clue about music as well. And I speak as a guitarist. In the 70's, Queen was Metal. In fact, it was known as Melodic Metal.
Doesn't change the fact that 'metal' is a fusion of classical and blues styles and is thus considered 'Fusion' by all academic means.
That's right - the term "metal" has been around since the late 60's. Ted Nugent was considered 'metal' when he finally released "Cat Scratch Fever" and of course Pantera redoing the song in pretty much the EXACT SAME FASHION showed t
Re: (Score:2)
Born in the 90's, were you?
As a matter of fact, no, I wasnt. And it does not matter what they were classified as when they came out. No one now using the common usage for "metal" would ever classify Queen as metal. Now, you say Queen, people think classic rock. You say metal, people think of things like Slipknot, Slayer, etc. Terms change, try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Terms change - academia still says you're wrong, and they're the ones that pretty much make the terms.
All in all - METAL DOESN'T EXIST. It's called 'Fusion'
Does this mean.. (Score:2, Funny)
Does this mean that bark beetles are Democrats?
Re: (Score:3)
Well they are both pests and eat the Tree of Liberty.
So yes Bark Beetles are Democrats
Not necessarily the bark beetles... (Score:3, Insightful)
...but the scientists obviously hate Rush Limbaugh. They could have picked anyone's voice - not a polarizing political figure. How about Gilbert Gottfried? How about low male voices like James Earl Jones versus high pitched female voices?
How do you, Mr. 'Scientist', expect me to take your research seriously when you demonstrate that you are irrational and let your politics color your work?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the notion that this demonstrates pretty clearly the scientists have a sense of humour zinged over your head like a fast-flying, um, what's the word...beetle.
Re: (Score:2)
zinged over your head like a fast-flying, um, what's the word...beetle.
If that's your idea of a funny quip then you are forgiven for thinking these scientists have a sense of humor.
Proof of no scientific method (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, one scientist (truck-driver-turned-research assistant, specifically) thought that certain human based sounds he found offensive might offend the beetles.
if they want to kill beatles with bad music... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This. I met Crazy J or whatever at a promo for a local Radio Station back in the 90's when I was in college. What a egotistical, misogynistic, Grade A, A-hole.
Oh God (Score:2)
junk science (Score:2)
The study authors compared the response of insect pests to playing Rush Limbaugh to their response to playing nothing at them. Readers are going to concluded from this that insect pests are, like liberals, aggravated by conservative speech. Yet it's a bogus conclusion on the basis of that evidence. The correct experiment to perform to divine the political feelings of insect pests would be one which measured the differential response of insects to Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken.
But seriously. If you wante
Re: (Score:2)
If part of the selection criteria was "attract readers/attention", then the protocols of the experiment are junk, and thus the science is junk.
Attention seeking ho (Score:2)
Queen and Guns&Roses are considered heavy metal now? And this is "science" is it?
that "the most annoying sound" his colleague, Reagan McGuire, "could think of was Rush Limbaugh or rock music."
Pfft. Clearly an Abba fan. Or he sits around with his nose in the air as he listens to his collection of "thinking man's music" on reel to reel tape or his $2500 oil balanced, laser tracked turntable.
The Hercules beetle video *was* cool, though.
That works out quite well (Score:2)
See, in many places where there is a bark beetle problem, the population is pretty conservative so listening to Rush is a pleasure; win-win.
Dung Beetles (Score:2)
Bark Beetles don't like Rush Libaugh but Dung Beetles eat the stuff up.
even cause the liberals to kill each other (Score:2)
That was his plan all along.
Hate, no, no, (Score:2)
Paul listens Rush Limbaugh, ... (Score:2)
kills Ringo. More news at 11.
What a tragic story (Score:4, Interesting)
Too bad. They all worked really hard in a meat packing plant, but got infections under their fingernails from the poor working conditions. After they couldn't continue working, they were fired and thrown off of the company PPO on a technicality. They went to a hospital for treatment, and walked out a month later with $250,000 in medical bills. This destroyed their credit, so they were unable to get a decent apartment in a safe neighborhood. After struggling for years to get ahead, the beetles wondered... could they have stayed on and helped to try and advance the cause of science?
Or was it better to follow the advice of a narrow-minded, bigoted, meritless, and anti-human demagogue simply because he had a microphone. They realized that he was right all along. Societal progress can only be accomplished by performing some menial task for someone else. Everything else is just a waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
they were jailed for being anti-social by the factory political minder. They went to a hospital for treatment, and walked out a month later with tuberculosis. This destroyed their ability to work further, so they were unable to get a decent apartment assigned by the local Party housing authority. After struggling for years for the collective, the beetles wondered... if I speak out will I be sent to Siberia or run over by a tank?
Amazing. I had no idea socialist democracies like France or the UK or any other large economy in Europe had suddenly turned into Stalinist Russia.
Hey fuckstick! In Capitalism, man exploits man. In Communism, it's the exact opposite. The difference is liberty. And I choose liberty. You want to be taken care of by your benevolent dictator?
Damn! I can't believe there are only two systems of government that have ever been imagined! I've been misled!
You and Noam wouldn't be missed.
But then who will you use as an enemy image to propagandize against?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with putting all the socialists in one country is they don't have enough to share...they eventually run out of other people's money
Hi. I'm the nuance and complexity of reality. Have we met?
Or are you affiliated only with the maxims of old women who are "greatly saddened" when murderous dictators meet their maker? [bbc.co.uk]
You're the least entertaining single trick troll I've encountered. But now I have a new blog to read, besting Glenn Beck in the "miserably uninformed" category. My favorite quote of yours - gleefully not even a page deep - is:
Imagine how demeaning it must be to be Obama's secret service detail.
I'd rather be a dung beetle. They work with a much higher class of material.
Oh, Fate! Your will has articulated this conversation into the most insufferable arc...
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, I cannot take credit for the musings on that blog.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's simple. In Capitalism, man exploits man. In Communism, it's the exact opposite.
You see, the exact opposite of man exploits man, is man exploits man.
You see?
Re: (Score:2)
You see, the exact opposite of man exploits man, is man exploits man.
Actually no it isn't. The exact opposite of "man exploits man" is "man helps man." The saying ends up conveying the opposite meaning of what it intended.
It should more accurately read: "In Capitalism, man exploits man. In Communism, it's the other way around."
That conveys the intended meaning, whereas the first saying is easily misinterpreted.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a "truism." Much as in Animal Farm, the party leaders are "more equal" than the rest. It's an anti-political sentiment, trying to snidely imply that there is no "good" government, which is somewhat true.
I'd amend the statement to say: "In capitalist societies, man exploits man. In communist societies, it's the other way around. In social democracies, the benefits of sharing resources are balanced with individual freedoms and market competitiveness, but this would require some nuanced approaches to the
Re: (Score:2)
... in broadcasting.
"I can do that better. Except the shouting," our reporter was told by a spokesbeetle.
Re: (Score:2)
Before listening to anyone on this, ask if they are creationist. If they are, ignore them.
Because creationists are inherently hostile to the planet and science? Or because they're inherently hostile to other religions such as AGW?
Judeo-Christian creationists believe that humankind has been granted stewardship of Earth, and that it's supposed to be kept in good shape. If they believe that man can alter the environment, they'll be on the AGW side. If they believe that man can't alter the environment, they'll be on the anti-AGW side. Seems like belief in old Earth versus new Earth is irrelevan
Re: (Score:2)
As creationism generally denies and suppresses any scientific evidence against creationism, the answer to your first question is "yes".
No, Judeo-Christian creationists believe the world was created by an invisible man in the sky exactly as it is now. Many of them believe that the alleged creation happe
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to look up the definition of "creationist" and intelligent design.
Re: (Score:2)
Look down a bit further. I got modded troll for insulting Republicans, too. I'm an equal opportunity asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this political trolling? Making fun or Rush Limbaugh? He is not a politician. Or are you the troll? I noticed you kindly included the word 'fag' did you imply that mod-points are like piles of sticks? Or did you carelessly use homophobic slurs because you are afraid of what the rest of the world thinks?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
best part is i read about this two days ago, and the ACTUAL truth is that neither rush limbaugh or heavy metal were very effective; it was only when the researchers started using sounds that, you know, MADE SENSE, that it became effective. They blasted the sounds the beetles themselves make when they are agitated and aggressive.
Yeah, the researchers are the assholes here, because when they wanted to blast loud and offensive sounds the first things they thought of were heavy metal and rush limbaugh. what a
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care what your politics are, but Rush Limbaugh is a zit upon the ass of American culture any way you look at it.