Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

90 comments

biological lasers in my pants (1)

slashpot (11017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424380)

I have biological lasers in my pants.

Re:biological lasers in my pants (1)

rcamans (252182) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425738)

And girls still won't see what's in your pants!
The one nanowatt output is kinda symbolic, don't you think?
You need to get out of yo mama's basement!

Thickness. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36425942)

So you have none?

FRICKING LASER BEAMS. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36424398)

Bond villains rejoice!

Re:FRICKING LASER BEAMS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36424466)

Bond villains rejoice!

Bond Villains?!? I was thinking X-MEN! Biologically produced laser light, cells, eyes, ..... follow?

Laser blaster from the eyes like ...Cyclops - IIRC.

Re:FRICKING LASER BEAMS. (3, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424698)

Cyclops' eyes shoot crimson rays of kinetic force. I believe you're thinking of Kryptonians.

Re:FRICKING LASER BEAMS. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36424772)

Cyclops' eyes shoot crimson rays of kinetic force. I believe you're thinking of Kryptonians.

Red Rays of 1/2mv^2 ?

Ah, comic book physics!

Re:FRICKING LASER BEAMS. (1)

jdpars (1480913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425244)

The magnitude is usually off, but it usually pushes back on Cyclops to some degree. At least there's that.

Jumped the shark (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36424404)

The laser/shark meme is really boring and pathetic. Can't people move on?

Re:Jumped the shark (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36424478)

Same with:

* Lego

* Rummicube

* Starwars / Star Trek

* Sovjet Russia

* Netcraft

* Bill Gates

* The year of the Desktop, Linux

* PACMAN

* Tron

* ...

The "geekculture" seems very dated wrapped in a yought-nostalgia in a PeterPan syndrome... It's not anymore what it once was. Now it's a job and utility; we've become digital plumbers.

Re:Jumped the shark (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424610)

1) Legos seem to have a bit of a revival lately, especially with the Lego series of video games. If anything, they're very much mainstream now, which is a good thing. Anything that helps kids use their imaginations to build stuff with is good.

2) Rummicube - Eh, did anyone actually play this? Or was it even part of Geek culture?

3) Star Wars/Star Trek - Star Trek and Star Wars have had something of a revival recently with the reboot and Episodes 1-3 and Clone Wars. Okay, the Star Wars stuff has kinda sucked recently, but Star Trek can still cool to a modern audience without being nostalgic.

4) Soviet Russia - Did anyone actually use this outside of some seriously dated Yakov Smirnoff materials in the 80s and 90s? You hear it nowadays, but it's so rare, I wouldn't put it with the rest.

5) Netcraft - Such a tiny tiny minority of "geek culture" shouldn't qualify this to the whole.

6) Bill Gates - Bill Gates and his foundation have done so much good recently, I'm loath to make fun of him. He's improved education and vaccination in the developing world, saving lots of lives and giving prospect to a lot of children who had none before. That's pretty much the context I see him in now - rarely the "Bill Gates is Evil" meme now. Update your Meme, man.

7) Desktop Linux - Eh, so what? Linux is improving on the desktop all the time, and Linux has come to dominate phones (and to a lesser degree) succeeded on tablets, so it's not really that farfetched.

8) PACMAN - The only time I see this is when Google brings out the doodle.

9) Tron - Maybe it's a little nostalgic, but it just had a big movie come out a few months ago. That's not nostalgia, man, that's new and cool.

Re:Jumped the shark (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36424732)

Did anyone actually use this outside of some seriously dated Yakov Smirnoff materials in the 80s and 90s?
 
For someone with a somewhat low UID, you come off as grossly ignorant. This meme is used endlessly.
 
The new Tron did nothing outside of the nostalgic geek culture. At least not that I have seen. Even my nephew, who is a CGI movie junkie, has never brought it up.
 
Legos have always been mainstream. I don't remember a child who didn't have Legos when I was a kid. Granted, I'm not that old (38) but still... The only thing about Legos now are that they are crazy expensive. That gives an air of exclusivity to them.
 
Wide Linux adoption on the desktop is a pipe dream. This whole thing about it being on phones is a distraction. You can hardly log into a modern desktop OS with less knowledge than what it takes to use a phone OS. For what they are, phones are appliances with some semi-sophisticated apps. By the time Linux gets to about 5% adoption on the desktop will be about the time that all the cool kids move to the cloud. Even if whatever device they're using to access the cloud is Linux driven it will be hardly more than another dumb term from the users' standpoint. No one out there talks about the TI-84 OS marketshare because it's an appliance, not a real OS to anyone but the most ardent of TI hackers. Linux on appliances is no different, IMHO.

Re:Jumped the shark (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425174)

Lego's were always crazy expensive. If anything, they are now much cheaper than they used to be compared to other toys.

In the 80's a $40 lego set was expensive enough it was limited to special occasions for most kids, now it is cheap compared to the videogame that they buy every week.

Re:Jumped the shark (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424734)

9) Tron - Maybe it's a little nostalgic, but it just had a big movie come out a few months ago. That's not nostalgia, man, that's new and cool.

And an even better computer game in 2004.

Re:Jumped the shark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36424544)

Yeah! Why can't we have lasers with fricken' sharks on their heads?

Re:Jumped the shark (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424874)

In Soviet Russia, maybe. "In Soviet Russia, laser sharks you!"

Personally ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424832)

... I welcome our meme-bound overlords.

Re:Personally ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430322)

The fact that you did not do the meme well is the biggest insult of all...

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/2F12.html [snpp.com]

Kent: Ladies and gentlemen, er, we've just lost the picture, but, uh, what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has been taken over -- "conquered", if you will -- by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain, there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/1F13.html [snpp.com]

Re:Jumped the shark (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425996)

If you create a laser-shark, will you have to mount it on another shark?

I'd like to move on, but (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426350)

I'm pinned-down by withering shark-fire.

Re:Jumped the shark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426402)

No.

Re:Jumped the shark (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426632)

Fair enough.

Can I still link to barely-relevant xkcd [xkcd.com] comics?

Re:Jumped the shark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426672)

The laser/shark meme is really boring and pathetic. Can't people move on?

Dunno, you're the one Trolling, you tell us.

Re:Jumped the shark (1)

ensignyu (417022) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429024)

Jumping the shark has jumped the shark.

How many frikkin jokes will we get? (1)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424408)

How many sharks with frikkin laser jokes will we get on this story?
I think it has jumped the shark

Re:How many frikkin jokes will we get? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36424452)

More to the point, the frickin' sharks will be jumping all over this one.

Re:How many frikkin jokes will we get? (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424462)

How many sharks with frikkin laser jokes will we get on this story?

Since the joke was made in the summary, I predict a total of zero further Shark jokes. I'm sure that Sea Bass jokes will be plentiful though.

Re:How many frikkin jokes will we get? (1)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424692)

How many sharks with frikkin laser jokes will we get on this story?

Since the joke was made in the summary, I predict a total of zero further Shark jokes. I'm sure that Sea Bass jokes will be plentiful though.

Somehow I trout that.

Re:How many frikkin jokes will we get? (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424798)

did you say "killer trout [wikipedia.org] "?

why would you do something like that?!

Re:How many frikkin jokes will we get? (1)

justsayin (2246634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424826)

Yeah, I was fishing for a troll but all I got was a stinking laser eyed-shark.

Re:How many frikkin jokes will we get? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428756)

Somehow I trout that.

New, improved, singing Billy Bass ... now with lasers!

"Take me to the river. Dump me in the water. OR ELSE."

Re:How many frikkin jokes will we get? (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424604)

The interesting point is that the lasers don't have to be on the sharks' head any more! Sharks with lasers on their butt cheeks!

Re:How many frikkin jokes will we get? (1)

slackzilly (2033012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424702)

I came in here just to read comments about sharks with frikkin lasers on their heads. This story is just perfect for /.

Re:How many frikkin jokes will we get? (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424920)

Forget the lasers, this is about laser firing single cells. Am I the only one who though of Iruel?

Re:How many frikkin jokes will we get? (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425768)

Or Ramiel. But as neither were lasers, the Beta are a better fit (the air defence sort, not the 'chow down on the supporting cast' sort).

Re:How many frikkin jokes will we get? (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425016)

How many sharks with frikkin laser jokes will we get on this story?
I think it has jumped the shark

This story has jumped the shark and ran straight into a fridge to get nuked.

Re:How many frikkin jokes will we get? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427828)

Not enough.

IRnet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36424416)

Greg Egan did this in Bubble Fever. People pass information between each other by shaking hands; infrared emitting cells in the palms of the hand transmit the information. You can also control your TV by waving your hand at it.

Implementation (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424432)

I suppose one implementation of a bio-laser would to engineer an eye, or multiple eyes surrounding the entire organism. It would provide exceedingly good vision, but would also work in reverse. Rather take in light, they could emit a beam of light with the lens focusing it on its target. It's ok of the the lens gets damaged in the process. It was only designed to fire once, and you have multiple eyes that provide protection as the other one heals. Much like quills on a porcupine.

Re:Implementation (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425080)

I imagine that you would have a very difficult time getting defensively-useful power levels... Except for the eyes(which are, naturally, rather light sensitive and rather ill-cooled) lasers of modest power aren't all that dangerous. Even the ones powerful enough to damage bulk tissue have the disadvantage of neatly cauterizing the place, rather than leaving room for exsanguination or sticking in the wound and retarding movement.

Chemical lasers can do it; but the chemistry of those things is a halogen horrorshow dubiously compatible with the life of the host organism. Anything else would require ATP movement to the laser sight at rates unprecedented among known organisms...

Re:Implementation (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425158)

I was thinking something along the lines of a split second pulse. Enough to blind the eye/s of the predator. In fact, they have multiple eyes because of an on-going biological arms race. Anyways, it was just a fun exercise. In reality, I suppose you're right in that it could never work out that way.

Re:Implementation (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425304)

If you could accurately target the eyes, I suspect that things could get a good deal more practical. Lasers of disturbingly low power can leave you with permanent blind spots, and ones lower still can leave you with dazzling after-images for quite some time...

Re:Implementation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426016)

Are you retards thinking, or just typing? Do either of you believe that it's a GOOD idea to engineer the creature you're describing? Or, like Verner von Braun, are not interested in the use of the invention, just in the fun of designing it?
 
Hey, there's an idea, you could also design your own missiles to deliver these monstrosities to their targets.

Re:Implementation (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431398)

In the words that the great Tom Lehrer put into von Braun's mouth in the song about his...er... awkwardly sudden transition from Nazi rocket scientist to true blue American Innovator: "Once rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department."

Re:Implementation (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426242)

I imagine that you would have a very difficult time getting defensively-useful power levels

Electric fish/rays/eels can pack quite a punch.

Re:Implementation (2)

EdZ (755139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425794)

Why not instead of a weapon,actual eyes. You can do lots of fun things when you mix lasers with sensors, like phase shift sensitivity, chirped pulse ranging, LIDAR, etc.

Re:Implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36459716)

Somebody else had this idea before you. [lolcatbible.com]

I shoot yous wit mah lollazer eyes. Srsly.

Grown in displays (1)

SuperSlug (799739) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424442)

Sounds like there may be a day when you will be able to get your cell phone display tattooed on your hand. Not clear
how they would incorporate the speaker, mic and camera... In addition, laser beam eyes would be cool at night.

Re:Grown in displays (2)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424632)

In addition, laser beam eyes would be cool at night.

Not really all that cool, considering you would be effectively blind while using them.

Re:Grown in displays (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424810)

Too small, too small; think bigger! Soon, I shall have all the components I need to complete my electro-luminal brain! No more cumbersome, slow chemical interface at the synapse; the entire brain will run at the speed of light!

Re:Grown in displays (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425202)

There already some intriguing early results [plosone.org] in optical networking with living brains [stanford.edu] ...

Rude assumptions (2)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424448)

"the less scientifically-minded will read the summary on the beeb website..."

Slashdot viewers are more than capable of understanding the paper, but that doesn't mean we want to pay for something we're most likely not going to implement in our basements when we get a spare chance.

Re:Rude assumptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36424748)

Slashdot viewers are more than capable of understanding the paper

I disagree. Some Slashdot viewers are capable of understanding the paper, probably a larger percent than found in the general population, but from what I've seen in the comments here anyway, when it comes to biotech anyway, most Slashdot viewers look at all that biology stuff with baffled bewilderment. I'm sure a decent chunk of the readers here would like the research destroyed and the scientists burned as franken-witches. I can just hear them now: "What could possibly go wrong? Fluorescent laser monsters, that's what! Where is your science now?"

Re:Rude assumptions (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424950)

I suspect that there is a large intermediate population, of which I certainly am one:

I'm pretty enthusiastic about science, and wouldn't hesitate to look at the actual paper(and, given that the web has these crazy things called "hyperlinks" and "essentially infinite available print space", I'm pretty peeved about how rarely pop-science articles link back to the paper in question); but I can't deny that I do a fair bit of skimming when it comes to the details of the paper. The parts that are accessible to somebody with good general reading comprehension and and some undergrad-level knowledge of biology, chemistry, mathematics, and apparatus are doable enough; but I'm nowhere near sufficiently grounded in the field to grok the really technical bits...

Re:Rude assumptions (3, Insightful)

justsayin (2246634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424776)

Just google "Single-cell biological lasers" and you get some free sources for the article. Looks like they "shined" blue light on a cell which was positioned between 2 mirrors. So out of the 3 parts needed for a laser, 2 of them were not biological. I say good news that they grew cells capable of lasing the light but the article headline really jumps to conclusions and dramatizes it a bit, what am I saying? Nature.com [nature.com] had the article.

Re:Rude assumptions (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425082)

Just google "Single-cell biological lasers" and you get some free sources for the article.

Or just click the link in the summary, it works for me and I ain't on any special network like a uni with a subscription to the journal.

Re:Rude assumptions (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425872)

Blue light? Photophores have you covered there. Biological mirrors might be a bit harder. Chitinous carapaces can form some lovely dichroic-like effects,as tdo the Calcium Carbonate shells of various marine creatures, so I'd not rule it out.

Re:Rude assumptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36425966)

They said "nanojoule, nanosecond pulses" -- photophores don't really cover that...

Obviously, you don't need a whole watt to lase, but I suspect getting a useful beam does require far more power than any known biological source.

Re:Rude assumptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36424860)

They're trying to goad the weak-minded into paying for it to satisy their egos. I guess it's more of a trite marketing tactic than a legitimate observation.

Oh Great! (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424526)

How clever, mutants with built in lazer beams – they're copying video games right?

Hi, I'm stupid and lazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36424648)

But uh...exactly what determines when something is a laser and not just normal bioluminescence? Especially at low intensities.

Re:Hi, I'm stupid and lazy (2)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424764)

It's a laser when coherent wavelength light is emitted. I.e. all the same frequency, going in the same direction.

Okay, cool, we've used transgenic techniques to give other organisms bioluminescence; now tell me how you make that coherent. (No, I didn't read the article.)

Re:Hi, I'm stupid and lazy (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424876)

I'm not enough of a photonics guy to tell you exactly where the cut-off between "light coming from florescent materials that have been made stimulated by sufficiently energetic light to re-emit at their wavelength of choice(which is usually what people playing with GFP are observing)" and "a dye laser, having been pumped by an outside light source, successfully lasing(which is apparently what is happening here)"; but ruling out bioluminescence should be pretty simple: GFP is, while conveniently florescent in a very distinctive color, not luminescent. It only glows when energized by sufficiently energetic outside light sources(blue or UV typically). The cellular chemistry behind bioluminescence involves a whole different set of chemicals, and one assumes that the scientists wouldn't have started with a bacterial species that possesses those.

Even if they did, since the dye chamber had to be externally pumped to lase, one could simply observe it in the dark in order to establish a baseline of any native luminescence before observing it while it is being pumped.

Sharks just like to rock (1)

twocows (1216842) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424694)

Given the recent finding over in Australia that sharks like AC/DC [slashdot.org] , I get the feeling that sharks just like to rock.

do we need any more proof (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424730)

that science is evil?

Re:do we need any more proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36425670)

Congrats on yesterday's drive-by.. You got some talent there

Re:do we need any more proof (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425688)

shhh

stop cramping my style

Interesting... (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424820)

From what I can gather of TFA, the cell isn't really a laser per se, as much as it is a cell that, genetically engineered to express GFP, can survive and be observed while be used as part of the lasing medium in a GFP-based organic dye laser(which is stimulated by blue light from outside the tube in which the cell(s) and the GFP dye fluid are placed).

That is pretty cool, and I suspect that there will be some very elegant live-cell imaging that comes out of applications of this technique; but it leaves me wondering how small a complete biological laser could be: ie. something that both expresses the proteins needed to make up the lasing medium and uses some flavor of bioluminescence to pump its own lasing medium...

Re:Interesting... (2)

DalDei (1032670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424896)

Not just is the driving light external, but the cells had to be place between tiny mirrors. So the only biological component is the green florescence. To make the whole laser biological would require growing mirrors as well as the blue light.

Re:Interesting... (1)

phageman (627693) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426146)

Just thinking out loud here, but... could you maybe engineer some bacterium that naturally develops a biofilm to reduce metal ions from solution (a chemical reaction that has already been observed in cells) to produce a flat, shiny surface, i.e. a mirror? I'm curious what the requirements are for a surface that would be sufficiently mirror-like.

Re:Interesting... (1)

lcampagn (842601) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427158)

The cells were pumped with 5ns, 14nJ laser pulses. I can't think of any bioluminescent processes that come remotely close to this. Better off coming up with a different kind of pump for now..

That's L.A.S.E.R. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36424824)

Really? Does anybody know what a L.A.S.E.R. is or is the modern scientist just a Wii wanker?

Pit it against evolution - can it occur naturally? (2)

arisvega (1414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424900)

So, towards engineering a shark with lasers, it seems that one needs:

(a) this "GFP" protein as a gain medium,

(b) mirrors,

(c) this "blue light" to bathe it in, and

(d) some sort of lens(?)

what is interesting, it is that all of the above components can easily be made by nature. GFP is already there, the "blue light" could come from a similar process, lenses are in eyes so I would guess (b) could be the hardest one to come up with, but there are numerous animals with a silver-ish tint (reflective surface) plus several wasp species that have so much metal in their stings (deposited there trace by trace from their diet) that they can easily drill into seeds. Point being that reflective (i.e. metal) components can be intermingled and arrayed into living tissue.

I keep wondering as to what could be the chances of such a "laser organ" evolving naturally? Can the fact that it hasn't be seen as a hint that evolution does not have a plan, and is merely a sum of random events? And let's speculate even further- what use could such an organ have?

Re:Pit it against evolution - can it occur natural (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426824)

Evolution isn't merely a sum of random events - it's a sum of random improvements.

Re:Pit it against evolution - can it occur natural (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427328)

No, it's a sum of random events + culling.

Re:Pit it against evolution - can it occur natural (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427396)

I keep wondering as to what could be the chances of such a "laser organ" evolving naturally? Can the fact that it hasn't be seen as a hint that evolution does not have a plan, and is merely a sum of random events?

No, it can't. Darwinian evolution is seen as a sum of random events (AND selection, you omitted that), but scientifically speaking, nothing can be derived from the fact that some arbitrary thing doesn't exist. There can be about three reasons (and many more) for a laser organ not to have evolved:

a) It exits, but we haven't found it yet.
b) Evolution has not (yet) come up with it--but maybe later.
c) God has made no plan of creating said laser organ. (Yet. Beware of the sharks.)

There is absolutely no conclusion we can draw from its non-existence. This is true for evolution biologists as well as creationists.

I for one (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36424976)

I, for one, welcome our new Zerg Overlords.

Re:I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430062)

I, for one, welcome our new Zerg Overlords.

Pring overloads (see Sundiver)

One step closer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36425126)

...to the Paragon of Epicosity: http://www.wowwiki.com/Epicus_Maximus

Superman is vindicated! (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36425146)

Take that, all you naysayers who says there's no way someone can shoot lasers out of his eyes!

Another link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36425410)

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46248

Not really a biological laser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36425500)

More like a biological lasing medium. They still needed to use mirrors to create the cavity. When they figure out how to create biological mirrors too, then it will be interesting.

Two words. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36425800)

LASER CATS!!!!!!

Weaponizing it? (1)

PerlPunk (548551) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426352)

Any chance this could be weaponized, as with the Bugs in Starship Troopers?

Re:Weaponizing it? (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426798)

Knowing humans, if it can be weaponized, it will.

Biological laser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426918)

So they used artificial mirrors, but since the gain mechanism is living, they call it a biological laser?

Call me when they make biological mirrors, then we'll talk.

Stockholm Awaits (1)

jman.org (953199) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434994)

Just wondering when Andy Samberg will be collecting his Nobel prize...

Prisoners and other undesirables ;) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36438598)

You could grow bar code, QR code, on a human as a way to make a humane 'invisible' tattoo that only lit up under certain conditions. Or... you know... make his whole body glow so that after he gets out neighborhood moms could identify potential threats to their kids. So many ways to abuse technology... :)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...