Beta
×

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!

Terminator Sparrows?

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the they'll-be-back-...-from-the-dead dept.

Robotics 138

AstroPhilosopher writes "In a move not far removed from the model T-101, U.S. researchers have succeeded in re-animating a dead sparrow. Duke scientists were studying male behavior aggression among sparrows. They cleverly decided to insert miniaturized robotics into an empty sparrow carcass and operate it like a puppet (abstract). It worked; they noticed wing movements were a primary sign of aggression. Fortunately the living won out this time. The experiment stopped after the real sparrows tore off the robosparrow's head. But there's always a newer model on the assembly-line. Good luck sparrows." Bad Horse has not yet made a decision on the researchers' application.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I Don't Understand the Conclusion (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017681)

Awesome research but the last section puzzles me:

The living male birds were equally aggressive to Robosparrow whether its wing movements were activated or not, the researchers found.

"It confirmed our hypothesis that the wing-waving behaviour is functioning male aggressive communication," said Dr Anderson.

Wouldn't the first sentence imply that nothing can be determined? I mean, it sounds like they weren't beating the shit out of robosparrow because of his wing movements but more so because he was going around looking for Sparrow Connor.

But in all serious does anyone know how they came to that conclusion given the seemingly arbitrary constant aggression?

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017779)

It certainly looks like a pair of conflicting statements...did they never consider that they'd triggered an "Uncanny Valley" reaction in the sparrows and they were being aggressive towards the cyborg-zombie sparrow?

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (2)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017827)

Exactly, I was about to say the same thing. I mean was the Robosparrow attacked because the others thought it looked weird because it had a dead look or something? Is there a full paper that explains their research. That conclusion jump left me wondering!

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018071)

Yeah... if this were to happen with humans, I could see that just about anyone would try to take down a random robo-zombie with a baseball bat or shotgun blast to the head!

There's not going to be any "Oh hey... are you okay, man? You look pale, and your eyes are dull and you move with an unnatural jerky movement... did you eat some bad shellfish?"

It's going to be screaming and mayhem.

BEST CAPTCHA EVER: "automata"

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018951)

There's not going to be any "Oh hey... are you okay, man? You look pale, and your eyes are dull and you move with an unnatural jerky movement... did you eat some bad brains?"

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018117)

Agreed. I greatly hope that this is just a poorly written article, and not a ridiculous conclusion.

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018743)

I think what the article is TRYING to say is that the wing waving of the LIVING SPARROWS was proven to be "functioning male aggressive communication", rather than the movement of the dead sparrow, which generally just seemed to piss off the other sparrows...

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (4, Interesting)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018473)

It certainly looks like a pair of conflicting statements...did they never consider that they'd triggered an "Uncanny Valley" reaction in the sparrows and they were being aggressive towards the cyborg-zombie sparrow?

That was my reaction. The attack seemed disproportionally aggressive. Killing the competition isn't a normal reaction. It seems more like fear than aggression. Curious if that could end up being another intelligence test whether animals also deal with a form of Uncanny Valley reaction. It's not universal since I've seen animals being fairly accepting of robotic animals. Gorillas don't normally have an aggressive reaction to people in gorilla suits, Rick Baker's crew dealt with that first hand on Graystoke by mixing with wild gorillas. Birds are different and look for subtle cues so they may react more strongly to "wrong" behavior. Moving oddly might be perceived as diseased so a dangerous threat to the gene pool.

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018583)

Or that it smelled funny from electronics and being handled by people. Or was just an unfamiliar bird in their territory.

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018977)

Or it smelt funny because its a dead animal. Like you know, food.

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (1)

nametaken (610866) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019069)

The article says that it was constructed with the help of a taxidermist. I doubt there was much in the way of rot going on, but it would probably smell funny (like plastic and glue).

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017785)

Presumably the sparrows that attacked the robot exhibited the behaviour, and those that didn't, well, didn't.

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018047)

Presumably the sparrows that attacked the robot exhibited the behaviour, and those that didn't, were nailed to the perch.

FTFY

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017791)

american educational system

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (0)

Time_Ngler (564671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018963)

sounds more like a pollock education system, amirite?

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018379)

"...subjects responded more aggressively to the mount during wing waving trials than during stationary trials. A second experiment demonstrated that this effect cannot be attributed simply to increased attention to movement. Less expectedly, subjects did not alter their own display behavior in response to wing waving as compared to a static mount. We conclude that the wing wave display in the context of singing is a signal that functions in male–male aggressive communication. Questions remain, including whether wing waving functions as a signal in the absence of singing and whether wing waving and song are redundant signals or communicate different information."

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (3)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018387)

> Wouldn't the first sentence imply that nothing can be
> determined? I mean, it sounds like they weren't beating the
> shit out of robosparrow because of his wing movements but
> more so because he was going around looking for Sparrow
> Connor.

That was my first thought too.

Going out on a limb here but... this is the article not the paper. My assumption would be, before going to check the paper out, that the reporter who wrote the article either misunderstood the test or possibly, his editor did, and either worded it badly, or an important statement or two got cut. ....now lets do a quick check,....and the abstract says.... the reporter/editor left shit out:

As predicted, subjects responded more aggressively to the mount during wing waving trials than during stationary trials. A second experiment demonstrated that this effect cannot be attributed simply to increased attention to movement. Less expectedly, subjects did not alter their own display behavior in response to wing waving as compared to a static mount. We conclude that the wing wave display in the context of singing is a signal that functions in maleâ"male aggressive communication. Questions remain, including whether wing waving functions as a signal in the absence of singing and whether wing waving and song are redundant signals or communicate different information.

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (1)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019135)

Possibly the hypothesis connecting wing movement to aggression is not based on the /puppet's/ wing movements, but those of the living sparrows.

As in, as the /living sparrows/ became more aggressive, they displayed more wing movements.

You wouldn't to base any conclusions on the manipulated behaviors of the puppet anyway.

*Why* the living sparrows became increasingly aggressive (the the point of decapitation!) towards the puppet is unknown. Perhaps they were watching too many Romero movies.

I therefore conclude it is time for a new study: does watching violent movies increase aggressive tendencies in small birds? This is a question too important to leave unanswered.

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018479)

Bad summary.

Wing Wave + Song appear to be linked to aggression.

Wing Wave + Song in Robosparrow = very aggressive behavior in response.
No movement + Song in Robosparrow = less-but-still-aggressive behavior in response.
Some movement (not wing wave) + Song in Robosparrow = less-but-still-aggressive behavior in response.

As predicted, subjects responded more aggressively to the mount during wing waving trials than during stationary trials. A second experiment demonstrated that this effect cannot be attributed simply to increased attention to movement.

In all cases, the living sparrows exhibited the same wing-waving behavior towards the Robosparrow before attacking it - regardless of whether or not Robosparrow was moving or still, wing-display or not.

Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018999)

Or sparrow asks Robosparrow "Hi, who are you?" Robosparrow responds with "#$*@^(&*%@)^(#%&#)&*$@(&#%". Sparrow attacks.

Your seeds (5, Funny)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017723)

Give them to me.


Now

Re:Your seeds (1)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017751)

Mod parent up. Just do it. DO IT

Re:Your seeds (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018335)

Apparently, "Come with me if you want to live" was lost in the translation.

Re:Your seeds (2)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018623)

I can't quite tell if you said that in the tyrant robotic bird in a swamp sense, the Monsanto legal team sense, or the "this experiment is so awesome that I demand the researchers' bukkake all over my body" sense.

Re:Your seeds (4, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018675)

I can't quite tell if you said that in the tyrant robotic bird in a swamp sense, the Monsanto legal team sense, or the "this experiment is so awesome that I demand the researchers' bukkake all over my body" sense.

More like the "reference to a classic sci-fi movie that probably came out before you were but a twinkle in your father's eye" sense.

Jesus God (1)

SpaceManFlip (2720507) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017727)

What has Science done !!??@!

Re:Jesus God (5, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017811)

Re:Jesus God (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018405)

Imagine what will happen when the robosparrows and roborats join forces against humanity

Dutch got that eventuality covered already... (3, Informative)

denzacar (181829) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018971)

That zombiecatcopter [dailymail.co.uk] is out there.
It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until they are dead.

Re:Dutch got that eventuality covered already... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019095)

Oh. My. God. If I were religious I would say that guy is so going to hell. Nice link. Animal lover warning though. The image of this may be burned into your brain for the rest of your life.

Re:Jesus God (1)

Medievalist (16032) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018677)

Harry Harlow would be proud.

If he could take time out from drunkenly abusing monkeys, yes.

Re:Jesus God (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018699)

What has Science done !!??@!

Nothing my uncle the taxidermist hasn't.

If you think this is the first time that someone has ever had the idea to animate a taxidermy mount, you have obviously never been inside a Chuck E. Cheese's.

Well that Explains a Lot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017739)

So George W. Bush isn't himself an alien but he is being controlled by aliens as a lifeless robot to study human aggression?

This is good news (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017755)

Even sparrows hate the undead. Those zombies are going down.

Re:This is good news (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018153)

Sometimes I wonder about how researchers justify generalizing their conclusions. If someone put a robot inside a human corpse to study human social behavior they'd probably observe people shooting it with shotguns and trying to light it on fire. You can't say that the arm movements triggered the aggression.

Re:This is good news (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018729)

If someone put a robot inside a human corpse to study human social behavior they'd probably observe people shooting it with shotguns and trying to light it on fire. You can't say that the arm movements triggered the aggression.

Well, you could, but you'd probably be gunned down for being one of those damn zombie sympathizers...

Side Note: Boy, that gives 'bleeding heart' an all new connotation, now doesn't it?

Re:This is good news (1)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018919)

Even sparrows hate the undead. Those zombies are going down.

"Next on AMC The Sqawking Dead"

O.O (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017787)

I am appalled at what science has done...

That said, I really want to see the YouTube video of this...

Re:O.O (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017985)

Obviously these particular scientists have not caught on to the 21st century yet. If you want to prove it or get funding or massive public attention for it, YouTube it!!!

Re:O.O (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017995)

Here ya go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZY0-PH1dDE [youtube.com]

.

Re:O.O (4, Informative)

reverseengineer (580922) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018829)

There's video of the sparrow in the supplementary information tab on the abstract page in Quicktime format. The file 265_2013_1478_MOESM2_ESM.m4v is the one with footage of the reanimated sparrow. I'll warn you that it isn't exactly thrilling. No lurid sparrow on cybersparrow violence.

Of note is that they actually operated the mechanical bird inside a cage. I think the quote "Eventually the head fell off and the wing stopped moving" from the BBC article meant precisely that: the robobird fell apart from exposure to the elements and repeated trials.

The /. submitter appears to have wrongly inferred that this damage was from other sparrows tearing it apart, when in fact their aggressive behavior was "got close and waved menacingly."

But, was it... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017793)

an African or European swallow?

Re:But, was it... (1, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017929)

I would've modded you up if I could've. The jerks who modded you down are comically barren.

Re:But, was it... (2)

asylumx (881307) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018249)

But... we're talking about sparrows, not swallows.

Re:But, was it... (1)

idontgno (624372) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018271)

North American, or Asian?

Re:But, was it... (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018427)

I think the correct question is:

African spit or European swallow?

Re:But, was it... (2)

Westwood0720 (2688917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018037)

Its a matter of where it grips it I'd imagine.

Re:But, was it... (1)

W. Justice Black (11445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018243)

I'd say a strand of creeper was involved, but this IS /., so there is no shortage of creepers here.

*bah dum bum*

Re:But, was it... (1)

CyberKnet (184349) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018895)

I don't ... know ....

AAAAAaaaAAAaaAAaAhhhh!!!

Finall we know the answer (3, Funny)

n0w0rries (832057) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017803)

What would you do if suddenly your uncle bernie was reanimated like a zombie. You'd blow his head off I'm sure! I side with the sparrows! Death to cyborg zombies!

I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017805)

welcome our new robot sparrow overlords. All hail the sparonator!

Better idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017813)

Maybe live sparrows just hate cyborg/zombie sparrows?

Video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017821)

Where can I find a video of this???

I bet you thought this sparrow was alive (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017837)

Nope, Chuck Testa.

Bad Horse? (1)

Lynchenstein (559620) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017839)

He's bad.

Re: Bad Horse? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018155)

He rides across the nation; the thoroughbred of sin.

Re: Bad Horse? (1)

irving47 (73147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018497)

He got the application that you just sent in...

Re: Bad Horse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018537)

It needs evaluation, so let the games begin...

Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017853)

Does putting robotic pieces into a dead bird count as re-animation?

Re:Huh? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018347)

The literal kind [wikipedia.org] , I suppose. The other kind would probably be instead termed something like resuscitation, revivification or resurrection, depending on whether the subject is a little, mostly or all dead.

Re:Huh? (1)

Farmer Pete (1350093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018403)

If Disney had just used corpses in their Hall of Presidents, this story would be dumber than it already was.

Re:Huh? (1)

Barryke (772876) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018355)

No. Unless you don't know shit and feel creative. Seeing the rest of the article, i guess its actually content sources at The Union News..

How is this ethical? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017871)

I'm no bird, but if they animated a human corpse by what appears to be magic and had it make threatening gestures at me until I freaked out and ripped its head off, I'd probably be very traumatized.

Oh, OK... (3, Funny)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017899)

Oh god, I thought they succeeded in doing some kind of Frankenstein's monster thing with electrodes and chemicals... they just stuck some wires and gizmos up the ass of a dead sparrow... big difference. Big relief imo...

Re:Oh, OK... (3, Funny)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018353)

they just stuck some wires and gizmos up the ass of a dead sparrow

All is fair in the name of science

Re:Oh, OK... (2)

Farmer Pete (1350093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018375)

I know right? I thought it was the same thing. It went from being the biggest news I've probably ever heard to a pretty stupid research project in 4 seconds.

Re:Oh, OK... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018407)

Really? This is BETTER then bringing the dead back to life?

Re:Oh, OK... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019053)

Wait... I thought that Abraham Lincoln at Disneyland was alive!

"Eventually the head fell off" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017919)

The researchers, as quoted in the original article, describe the problem I've always had with re-animation:

"Eventually the head fell off"

Watch out for the third question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017927)

WHAT is the airspeed velocity of a motorized sparrow?

Re:Watch out for the third question (2)

narcc (412956) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018451)

African or European?

Terrible summarization (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017965)

This is a terrible summary even by /. standards.

Both terminator and 'reanimate' have completely different inferred meanings than what the story is actually about.

Re:Terrible summarization (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018167)

Apparently, you have forgotten just how low slashdot standards really are.

African or European? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017971)

African sparrows?

Re:African or European? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017999)

Nevermind. The joke is swallows. Not sparrows. I shouldn't have googled first.

Ex-Parrot (5, Funny)

Marillion (33728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017975)

Repeat experiment with parrots and ruin a perfectly good Monty Python skit.

Re:Ex-Parrot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018303)

I'm seriously disappointed in Slashdot. Not only did it take a good few minutes for someone to finally make a Monty Python reference, not one person has asked whether or not the Robosparrow ran/still runs Linux.

It's almost as if you've reddit all before and don't care about the articles.

Re:Ex-Parrot (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018441)

Repeat experiment with parrots

African or European?

Re:Ex-Parrot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018539)

This parrot wouldn't ZOOM unless you put a computer-controlled motor in it to activate it's wings!

Reanimation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43017989)

I cry fowl! This is not reanimation!

Re:Reanimation (0)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018437)

what you did there i see it

Last seen riding a west bound scooter... (2)

ethanms (319039) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018063)

Oh! That's it! That's IT! I've had it with this dump! We got no food! We got no jobs! Our pets heads are falling off!

What the hell are we doing here Harry? We gotta get out of this town!

The King! (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018065)

Pass me a shovel, I'm going to Graceland.

Hey AstroPhilosopher (4, Funny)

gtirloni (1531285) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018083)

Good job trying to make everybody think researchers actually revived a dead bird.

This "news" would be as amusing as a 5 year-old "re-animating" his sockpuppet with Lego.

It'll be back! (1)

arekin (2605525) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018123)

I hear it was looking for Sparrow Conner.

Re:It'll be back! (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018525)

I hear it was looking for Sparrow Conner.

"Ah'll be bach." - RoboSparrow

Pretty sure they did this to Keith Richards..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018333)

years ago. Just listen to the lyrics of Start Me Up, very telling stuff in there.

Welcome (1)

Farmer Pete (1350093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018367)

I for one welcome our new robosparrow overlords.

Didn't you watch Prometheus? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018377)

That sparrow was simply incensed that puny humans would dare try to speak to him through such a crude facsimile. Ripping it's head off was the only means he had to communicate that to us in a language we could understand.

Original Poster (1)

AstroPhilosopher (2500630) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018409)

Bad summarization? Not necessarily. In the Terminator series SkyNet placed living tissue over a robot in order to infiltrate human enclaves. Similarly, researchers placed robotics in a carcass in order to fool living sparrows. Exactly the same? No, but the premise is quite similar. The analogy was drawn simply to give the reader an idea of what happened since readers may be more familiar with the Terminator films than with ornithology, robotics, and taxidermy. Also, there are several meanings of the word re-animate; not just to bring the dead back to life. In this summary it is used in its abstract form. Finally, the summary clearly states exactly what was done (robotics placed into a carcass) and why (to study bird behavior) therefore even without reading the source one can properly deduce what transpired. I do not apologize for your confusion.

Nevermore (1)

Niterios (2700835) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018477)

Make a terminator Raven, and teach it to say nevermore. Put it in some Poe fan's house.

"Hey, check this out!" (5, Funny)

sdeath (199845) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018481)

"... We wrapped a robot in a dead sparrow and decided to see if we could fool the other sparrows into interacting with our creepy, ghoulish automaton! It's *science*!"

And of course, it was COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED that the grisly abomination stapled to a tree branch triggered aggressive reactions from the other sparrows. Because every living thing JUST LOVES to be confronted with a soulless golem wrapped in the dead flesh of another of its kind. And that never causes pants-shitting terror or anything.

I can see it now:

Sparrow 1: "OH MY GOD! IS THAT... *THING* ... WEARING FRANK'S FACE? IS IT?! FRANK??!?!"
Sparrow 2: "It's not him anymore. IT'S! ...NOT! ...HIM! IT'S A MACHINE! Help me destroy it! Be his egg-layer one last time!"
Sparrow 1: "*snf* OK... OK... oh God, Frank... God help me..."

Yup. Science.

Is there, like, a review board or anything? Maybe that could screen some horror flicks before writing checks for this kind of bullshit? "New rule: If your study is substantially similar to the plot of any one of this library of 100 horror movies, or if it has a plausible chance of producing similar outcomes, we're not going to fund it."

My new favorite phrase... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018591)

"empty sparrow carcass".

tweet (1)

BattleApple (956701) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018761)

Am I the only one that's surprised this thing wasn't hooked up to twitter to report its status?

Re:tweet (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018931)

Am I the only one that's surprised this thing wasn't hooked up to twitter to report its status?

YES!

Let me guess (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019055)

Lead scientist is Walter Bishop ;-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?