backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 53 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Mar 3 at 9:28 AM
DARPA is up to its old wacky antics

The US Army may be working on mind control, but DARPA is going one step further -- turning  marine life into front line scouts.  It has been reported that military researchers in the U.S. are trying to manipulate sharks to try and turn them into underwater spies.  A group of engineers being funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was able to create a neural implant that in theory would be able to remotely manipulate a shark's brain signal, which would allow scientists to control the shark's movements. 

More controversially, the Pentagon hopes to exploit sharks' natural ability to glide quietly through the water, sense delicate electrical gradients and follow chemical trails. By remotely guiding the sharks' movements, they hope to transform the animals into stealth spies, perhaps capable of following vessels without being spotted.

As progress on the project continues, DARPA will release blue sharks implanted with the devices off the coast of Florida.  Of course the real question (barring anything headmount-laser related), is when DARPA plans to deploy to Norfolk, VA.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
So What?
By drevil on 3/2/2006 3:54:43 AM , Rating: 1
Hey, seriously....so what?!?!?! If the U.S. decided to do this, why do we care? Why (I know it sounds far fetched BUT if this is legitimate) compromise national security and post this? This is what pissed me off about the war with Iraq. Why do news sources post or broadcast information about national efforts or security? While freedom of speech is fine, why jeopardize the grand old U. S. of A??? Seriously, be proud that you live here and protect the nation (and freedoms) that you were born into!!!!!!!

(i.e. Don't post information about U.S. technology or strategy with respect to the rest of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)




RE: So What?
By Donegrim on 3/2/2006 4:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
Because your crappy government doesn't have free run of the world and its contents, and it's nice to know what they are doing so they could be kept in check (theoretically, not that they listen to anyone) if they step out of line.


RE: So What?
By FastEddie on 3/2/2006 5:06:39 AM , Rating: 2
There needs to be a World Government, and it will happen one day, but probably not in our lifetime. In the meantime, with suicide bombers, and nuclear prolifiration around the globe, anything goes for the protection of US soil and the American people on it.


RE: So What?
By Griswold on 3/2/2006 8:52:52 AM , Rating: 3
From the movie "Spies Like us"

General: "I would do anything to defend the american way of life, even if it means I have to destroy my country."

You guys are dangerous, do you realize that?


RE: So What?
By FastEddie on 3/3/2006 12:24:44 AM , Rating: 2
Dangerous? Tell that to the people who lost family members on 9-11. I'm all for WHATEVER IT TAKES to keep that from happening again.


RE: So What?
By CrazyMe on 3/2/2006 10:59:36 AM , Rating: 2
What needs to happen is religion needs to be eliminated from the face of the Earth. Only then will everyone get long. Only then will there be a need for departments of defenses. Only then will suicide bombers attack innocent people when they least expect it because they believe they are doing it for their religion which is the right religion in their minds.

If there was no religion, there would be no need to put lasers on sharks as Dr. Evil asked for or to create radio wave beams as a method of "crowd control" and attach them to tanks or Humvees in Irag.

That's it. I'm done.


RE: So What?
By CrazyMe on 3/2/2006 11:00:42 AM , Rating: 2
"Only then will there be a need for departments of defenses."

should be...

"Only then will there NOT be a need for departments of defenses."

Please add EDIT feature!!


RE: So What?
By spwrozek on 3/2/2006 11:31:45 AM , Rating: 2
What does religion have to do with anything? That is not what war is about. Revolutinoary war, not about religion, about freedom from the British. War of 1812, not about religion, wanted to expand america and get British into Canada only. Civil War, not about religion, not about slavery either, about states vs federal rights. WWI, not about religion, about Germany wanting to conrtol the world and the US "having" to stop it. WWII, no about religion, pretty much same as WWI only throw Japan in there too. Korea and Vietnam, not about religion, about stoping communism. So what does religion have to do with war? And what do suicide bombers have to do with trolling boats and subs with sharks? Even the suicide attacks are not as much about religion as they are about they hate the people. On 9/11 I am sure the bombers killed people of their own religion. So what exactly are you talking about? Also instead of an edit function how about a proofread function.


RE: So What?
By CrazyMe on 3/2/2006 12:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
Oh. Tee hee hee!


RE: So What?
By pepsimax2k on 3/2/2006 5:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all for eliminating religion, but you might wanna understand that humans are still gonna be humans with or without it. they're still gonna have two main aims - a) impregnate as many women as possible, and b) do so by seeming tougher than everyone else. like every other animal on the planet.

and they accomplish the above by eliminating any potential threats, and convince themselves there's a good point in doing so. if you decide there isn't a greater being outside of earth and you're not all gonna carry on living after you're dead, you undermine the later. either you create a new reason for being, or put even more effort into what little reason you are here for - namely fighting each other and making babies.


RE: So What?
By jskirwin on 3/2/2006 9:29:09 AM , Rating: 3
As opposed to the Chinese government that controls the information shipped to 1/6th of the world's population, that systematically starved its own population 2 generations ago, occupies a sovereign nation, and supports a nuclear-armed despot who is so ronery while his people eat grass to survive?

Yeah, trust them more than an established 200+ year old democracy that has saved Europe twice and Japan once.

Morons...


RE: So What?
By mindless1 on 3/2/2006 7:17:56 AM , Rating: 2
Well how about animal rights? Is it really all that ethical to breed sharks so we can stick probes into their brains and make them lifelong robots?

What about the next superior race that comes along and decides to do that to YOU?

It's not going to compromise security, what are our enemies going to do, start interrogating sharks? WHO SEND YOU? LOL.


RE: So What?
By armagedon on 3/2/2006 7:45:02 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, wait until the terrorists get a hold of this technology.
Remote control sharks with explosive belts ! or could be remote control tunas. And then we'll need counterterrorists dolphins etc...Man they did it, militarize the ocean. Here's goes my vacation in the Carabeans.


RE: So What?
By Topweasel on 3/2/2006 9:06:17 AM , Rating: 2
Ethical treatment of a shark, a large fish with mean ass teeth. HAHA Sorry but that doesn't fly with me. Then again I am the kind of person who thinks that any treatment of any animals but monkeys and Gorillas is Fine (those two are the coolest animals out their).

As for Ethics when it comes to animals then their isn't really a level of ethics, as I see that as more of a human on human interaction kind of thing. As for turning them into Life long robots I am all for it, can't wait for the lasers though, that will be sweet.


RE: So What?
By pepsimax2k on 3/2/2006 5:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
ethical treatment of a monkey? with a brain to big to care about anything other than himself? haha, someone shoot that man.


RE: So What?
By stephenbrooks on 3/2/2006 5:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's not DailyTech's fault your government can't keep its national secrets ;)


National security?
By xbdestroya on 3/2/2006 11:33:43 AM , Rating: 2
To the people saying that this nonsense compromises national security... how?

DO you think anyone's going to change their behaviors knowing that a flotilla of cyber-sharks is tracking their movements?

It's like the whole NSA/national security/wiretap thing. How in the world does that compromise national security being leaked? Am I to believe that terrorists didn't already work under the prusumption their lines were being tapped and conversations monitored? C'mon now, seriously.

It's mor eimportant for the citizens of a democracy(?) to know what their government is doing in contravention of the laws of the land than it is to keep absurd nonsense from the ears of our 'enemies.' AKA China, et al...

Like China and the US have any desire to ever go to war with each other - be serious! China's selling off of their US bonds alone would be enough to effectively serve as a totally legal 'first strike' against this country. The relationship between both countries is too important for some stupid shark thing to matter.

What this is is bordering on shady ethical territory and the inhumane.




RE: National security?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/2/2006 11:51:02 AM , Rating: 3
> "DO you think anyone's going to change their behaviors knowing that a flotilla of cyber-sharks is tracking their movements? "

Certainly. If you know of a threat, you can take steps to neutralize it. This goes without saying.

> "Like China and the US have any desire to ever go to war with each other - be serious! "

Like US and Great Britain have any desire to ever go to war-- oops they already did! Like US and Japan have any desire to go to war...damn, they did as well. Well, how about the US and Mexico? Oops, wrong again there. How about the US and Spain? No...they did as well.

Learn from history, kid. A wise nation prepares for anything and everything...there's no telling what the future holds.


RE: National security?
By xbdestroya on 3/2/2006 12:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
Certainly. If you know of a threat, you can take steps to neutralize it. This goes without saying.

And explain to me, what is the 'threat?'

Like US and Great Britain have any desire to ever go to war-- oops they already did! Like US and Japan have any desire to go to war...damn, they did as well. Well, how about the US and Mexico? Oops, wrong again there. How about the US and Spain? No...they did as well.

Learn from history, kid. A wise nation prepares for anything and everything...there's no telling what the future holds.

Well I'm taking it finance and/or economics isn;t a strong field for you. Well, since it's not for the present administration either, maybe you're right.

But that aside, China holds so much of our foreign debt in the form of mortgage backed securities and Treasury bons that should they choose, they could easily drive our economy into the ground via a dollar crash if they should so much as sell those. Korea and Japan hold a similar power over us, btw - except they're not out 'enemies.'

I wager you should probably go back to neo-con camp and learn why wars are fought in the first place. Japan went to war with us over an oil embargo, and all the other wars you mentioned had their roots in economic and territorial disputes as well. I guarantee you that the economic balance between the US and CHina is such that it would have to be something pretty insane - such as China invading Taiwan and the US actually getting involved - which I doubt we would - to trigger it.


RE: National security?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/2/2006 12:21:15 PM , Rating: 3
> "And explain to me, what is the 'threat?' "

Don't play coy. Obviously these sharks (and indeed any and all tools in the US military inventory) are 'threats' to those they are used against. If you know of a threat, you can take steps to defend against it, thereby reducing or eliminating its effectiveness.

> "Well I'm taking it finance and/or economics isn;t a strong field for you"

History certainly isn't a strong point for you. Nations have quite often gone to war despite clear economic and financial disincentives to so doing.

Is war with China likely in the next forty years? No. Is it impossible? Don't be childishly naive.

Certainly both US and Chinese military and political figures are seriously considering the possibility, and both sides have developed preliminary scenarios to explore the results. But you're smarter than them, aren't you?

> "But that aside, China holds so much of our foreign debt in the form of mortgage backed securities and Treasury bons that should they choose, they could easily drive our economy into the ground via a dollar crash if they should so much as sell those"

This displays so many basic misunderstandings of international finance that I don't know where to start. First of all, widespread selling of Treasury bonds causes their price to DROP. Meaning the US Treasury can buy them back at a reduced rate. Net result-- current debt becomes cheaper, but future debt more expensive (as lower rates on T-bonds means more have to be sold to meet a given quota).

But that's a moot point, because history teaches us what would happen if the US and China went to war. The US's first step would be the cancelling of any and all debts and commitments to China...meaning its hundreds of billions of paper debt just went up in smoke.


RE: National security?
By xbdestroya on 3/2/2006 12:35:01 PM , Rating: 3
Don't play coy. Obviously these sharks (and indeed any and all tools in the US military inventory) are 'threats' to those they are used against. If you know of a threat, you can take steps to defend against it, thereby reducing or eliminating its effectiveness.

Coy? No seriously - what is the 'threat' from these sharks? It's just another DARPA project run horribly amok. I seriously want to know what threats these sharks pose that would have foreign countries actually change their sea-lane patterns of traffic.

History certainly isn't a strong point for you. Nations have quite often gone to war despite clear economic and financial disincentives to so doing.

Well, I never disputed you there - I simply disputed the wars you specifically called out. I've got a *great* example of a present war beign fought for non-economic reasons: Iraq.

This displays so many basic misunderstandings of international finance that I don't know where to start. First of all, widespread selling of Treasury bonds causes their price to DROP. Meaning the US Treasury can buy them back at a reduced rate. Net result-- current debt becomes cheaper, but future debt more expensive (as lower rates on T-bonds means more have to be sold to meet a given quota).

But that's a moot point, because history teaches us what would happen if the US and China went to war. The US's first step would be the cancelling of any and all debts and commitments to China...meaning its hundreds of billions of paper debt just went up in smoke.

You are sadly mistaken my friend. When you have an economy who's very being is propped up by the domestic debt purchased by foreign entities, you can be sure that any such actions on their parts - whether 'snuffed' out on our ends or not - would lead to a worldwide dollar crash. The US and China don't exist in a void you know; other countries watch and react, and if I were an investor and I saw this happen - straight over to Euro-demoninated debt for me. The dollar would crash and crash badly.

Look at what happened to the dollar the day South Korea merely mentioned that they might increase their Euro allocations - sharp hit to the dollar.

You try to gloss facts over with posts consisting of 50% insult, 50% 'other', but the fact is that:

Firstly, if you think other countries knowing about this stupid shark thing compromises our 'national security,' you are dangerously paranoid.

and

Secondly, it would be a lot more productive for this nation to view China as a firend and engage them as such rather than needing to hold them up as the replacement to the Soviet Union everytime we need a industrialzed nation for an enemy to gain approval for bizarre defense spending projects.

A couple of years ago Bush stated that he would combat the 'Axis of Evil,' and in the years since that we have seen each of the countries mentioned grow into a larger threat to US security interests than they were prior.

I think it's time to set the hubris and paranoia aside and get realistic when it comes to working with other countries. The threat of force isn't enough to achieve US foreign policy goals any longer, and nonsense like these sharks and missile defense shields do us more harm than good.


RE: National security?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/2/2006 12:57:30 PM , Rating: 4
> "Coy? No seriously - what is the 'threat' from these sharks? "

You're still trying to play a semantics game. The term 'threat' in military terms has a very clear meaning. Anything able to gather intelligence data is a threat to be countered. If you wish to consider these sharks as "non-threatening", feel free to do so. For a nation attempting to prevent the US from gathering additional intelligence data on it, the success of this program is indeed a potential threat.

> "Well, I never disputed you there - I simply disputed the wars you specifically called out."

And in each of those wars I named, one or even both parties involved suffered severe economic consequences as a result. That didn't stop them from going to war, now did it?

> "The US and China don't exist in a void you know; other countries watch and react, and if I were an investor and I saw this happen - straight over to Euro-demoninated debt for me"

Sigh, learn from history. Cancelling of contractual obligations between two parties at war has happened countless times. Sometimes, it doesn't even take a war...more socialistic nations than the US are forever cancelling their debt to specific parties, or even generally to any and all.

If the US and China were at war, its laughably silly to think the US would continue to make regular payments on any debts to its own enemy. And, when the US cancelled those debts, its likewise silly to think a nation such as England or Germany would would rush out and sell all THEIR T-Bills (incurring an enormous loss on their part) out of some misguided belief we were going to strike them next.

Some nations friendly to China would move out of solidarity, or belief they might be at risk for reciprocical action. Net result: a significant lowering of T-Bill rates, offset by the immediate cancelling of several hundred billion dollars of present debt. Economic crash? Total nonsense.

> "Look at what happened to the dollar the day South Korea merely mentioned that they might increase their Euro allocations - sharp hit to the dollar"

You don't seem to understand the interrelationships here. If a nation sells dollars, the price of dollars drops, that's a given. However a decline in foreign exchange rates doesn't mean economic collapse...in fact, it usually means the opposite. US Exports become cheaper, meaning US industry booms. Imports become more expensive, meaning American consumers take a hit to standard of living...but the overall economic picture improves. The US has been trying for many years to force China to LOWER the value of the dollar vs. the Yuan. Just for this very reason.

Finally, I have to say all this is a moot point when it comes to talk of war. To say a nation "won't go to war" because its not in their economic interest is silly. By the end of WW2, it took a wheelbarrow full of German marks to buy a decent lunch. Did that stop Germany from invading all of Europe?






RE: National security?
By xbdestroya on 3/2/2006 1:15:22 PM , Rating: 3
You don't seem to understand the interrelationships here. If a nation sells dollars, the price of dollars drops, that's a given. However a decline in foreign exchange rates doesn't mean economic collapse...in fact, it usually means the opposite. US Exports become cheaper, meaning US industry booms. Imports become more expensive, meaning American consumers take a hit to standard of living...but the overall economic picture improves. The US has been trying for many years to force China to LOWER the value of the dollar vs. the Yuan. Just for this very reason.

A measured decline of sorts may be beneficial - and with China in particular because it actually raises the price of the goods we import, thus aiding domestic manufacturers. The export advantage is the lesser of the two prongs of the fork IMO.

But a dollar 'crash' as such would definitely be bad news. The price of oil would skyrocket (and it's already high) and more importantly the self-sustaining cycle that keeps the US economy capable of the growth it traditionally has been would be broken; broken with the shift of the debt-purchasing nations to other pastures. Perhaps our allies wouldn't move on, but those European allies don't constitue much of the bloc to begin with. It's what the Asian partners would do that would most matter.

Just the fact that China could stop buying our debt would be enough to cause problems - nevermind an actual sale. And the current world economy is integrated in a way that it never was during those previous wars. Where there was recession before, there would be depression now. And with those stakes in play, I find it hard to fathom what cause would be worthy enough for the US and China to engage in hostilities with one another for.

Anyway whatever - sharks. Ok maybe some see an advantage to this project, but I just think it's wrong on several levels. And I rather know about it and feel that the spirit of our democracy is preserved rather than *not* know about it with the premise being that the very democracy being undermined (and that really applies more to the NSA thing) is what's being defended.


RE: National security?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/2/2006 1:48:15 PM , Rating: 3
> "Just the fact that China could stop buying our debt would be enough to cause problems "

No one is disputing that. And an outright sale-- or a unilateral cancellation by the US-- would cause further problems, serious ones. Recession? Most certainly. Depression? Possibly. "Economic Collapse"? No way.

> "I find it hard to fathom what cause would be worthy enough for the US and China to engage in hostilities with one another for"

Most wars are farfetched...except to those fighting them. It doesn't stop them. China is already capable of winning a conventional war with any nation except the US...yet its been expanding its military at an astounding pace the past 15 years. Clearly it considers the potentital for future conflict to be at least possible, if unlikely.

> "And I rather know about it and feel that the spirit of our democracy is preserved rather than *not* know about it "

Certainly, and I agree with you on this. However, to claim that public knowledge of secret military programs can't possibly compromise their effectiveness is off target.


RE: National security?
By xbdestroya on 3/2/2006 3:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, I agree on all those points.


RE: National security?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/3/2006 9:26:56 AM , Rating: 2
News from today:

[Taiwan's] independence-leaning President Chen Shui-bian scrapped Taiwan's National Unification Council and its 15-year-old unification guidelines, defying warnings from Beijing and Washington. Chinese President Hu Jintao's called Chen's move "a grave provocation...Beijing claims sovereignty over the self-ruled island and its 23 million people and has threatened to use force if it formally declares independence.



Dont tell China?
By Daijobu on 3/2/2006 2:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
We have secret shark spies in development. But dont let anybody know.........




RE: Dont tell China?
By Brassbud on 3/2/2006 3:27:57 AM , Rating: 2
This is the most rediculous thing I've ever read in a semi-serious new article. Yeah right, you might beable to stimulate certain muscles to contract, but we are at least 100 (if not many more) years away from being able to drive a shark with a joystick.


RE: Dont tell China?
By Aelius on 3/2/2006 3:57:47 AM , Rating: 2
It's a simple matter of knowing what to stimulate to suggest to the shark to do one thing or another that he would normally do anyway. I don't see how that's 100 years away.

What I find rather disturbing is that:

1. This is now common knowledge. Don't they realize the implication this has on national security.

2. Now that it's well known that this is possible some scientist will come out with a sonar that can drive sharks mad or to death and start equiping subs and ships with them..... PING... dead shark. Which of course will lead to the possible extinction of sharks. Is the US government willing to clone sharks or take it a step further and do genetic manipulation with them? So long as the public doesn't know my guess is yes.


RE: Dont tell China?
By slatr on 3/2/2006 10:42:32 AM , Rating: 2
This is now common knowledge. Don't they realize the implication this has on national security.
*****************
Spreading misinformation can useful


RE: Dont tell China?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/2/2006 11:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
> " we are at least 100 (if not many more) years away from being able to drive a shark with a joystick"

Actually, we hit that point a few years back. Current research is centered more upon tying into their sensory systems to allow more directed control.


RE: Dont tell China?
By haelduksf on 3/2/2006 5:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, we can control humans with a joystick, why not sharks?


(Dr Evil voice)
By darkswordsman17 on 3/2/2006 1:56:35 AM , Rating: 5
Can't I get some frickin sharks with fricking laser beams attached to their foreheads?

(/Dr Evil voice)

So whatever happened to those killer dolphins that escaped during Katrina? Can't wait to hear about some swimmer who was killed by dart shooting dolphins while scuba diving in the Gulf of Mexico.




RE: (Dr Evil voice)
By Gigahertz19 on 3/2/2006 1:59:17 AM , Rating: 1
damn u beat me to it


.
By Creig on 3/2/2006 8:04:53 AM , Rating: 2
I'll bet this news has PETA whipped into an absolute frenzy.


Disgusting
By Griswold on 3/2/2006 8:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
Just disgusting.




RE: Disgusting
By Larrymon2000 on 3/2/2006 9:24:19 AM , Rating: 2
Does this remind anyone of the dolphins from Red Alert 2?


RE: Disgusting
By Larrymon2000 on 3/2/2006 9:27:46 AM , Rating: 2
Does this remind anyone of the dolphins from Red Alert 2?


Border Security (priority numero uno)
By T1 on 3/2/2006 6:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
We could use these sharks to patrol the Rio Grande.




RE: Border Security (priority numero uno)
By pspahn970 on 3/2/2006 7:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, except that the Rio Grande, hence the name, is a river. Sharks, well, they live in the ocean.

Someone posted earlier that this is unethical treatment of animals, and someone replied that it's better to kill one shark than to kill five soldiers.

Well, think about it though. Species aside, what do sharks have to do with human conflict? None. This isn't their problem, and they aren't getting paid to make it their problem. There are a number of animals in the kingdom that are, more or less, designed for domestication. Cows, horses, dogs, sheep, alpaca, goat, and donkey. Sharks, are not designed for domestication.

Now I use the term domestication loosely here. I don't mean for "use in the domicile", obviously, but simply to mean the adoption of a species as a tool for human use.

The main moral difference between the domestication of sharks, and say, dogs, is that dogs are trainable, sharks are not. Dogs can be taught to do certain things by giving them incentive, rewards. It is also worth mentioning that dogs are loyal animals by nature. They have capacity for emotion (conditional or otherwise). Sharks, are not emotional animals. They do not learn through 'action/reward' scenarios. They are based purely on instinct. They do things because they are programmed that way, and that stuff is hard wired.

So by doing this you are attempting to modify a creature by unnatural means. Teaching a dog to fetch by giving him a biscuit, that's tailored to the natural way a dog learns. Teaching (again, the word teaching used loosely) a shark to behave the way you want by manipulating his brain wiring, that is not right.

I say go back to dolphins. They are smart animals with learning capacity much like a dog. You can train them to do things for you, (and heres the key)....

BUT THEY HAVE TO WANT TO DO IT!!!


By masher2 (blog) on 3/2/2006 7:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "Yeah, except that the Rio Grande, hence the name, is a river"

And a river that, in large areas and for lengthy periods of time, is essentially dry. So we can just scratch the idea of shark patrols totally...even if they could live in fresh water.

> [Sharks] things because they are programmed that way, and that stuff is hard wired.

Exactly so. They lack intellect and emotional responses. As such, they are essentially hard-wired robots, barely above the level of insects. And human laws of ethics and morality certainly don't apply to our treatment of them. What's next? "Fair rights" for bacteria and slime molds?

This is certainly a lot more humane than horse-mounted calvary...a practice that was common for countless centuries.



Johnny Mneumonic....
By JarredWalton on 3/3/2006 2:25:39 AM , Rating: 3
Damn, pretty good guess by the Johnny Mneumonic script writers. (Not William Gibson, unfortunately, as I'm quite sure the dolphin hacker wasn't in the short story.) Intelligent dolphin with neural implant vs. shark with someone at the helm... close enough for me! :D




RE: Johnny Mneumonic....
By masher2 (blog) on 3/3/2006 9:28:31 AM , Rating: 3
The Johnny Mneumonic script writers were late to invent this particular idea by about 30 years, sorry.


new?
By Wwhat on 3/2/2006 11:25:47 AM , Rating: 2
This is nothing new, they have been experimenting with dolphins etc. for many years.
I guess the dolphins would not do in the end because the tunafishery and japanese kill too many and it would get too costly eh :/
I agree with the voiced criticism btw, in warsituation any enemy would end up killing all sharks.
This apart from my general view that using animals against humans is immoral/disgusting.




RE: new?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/2/2006 11:47:20 AM , Rating: 3
> "This apart from my general view that using animals against humans is immoral/disgusting. "

Oh of course...much better a few dozen soldiers die on a mission than one shark.

Fricken idiot...


Soviet America!
By aspartame on 3/3/2006 1:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
In a similiar move, Stalin tried to create an army of monkeys.
It's interesting that US is becoming more and more like Soviet Russia.




RE: Soviet America!
By masher2 (blog) on 3/3/2006 9:15:22 AM , Rating: 3
> "It's interesting that US is becoming more and more like Soviet Russia."

Wow, what an incredibly asinine leap of illogic. Let's try a similar example-- more and more people in America are becoming vegetarians these days, hence we're all becoming more like Hitler.

Frickin' idiot.


Kill em all
By fzkl on 3/2/2006 1:59:32 AM , Rating: 2
Next level of warfare: Include sharks in the navy and give enemies enough reason to make them extinct.

Do these people not have a conscience?!!




RE: Kill em all
By Sunbird on 3/2/2006 2:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, most species of sharks are on the endangered list, just cause they are government they didn't have to mess with the red tape, couldn't they have used mutated, ill-tempered sea bass instead?


A life-saving shark...
By Joset on 3/2/2006 3:16:25 PM , Rating: 3
...for my kingdom!

Science has always been used for obscure, unethical, immoral & deadly purposes. Someone said, decades ago, that «we're like children: when we have a new toy, we'll not rest until we use it.» But "children" is not another concurrent species: it's us and our human nature, just a 'few' years ago.

We've got a mind, a conscious one. We have the power to dominate other species... and our own brethren, as well. Moral & ethics apart, why shouldn't we? After all, it's our human nature; should we go against it?

I'm european. And, sure, I want to be protected against... [my own] human nature. See, "terrorism" has been a part of our daily lives, here in the old continent; and it will be, until we realize that, there's a potential terrorist in each of us. It is just... our human nature.

Now, how can we use sharks to aid us out eliminating terrorism? Simple: give it sometime & see if it works. In a very efficient way, their genes will be preserved within highly, multi-billion asset lab facilities. They will survive. Then, start using birds, bugs, bacteria, people, you-name-it, until these highly sophisticated, impenetrable fortresses are built & set-up. Sure, you can only have a peek from behind the walls, but you're safe. Right?

Well, unless we get bored & start 'amusing' ourselves inside; after all, it's just our human nature.

The main advantages of using 'brain-washed' sharks (for now!) in the "fight-against-terror" is the preservation of their genes, the warranty of the utter erradication of terrorism, in the mid-term, while the rest of the world keeps feeding the U.S.A., every day!

Ah! And all this while preserving ourselves, of course! After all...


Cheers!




By kcthomas on 3/2/2006 2:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
I saw this thing for surfers that you attach to your board and it puts out some sort of electric field under the water. Sharks have something in their nose that can sense electrice fields, so if they sense it, they immediately turn away. It seems you could guide the shark by somehow creating electric fields around the shark




By pepsimax2k on 3/2/2006 5:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
so, are these sharks going to be used in the fight against paedophilia and terrorism too then? as in, men sat at computers in the middle of good ole usa, electrical signals travelling through wires and air across the country, and men in turbans riding cars fulll of dynamite through the desert?

i'm sure it'll work great.




knock knock knock
By Snuffalufagus on 3/2/2006 10:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
who is it?

Land Shark.

Boom!




"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki