That was fucking fantastic. All the more since I grew up in a place with one of North America's worst mosquito populations.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Mosquito, Shhot, Laser, Nathan Myhrvold' to 'Mosquito, Shot, Shoot, Down, Laser, Anti Aircraft, Nathan Myhrvold' - edited by calvados

Here's a talk by Bill Gates about nuclear power as an energy source. Not about Thorium, but still interesting... I tried to sift it, but it kept giving me an "code is incorrect" and I just don't know enough to fix it:

Boing Boing article: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/12/highlights-from-ted-2.html
TED video: http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html?awesm=on.ted.com_89Dt

excerpt from article above:
"A molecule of uranium has a million times more energy than a molecule of coal." He and Nathan "Mosquito Zapper" Myrhvold are backing a nuclear approach. It's called Terrapower, and it's different from a standard nuclear reactor. Instead of burning the 1% of uranium-235 found in natural uranium, this reactor burns the other 99%, called uranium-238. You can use all the leftover waste from today's reactors as fuel. "In terms of fuel this really solves the problem." He showed a photo of depleted waste uranium in steel cylinders at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky -- the waste at this plant could supply the US energy needs for 200 years (woah!), and filtering seawater for uranium could supply energy for much longer than that.

probably doesn't have much of a range though, so it's more of a replacement for mosquito nets than for DDT... *sigh*... if only a safe version of DDT existed, malaria would be gone in a jiffy.

Not only can it distinguish a mosquito from a bee, but it can supposedly distinguish a male mosquito (which doesn't bite) from a female. There's a whole chapter about the company behind this invention in Superfreakonomics.

How does this thing distinguish a mosquito from a desirable insect like a bee or a ladybug?

Mosquito Armor DLC - $5

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^ryanbennitt:
So the mosquito loses its wings, big deal, now we've gotta watch our feet for the little critters and they won't even make a buzzing whining sound as they approach.


+ they'll be really fucking pissed at whoever burned their shit...

So the mosquito loses its wings, big deal, now we've gotta watch our feet for the little critters and they won't even make a buzzing whining sound as they approach.

First time I've experienced empathy for a mosquito.

There may be hope for quelling the rampant spread of malaria in Africa yet... with a laser that can shoot mosquitoes out of the f-ing sky! </sarcasm>

I've always longed for such a system

Predicted in this infomercial parody
http://www.videosift.com/video/Starwars-Mosquito-Laser-Defense-System

You may mock, but she tells the story of the laborious but ultimately successful battle of the people of Tokyo against the malarial mosquito plague of 1684, utilising the awesome power of dance.

Danny, the definition of indignant is "feeling or showing anger that was caused by something unjust". Yet, twice you call me indignant as though that undermines my point of view. Worse, the only emotion I expressed, in my last sentence, was disgust and not anger. My use of the word ignorant was not an expression of anger either, it was a measurement of lack of understanding. If the posters I was referring to knew the facts(which I attempted to analyse in my first paragraph) or had thought about it more before posting, they would not have cheered; thus, they cheered out of ignorance. That's a fact that is either right or wrong, but even if it's wrong it doesn't mean I'm acting out of anger.

"You enjoy getting outraged at people, i can tell."
I express no outrage. In fact, I think my post is rather calm, rational, and to the point. Your statement to the contrary is hyperbole and unfounded speculation.

Also, I never said I think the girl did nothing, I said there is no evidence of wrong doing. A lack of evidence may imply a lack of wrong doing, but even if we are completely unsure of whether or not the girl was in the wrong, everything in my post would still stand--it would still be completely wrong to cheer at her potentially getting seriously injured.

"Her hit ... really didn't need to be so hard."
How do you know it was that hard? The video starts with her hand practically already on the horse. The muscle shaking you see in the horse could easily be caused by the horse itself; they twitch their own muscles to shake flies off.

"I'd be pretty annoyed if someone hit me like that to get a fly on my back"
Perhaps you misunderstand when I say "fly"--I'm talking about horse flies. They are large, they live off blood like mosquitoes, and their bites can feel more like a bee sting than a mosquito bite.

"Her push was directly onto the horse's neck which as we all know is a very sensitive area... "
Hardly. First, while it's not exactly clear in the video, it looks more like she's pushing on the front of the right shoulder, not the neck. Second, a horse's neck is very muscular; a small girl pushing on it will not bother the horse. In fact, pushing back on the neck/chest is a common thing do when trying to back a horse up, into a trailer for instance. Everything you see the girl doing is absolutely typical of horse ownership. People will also use a horse's mane as a handle in the absence of a saddle and reins; horses are rather robust creatures.

"...over compensated with your prissy ... outburst..."
I don't think any of those words accurately describe my post.

I think my post was calm and concise, yet you accuse me of acting emotionally and in error. In the course of articulating your accusation, you employ baseless speculation, exaggeration, and name calling. I think maybe you have things backwards.

edit: removed a superfluous "not have" in the first paragraph.