51–60 of 80 posts
I’ll never forget seeing Mike catch that fly.
As someone who works in visual neuroscience, this article's a tough read. Lots of statements that are semi-accurate at best. 1) Eyes don't work like cameras; there's no real "exposure" phase as such (even though there's lots of thresholds). So it's misleading to talk about discrete images that we sample at some fixed frequency. Instead, it's much more helpful to think of photoreceptors and subsequent processing stage…
Where’s the video of the killer fly catching a fruit fly? I want to see that .
If you want to catch a stationary fly, it's pretty easy to do so with your bare hands. The key thing to know is that they jump backward before taking flight. Aim for a spot about 1-2" behind the fly, and about 1-2" above the fly. Try to catch it there , and your success percentage will be high.
The perspective of cathing a fly that walked on crap five minutes ago disgusts me. I know they cleanse their paws more often than I do mine, but faugh.
an easy way to catch flies is to put rubbing alcohol in a squirt gun. even less than direct hits takes them out of the sky, and the alcohol cleans stuff in collateral damage.
I keep my hand vertical when approaching the fly and turn it only when accelerating for the swat. That way the approaching hand appears with less dramatic increase in size which allows a quick approach without warning the fly.
As someone who works in visual neuroscience, this article's a tough read. Lots of statements that are semi-accurate at best. 1) Eyes don't work like cameras; there's no real "exposure" phase as such (even though there's lots of thresholds). So it's misleading to talk about discrete images that we sample at some fixed frequency. Instead, it's much more helpful to think of photoreceptors and subsequent processing stage…
As someone who works in visual neuroscience, this article's a tough read. Lots of statements that are semi-accurate at best. 1) Eyes don't work like cameras; there's no real "exposure" phase as such (even though there's lots of thresholds). So it's misleading to talk about discrete images that we sample at some fixed frequency. Instead, it's much more helpful to think of photoreceptors and subsequent processing stage…
If your brain and body spanned the size of the Earth, the signals into and within the brain would as a matter of physics take much longer than with a human. It seems reasonable to suppose this is also true when you compare a tiny fly with a comparatively massive human. That said, I haven't seen specific, explicit evidence to prove this seemingly logical theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The perspective of cathing a fly that walked on crap five minutes ago disgusts me. I know they cleanse their paws more often than I do mine, but faugh.
i always found it easy catching flies, especially in air, but squishing their guyts all over my hands is what bothers me most. an easy way to catch flies is to put rubbing alcohol in a squirt gun. even less than direct hits takes them out of the sky, and the alcohol cleans stuff in collateral damage.
As someone who works in visual neuroscience, this article's a tough read. Lots of statements that are semi-accurate at best. 1) Eyes don't work like cameras; there's no real "exposure" phase as such (even though there's lots of thresholds). So it's misleading to talk about discrete images that we sample at some fixed frequency. Instead, it's much more helpful to think of photoreceptors and subsequent processing stage…