Comments on: Say cheese!

Say cheese!

brundlefly — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:50:58 -0800

This just in! First photo of Flying Spaghetti Monster taken using bacteria!

By: ab'd al'Hazred

ab'd al'Hazred — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:54:48 -0800

NOW DO YOU BELIEVE?

By: wigu

wigu — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:58:55 -0800

Boingboing is going to be devastated.

By: eriko

eriko — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:03:49 -0800

Looks like it was focused with His Noodly Appendage as well.

By: docgonzo

docgonzo — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:12:33 -0800

Really, really tired of this.

By: JeremyT

JeremyT — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:15:30 -0800

I'm picturing a spray can of the stuff which which you can hose down surfaces, then hit with a light rigged with a gel. Biodegradable stealth graffiti?

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:36:15 -0800

*wishes we could have lasagna or baked ziti for once*

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:45:46 -0800

A Flying Lasagna Monster? Don't be absurd.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:53:22 -0800

Hey, at least lasagna noodles have planar surfaces suitable for airfoils. Zitis, too.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:56:18 -0800

What is this "science" you speak of?

By: Wingy

Wingy — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:59:06 -0800

Completely ignoring the FSM stuff, the science side of this is pretty cool.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:06:16 -0800

What is this "science" you speak of? Fool! I speak of none other than the science of DELICIOUS, to which all other sciences humbly bow and scrape to in their utter unworthiness.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:07:42 -0800

JeremyT - have you seen the moss graffiti (was posted here i think. similar idea, probably googleable)?

By: JeremyT

JeremyT — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:31:32 -0800

Yes! One of my favorite metafilter posts ever. Thanks for reminding me, Andrew.

By: jerryg99

jerryg99 — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:31:33 -0800

LOL, that's awesome!!!!!!

By: j-urb

j-urb — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:43:51 -0800

HOLY SHIT!!! I have to make a pilgrimage now!!!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:47:11 -0800

i have seen the light! amen! now, where do i go to convert? ; >

By: Jon-o

Jon-o — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:52:28 -0800

Good job, science.

By: Gator

Gator — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:02:14 -0800

This reminds me of that part in Mostly Harmless where the scientists programmed a robot to think it liked herring sandwiches. And they would put a herring sandwich in front of it, and the robot would go, "Ah! A herring sandwich. I like herring sandwiches," and pick up the sandwich but accidentally drop it and pick it up again, ad infinitum. And the scientists published a paper stating that they had discovered the driving force behind all change, development and innovation in life: herring sandwiches. But when they re-checked their figures, they realized that what they had actually discovered was "boredom."

By: foot

foot — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:17:00 -0800

SCIENCE IS MY GAWD

By: dorian

dorian — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:28:04 -0800

~~amen!~~ ramen! /loves the <strike>

By: Balisong

Balisong — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:34:38 -0800

I hope the irony is not lost that they used E. Coli bacteria for his noodly likeness.

By: Jon-o

Jon-o — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:54:53 -0800

I was expecting botulism.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:28:46 -0800

SCIENCE IS DELICIOUS

By: Uther Bentrazor

Uther Bentrazor — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:36:23 -0800

I'm with docgonzo, this FSM shit's really gotta stop.

By: joe lisboa

joe lisboa — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:42:49 -0800

Really, really tired of this. I see your "disaffected pose" and raise you one "too-cool-to-even-post-how-played-out-this-is." You gonna call or what?

By: interrobang

interrobang — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:51:07 -0800

I'm with docgonzo, this FSM shit's really gotta stop. Yeah, well, this God/Allah/Scientology/religion shit's really gotta stop, too. A lot of us are really fucking sick of people being killed for the sake of mythology. That said, this is an interesting article, and something I wouldn't have heard about from google news.

By: gompa

gompa — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:55:41 -0800

I'm pretty sure I read in a magazine too obscure for any of you to know about that Naive Sincerity was the New Jaded Irony, so I'll step up and admit I'd never seen the original open letter that got this FSM shit started until this post inspired me to seek it out. That's some funny shit. Sincerely.

By: grouse

grouse — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:00:17 -0800

The original paper was in Nature, and I was previously a member of one of the collaborating labs. Never worked with such a fun (and hard-working) group of people in my life.

By: fandango_matt

fandango_matt — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:44:54 -0800

posted by joe lisboa I see your "disaffected pose" and raise you one "too-cool-to-even-post-how-played-out-this-is." I'll see you, docgonzo, and Uther, and raise you all one "FSMism is the Talk Like A Pirate Day of 2005."

By: kjh

kjh — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:45:48 -0800

Well, this has to be the most puerile thing ever published by the so-called "New Scientist." Well done!

By: dhartung

dhartung — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:52:41 -0800

A lot of us are really fucking sick of people being killed for the sake of mythology. You do realize that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a slam at religion per se, but very specifically at the teaching of religion in the place of science? this FSM shit's really gotta stop When Kansas drops its backward policies, there will be no more need to parody them.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:31:59 -0800

kjh: Beyond what you may think about the FSM gag, what's so puerile? Seems like a really cool concept to me.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:38:24 -0800

still hasn't hit boingboing. maybe they're waiting for a sony rootkit angle to the story.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:46:02 -0800

andrew cooke writes "still hasn't hit boingboing. maybe they're waiting for a sony rootkit angle to the story." Or maybe if the E. coli were being used to make FSM-shaped iPod cases.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 03:07:30 -0800

Beyond the FSM stuff, any thoughts on how this tech can be applied practicaly? I mean, yeah the potential for detail is impressive, but is this a viable technology? Photographic plates covered in bacteria?

By: 3.2.3

3.2.3 — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 03:39:12 -0800

I'm with docgonzo, this FSM shit's really gotta stop. oh, yeah. it's really just gotta stop. my, oh, my. tough shit.

By: bevets

bevets — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:49:02 -0800

By: brittney

brittney — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:57:40 -0800

I see your "disaffected pose" and raise you one "too-cool-to-even-post-how-played-out-this-is." hahaha

By: googly

googly — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 06:06:56 -0800

Evolutionism and Flying Spaghetti Monster are two sides of the same origins coin. Evolutionism asserts that a designer is not required for complex functional systems. Flying Spaghetti Monster asserts that a designer is required for complex systems. If one is science, both are. If one is not science, neither is the other one.

By: Chunder

Chunder — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 06:35:15 -0800

100 megapixels per square inch? Wo!

By: wigu

wigu — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:04:18 -0800

Wow, almost 12 hours later and boingboing still hasn't picked this up. This is extremely unprofessional on their part. I know where I'm going for all my dead horse pummeling needs from now on.

By: bashos_frog

bashos_frog — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:54:26 -0800

Flying Spaghetti Monster asserts that a designer is required for complex systems. Actually, FSM asserts that a gravity-defying, omnipotent, omniscient creature made of pasta is required for complex systems. Now, that's a sciency meatball!

By: Miko

Miko — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:32:50 -0800

Evolutionism and Intelligent Design are two sides of the same origins coin. Evolutionism asserts that a designer is not required for complex functional systems. Intelligent Design asserts that a designer is required for complex systems. If one is science, both are. If one is not science, neither is the other one. [Takes bait] No. Evolutionism and Intelligent Design are both ideas. Science is a practice, a method of gathering evidence to determine whether an idea is likely to be true. Evolutionism has an enormous and highly developed body of evidence, gleaned through science, that shows it is likely to be an accurate conception of the development of life in the natural world. Intelligent design does not, and has in fact failed to use evidence from the practice of science to demonstrate its likelihood. If you think they are both science, you aren't sure what 'science' is.

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:34:20 -0800

Our failure to teach FSM in public school is leading to a moral decline.

By: dersins

dersins — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:00:40 -0800

No. Evolutionism and Intelligent Design are both ideas. Science is a practice, a method of gathering evidence to determine whether an idea is likely to be true. Evolutionism has an enormous and highly developed body of evidence, gleaned through science, that shows it is likely to be an accurate conception of the development of life in the natural world. Intelligent design does not, and has in fact failed to use evidence from the practice of science to demonstrate its likelihood. If you think they are both science, you aren't sure what 'science' is. I just wanted to repeat that. Thanks, Miko, for putting so concisely what I've been trying to articulate in my head since I started reading about this ID foolishness.

By: Tikirific

Tikirific — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:17:39 -0800

I wouldn't take the bait. Bevets hasn't even changed a word from his last post on ID, Evolution. On MeFi, or Fark, it's always the same.

By: PurplePorpoise

PurplePorpoise — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:12:25 -0800

brundlefly; From the abstract - This spatial control of bacterial gene expression could be used to 'print' complex biological materials, for example, and to investigate signalling pathways through precise spatial and temporal control of their phosphorylation steps. ...and the discussion - Our creation of a novel genetic circuit with an image-processing function demonstrates the power and accessibility of the tool sets and methods available in the nascent field of synthetic biology. The principle of programmed light regulation should enable gene expression to be spatially and temporally controlled in individual cells and in populations, leading to potential application in bacterial microlithography, manufacture of biological material composites and the study of multicellular signalling networks. (from the original Nature Brief Communications) So, essentially, this is a really neat tool that can help us learn more about basic science, and may be a useful and practical technology somewhere down the line.

By: Sparx

Sparx — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:44:43 -0800

Docgonzo: the post worth worthwhile n its own merits. Getting bacteria to do intersting things upon the application of light is fundementally funky. As the article says "For instance, the gene switch need not activate a pigment, says Voigt. A different introduced gene could produce polymer-like proteins, or even precipitate a metal. "This way, the bacteria could weave a complex material," he says.". This is big news for nanotech boffins. The fact that they used the FSM to demonstrate the proof of concept is really neither here nor there (though it indicates they have a sense of humour). Wearier-than-thou is a rather lame response.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:19:42 -0800

Evolutionism and Intelligent Design are both ideas. Science is a practice, a method of gathering evidence to determine whether an idea is likely to be true. Evolutionism has an enormous and highly developed body of evidence, gleaned through science, that shows it is likely to be an accurate conception of the development of life in the natural world. Intelligent design does not, and has in fact failed to use evidence from the practice of science to demonstrate its likelihood. If you think they are both science, you aren't sure what 'science' is. Well said. I thought bevets was making some obscure joke, until I realized it was bevets. That site is pretty stupid, d00d.

By: bevets

bevets — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 06:08:29 -0800

Materialism is the view that at bottom reality consists of nothing but particles in fields of force, and that all events are caused solely by the operation of mindless physical laws. Several things should be noted about this belief. First, believing in materialism is an act of faith like any other. The ultimate nature of reality isn't a scientific question, and anyone who expects science to provide answers regarding such matters doesn't understand either science or religion. Second, the debate about whether the world is ultimately a meaningless flux or something more has been going on for thousands of years. The belief that materialism is a product of post-Enlightenment thought in general and modern science in particular is itself a product of historical ignorance. ~ Paul Campos

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:43:19 -0800

bevets, if you think that quote suggests science should take into account unobservable forces/phenomena, you should probably reread it. Where you trying to get across something specific in posting it, or are you just a random quote-pulling bot?