Slashdot Mirror


Simpsons Fan Creates Real Tomacco Plant

An anonymous reader writes "So, according to a KPTV newscast, a Simpsons fan with too much time on his hands grafted a tobacco plant and a tomato plant and, ta-da: tomacco! Leaves and most likely the fruit (yes, tomato is a fruit technically) contain nicotine. Delicious AND deadly!" Simpsonschannel.com has a small news piece on the breakthrough, but in a Frink-like move, although scientists have found "nicotine in the leaves", it turns out "the lab hasn't tested if the actual tomato has nicotine in it yet, but they say it probably does."

733 comments

  1. McDonald's by dolo666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the article: "The plant grew off the tobacco roots and sucked up the nicotine, just like Tomacco on The Simpsons.

    What do you bet that McDonald's will start using these tomatoes to make us all addicted to their salads and burgers? :P

    1. Re:McDonald's by beatbox32 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What do you bet that McDonald's will start using these tomatoes to make us all addicted to their salads and burgers? :P

      Yeah, no kidding! And then I can sue them when I get really fat and my health turns to sh... oh wait, I can do that now.

      --
      "The purpose of learning is growth, and our minds, unlike our bodies, can continue growing as long as we live." - M.J. A
    2. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you bet that McDonald's will start using these tomatoes to make us all addicted to their salads and burgers? :P

      Didn't you know McDonald's white sauce is the substance that makes nicotine addictive? Did you ever wonder why you're eating the crap?

    3. Re:McDonald's by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Daddy, this burger tastes like grandma!"

    4. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      _____
      DooM for Columbine @ Sourceforge [sourceforge.net]


      DooM for Columbine is a modification to Doom 3.

      By the time the source for Doom3 Is out, I dont think anybody will REMEMBER Bush . . . . or the next 10 presidents.

    5. Re:McDonald's by casio282 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What makes you think they don't already? Not tobacco, per se, but some other organic addictive substance?

      --

      :wq
    6. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I though it was a substance to counter the need to puke. Seriously.

    7. Re:McDonald's by AME · · Score: 1

      Do you know anybody who's addicted to the tomatoes in McDonald's burgers?

      --
      "I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
    8. Re:McDonald's by DogIsMyCoprocessor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Soylent McGreen is ... PEOPLE!!!

      --

      "And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."

    9. Re:McDonald's by antis0c · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now really, would it be that -bad- if most of America were addicted to salads? :)

      --

      ..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
    10. Re:McDonald's by bigjocker · · Score: 1

      Greetings fellow Newsradio nerd!!!

      --
      Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
    11. Re:McDonald's by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      It would be if the salads were more carcinogenic than the french fries...

    12. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe not the tomatoes, but there do seem to be a crowd of people addicted to McDonald's food in general.

    13. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHA. I get it!!! You said CowboyKneel to implies that he's on his knees. Haha. You took his name and changed the spelling. ROFL. Genius!!

    14. Re:McDonald's by BHearsum · · Score: 1

      You don't win friends with salad.

    15. Re:McDonald's by placeclicker · · Score: 1

      It couldn't just be good, no.

      --

      Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of /.
    16. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it would. Next question.

    17. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the kind of friends you want anyway.

    18. Re:McDonald's by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Clearly you haven't eaten at McDonald's.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:McDonald's by anethema · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "What? let me see that..

      Hey this DOES taste like grandma!"

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    20. Re:McDonald's by ahaning · · Score: 1
      The following paragraph from the Rotten.com Library's entry on cannibalism has completely turned me off McDonalds, and I wasn't too excited about their food to begin with:

      Then again, we live in a culture in which people would run vomiting to the bathroom if they saw what went into making their McDonald's hamburgers, in which a cow is brutally killed with blunt-force trauma, its innards are outered, and then the whole thing is ground up into a mealy paste, intestines, feces, bones and all.


      So is that why little hard things get caught in my teeth when I eat their burgers?

      *Shudder*
      --
      Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
    21. Re:McDonald's by CAIMLAS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It isn't the nicotine that causes cancer (IIRC) in cigarettes, it's the tar in the lungs, to the greatest degree. Lip cancer (from chew) is predominantly caused by the other things in the chew (such as draino-type chemicals and fiberglass) that agitate the skin over a long period of time.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    22. Re:McDonald's by placeclicker · · Score: 1

      I usally eat there 1-2 times a week. It'd be less but we have a Very exceptional (Solid Gold) one nearby.

      Not to mention the Burger King across from it is just shoddy service, taking about 15 minutes to get any food.

      --

      Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of /.
    23. Re:McDonald's by billyradcliffe · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, McDonalds puts sugar in their hamburger buns to make it "more addictive." People are more likely to want to get the burgers in the future.

    24. Re:McDonald's by Stingr · · Score: 0

      I can just see it now...

      "I'd like a Big Mac please."
      "Would you like that smoking or non-smoking?"

      Sheesh...I said it before and I'll say it again. Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done.

      --
      Chaos reigns within.
      Reflect, repent, and reboot.
      Order shall return.
    25. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PEOPLE!!! People soiled our green!

    26. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck, there's a simpsons quote for every situation. Awesome!

    27. Re:McDonald's by 00420 · · Score: 1

      Actually, cancer is caused by the fact that tobacco in the US is grown in radioative soil. The tar just helps to keep the radioactive isotopes in the lungs longer.

      (If for some reason you don't trust stoners, then just do a google search and find your own link)

    28. Re:McDonald's by smhguy · · Score: 1

      Wow it's nice to know that people from my hometown do stuff like this. I really need to get out of my bubble. On a side note, is anyone else from the P.O. area still shocked that Channel 12 is now Fox (instead of 49 as it usually has been?!)

    29. Re:McDonald's by The_dev0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a workmate who was the Manager at a McDonalds franchise in Brisbane, Australia, and he says he has seen documentation showing how the bread rolls used for the burgers are jacked up with sugar because of past research that shows foods with a high sugar content can increase cravings. He reckons an unadorned hamburger bun contains as much sugar as an iced donut of comparable size. It wouldn't surprise me at all if McDonalds used underhanded ways to keep people eating their garbage.

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
    30. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAMBURGERS... the cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast.

    31. Re:McDonald's by GoRK · · Score: 1

      Jesus, man, have you *SEEN* a McGriddle? You get sticky hands when you touch it!

      Also, most of McDonald's food is laced with MSG. You get far less of the stuff at your local Chinese food place -- where, for some reason, MSG has become a huge public health issue prompting Chinese places everyhere to evict massive "No MSG" signs.

      ~GoRK

    32. Re:McDonald's by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it is mainly from the benzo(a)pyrine in the tar. Though there is evidence for nicotine itself being carcinogenic - this abstract was all I could find with a quick search. Anyway, the cardiovascular effects would be more dangerous.

    33. Re:McDonald's by stonedcat · · Score: 0

      correct me if i'm wrong..... and i'm not... aren't mcgriddles supposed to be sticky? something to do with the whole syrup and breakfasty stuff... hmm...

      and you know if you join the aol community... you can get instant MSGs....oh fuck me that was lame.

      *eats a beaver*

      --
      You can't take the sky from me.
    34. Re:McDonald's by regem · · Score: 1

      A few years ago, taco salad was the fattiest item on McDonalds menu. They just use lettuce as a fat-delivery mechanism.

    35. Re:McDonald's by ahfoo · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's true that any irritation can cause cancer, but it's the nitrosamines that occur any time you burn a protein in the presnece of nitrogen that are specifcally carcinogenic in tobacco smoke.
      For many years I thought that this meant that chewing tobacco was harmless --and I still chew tobacco regularly-- but just a few years ago I looked into making my own and I found to my dismay that the rich flavor of chewing tobacco comes from smoke curing. So, although you're not lighting it up, it is bathed in thick smoke for weeks on end and hence has a thick gooey, and yummy, coating of nitroamines which are definitely carcinogenic.
      So, you're right it's not the nicotine, but there is a genuine cancer causing agent in smoke and "smokeless tobacco" which turns out to be a rather bad case of mislabeling because it should properly be called "smoke cured tobacco."
      But I still chew tobacco and smoke on occasion. However, I spend a lot of my spare time researching stem cell therapies because I know I'm eventually going to need some replacements.
      I think tobacco is an awesome all-American product and I love it. I just wish we could convince our fellow Americans that somatic cell nuclear transfer stem cell therapy was also a good thing. Then we'd have two killer new product lines. Now that's how you boost GDP.

    36. Re:McDonald's by timbloid · · Score: 1

      Mmmmm.... Blunt force trauma...

    37. Re:McDonald's by brocheck · · Score: 1

      *MOO* TOMACCCCOOOOOOO!

      --

      suddenly I feel very tired

    38. Re:McDonald's by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      They do. McDonalds has a little advisory regarding MSG on their own site, sugar their buns to cause cravings (do a google search), and use recipes/flavors designed to return the best return on the investment possible at the expense of their customer's health (read fast food nation).

    39. Re:McDonald's by JohnPM · · Score: 1

      Funny you should say that. I don't think nicotine is necessary to create addictive fast food. There is a growing body of evidence (har har) to support the position that fast food is already highly addictive because of the unnaturally sharp rush of sugar to the brain.

      --
      Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
    40. Re:McDonald's by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

      It would be very bad if the salads they were addicted to all had fried chicken and tomaccos on them.

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    41. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what a load of horse..erm cowshit.

      In this super regulated country..whatever.

      I don't believe a single word of some anti-meat nazis.

    42. Re:McDonald's by eXtro · · Score: 1

      Lot's of plants are grown with phosphates, nut just tobacco. If marijuanna would be cultivated in a commercial fashion it'd also be raised on phosphate fertilizers.

    43. Re:McDonald's by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1
      Erm, that's utter bullshit (and I hate MacDonalds, before you start). It would actually be harder to do that than to slaughter the animal properly. I suspect you may have been trolled.


      The little hard bits are probably bits of gristle, because they're not too picky about which bits of meat they use. Oh, and the meat comes from beef herds in Brazil, where Foot and Mouth disease is endemic. Fortunately it's not that serious, if you vaccinate. *If*...

    44. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, those Iraqi people are so free, WE'RE RUNNING THE SHOW AND WON'T LET THEM HAVE THEIR OWN ELECTIONS!

      "Puppet Government 1.0 Installation Completed!"

    45. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone hasn't seen the movie: Soylent Green.

    46. Re:McDonald's by novakane007 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the women who are trying to loose wheight and still buying all their meals at fast food resteraunts. Your salad dressing contains 20g of fat by the way! You may as well just eat the burger.

      --

      WURD!!
    47. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a troll. That's the same reason cooks who work around frying vats and barbeque pits all day long have high rates of cancer, proteins burnt in air produce notroamines which are highly reactive free radicals. That's absolutely correct. Who modded that one? An American Tobacco rep?

    48. Re:McDonald's by Stephen+Maturin · · Score: 1

      This sounds familiar. I seem to recall something about them lacing the ketchup with extra sugar as well...

      --
      Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
      -- Cicero
    49. Re:McDonald's by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > WON'T LET THEM HAVE THEIR OWN ELECTIONS!

      Yes, exactly what they need... They are in the middle of serious turmoil, just got rid of a horrible dictator, are confused as hell, have no way of knowing who they should vote for due to the lack of communication, among other things... Yeah, real fucking smart idea, dipshit. I'd come up with better insults, but I don't want to have to explain them to such a clueless, worthless piece of shit like yourself.

      I hate rpelying to trolls, but sometimes people believe the lies.

    50. Re:McDonald's by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > cancer is caused by the fact that tobacco in the US is grown in radioative soil

      Wow, how amazing. Add into that fact that many, many things are "radioctive" and perfectly safe, and you start to look like a scaremonger. Radioactivity != bad, necessarily, or even slightly harmful. Do some research into what radioactive really means.
      Like the username, BTW :)

    51. Re:McDonald's by precogpunk · · Score: 0

      If you read fast food nation you'd have a more factual basis for McDonalds bashing. While their food is far from healthy, they buy more beef then any other source in America. Therefor they have greater quality control and standards applied then, say, the cafeteria where your children eat or maybe even the ground beef you buy at the supermarket. The pressure the public puts on McDonalds has (in small ways) trickled down to change the practice of meat suppliers. Being the #1 purchaser gives them the weight to do so. One example is how Burger King said it will make its suppliers follow guidelines for humane animal treatment ... Two years ago (before BK), McDonald's adopted animal treatment standards after the group (PETA) launched a similar campaign against it. (April 8, 2001)

    52. Re:McDonald's by meatball_mulligan · · Score: 1

      Well we all know that Col. Sanders, with his wee, beady eyes, puts an ingredient in his 11 secret herbs and spices that makes you crave his chicken fortnightly.

      m.m.



    53. Re:McDonald's by tzanger · · Score: 1

      Udder bullshit? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

      The beef in McD's in Canada is from Canada though, thankyouverymuch... We only have ONE case of BSE and it seems it came from an American cow anyway. :-)

    54. Re:McDonald's by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I don't think I know anyone who's ever seen a tomato on a McDonalds hamburger.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    55. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed I don't trust stoners. What kind of shit is that? OK, trace amounts of radioactive fertilizer show up in the smoke. But there is no indication that those levels cause cancer.

    56. Re:McDonald's by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      I hate rpelying to trolls, but sometimes people believe the lies.

      Yeah, I hate replying to trolls too, but one thing you say is true. Sometimes people do believe the lies. You should stop believing them and think for yourself for a second. Maybe then you'd be less of an asshole.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    57. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF does Newsradio have to do with "Soylent Green?"

    58. Re:McDonald's by alexq · · Score: 1
      not according to this article from bbcnews... and of course the many other places you can do a quick google on. :)

      though yes - originally it was believed by most that nicotine has no relation to cancer...

    59. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you want me to get thoroughly disgusting, I can explain how little fragments of bone get in your burgers not why more than the slightest trace amounts feces are unlikely to. The bone gets there from mechanical seperation where a machine goes in and strips the bone of meat in a manner more efficient than human hands can. Unfortunately, it sometimes gets a little bone in the quest for getting 99%+ of the meat off the bone. Since hamburgers are ground beef this commonly includes muscle mass that is not considered attractive for steaks, such as muscles along the spinal column.

      Fecal matter is rare. However, cow intestines are actually eaten as "tripe" by people or sometime included with the rest of the organ meat that goes into dog food. To get the fecal matter out of the intestines requires removing them and hooking them up to a roller system that squeezes out all feces and parasites before the remaining tissue is cleaned with a hose. (This can get really disgusting if something blocks the other end of the intestines and they explode from the pressure.)

      (Posting AC due to nauseating content.)

    60. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you Doobie Keebler?

    61. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burger King, we do it your way. As long as "Your Way" is the way we were going to make it anyway. Or you take the effort to tell us twice what you want and send the food back when we get it wrong the first time.

    62. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were tomatoes on that lovely little bit of styrofoam packaging, the McDLT, if anyone remembers those.

    63. Re:McDonald's by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I used to eat those! Wow. Look at all the good things the ban on styrofoam burger packaging brought to an end...Of course, you could just go to wendys and watch them MAKE your burger, which would have something related to actual tomato on it, which would also stay cool/hot for the amount of time you need to eat it.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    64. Re:McDonald's by AndrossTheVampire · · Score: 1

      Isn't Nicotine a poison? I remember hearing how you could kill a person with chewing or pipe tobacco.

    65. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      holy fucking shit!

      soil is radioactive?

      my brain is going to explode in a radioactive blast of pot-addled conspiracy theories!

    66. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the five minutes (and $1.25) it would take to verify your claim of incredible sugar content of McDonalds burger buns would cripple the econony of wherever you live.

      It's not like McDonalds burgers are so nutrious that you have to make up reasons not to eat them. Your bullshit just makes it easier for McD publicists to claim that those who chose not to eat trash are radical idiots.

      Please try to think rationally. Radical (and false) claims about negative influences are easily as dangerous as the marketing of those who seek to profit from said influences.

      McD burgers are trash, yes. Is the bun equal to "an iced donut of comaparable size"? Obviously not. It's not like we need to do a calorimeter test here.

    67. Re:McDonald's by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > You should stop believing them and think for yourself for a second. Maybe then you'd be less of an asshole.

      Umm, nobody told me that conclusion, I came up with it via my own thought processes. Oh, and speaking of asshole, you tell me (with no knowledge of me) to think for myself, yet you don't offer any reason why I am wrong. How about you get off yourself and try intelligent discussion? Or is that too much work that you'd rather just try to make yourself look smart by naysaying anything you don't agree with?

      Pissed off? GOOD! Give me something constructive. Tell me why I'm wrong. Tell me why I'm an asshole. Onine, I may well be one. Don't just make claims with no reason. Put my logic to shame, if you can (and you probably can).

      What makes you think that everything would turn out hunky dorey by letting a population of mostly uneducated people vote for leaders of their country, most of whom the populace has never heard of and don't know the views of? What makes you think the U.N. can't appoint a viable interim government? Why is it doomed to fail?
      At risk of making myself look like a bigger jerk than I really am, do you have any good reasoning to back up your stance, or are you just tagging along with liberal propaganda to make yourself look like the savior of the persecuted? To feel important? To be rebellious against the Republican, oppresive, "regime?" Try thinking for yourself, you might be surprised what you come up with, if you are honest and logical.

    68. Re:McDonald's by bigjocker · · Score: 1

      That line is from Newsradio, not from "soylent green" (they never say "soylent green IS people", do they?).

      It's from the Radio-From Outer Space episode

      --
      Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
    69. Re:McDonald's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you've never seen the movie, but then again few who quote it have either. Detective Thorn proclaims it in the climax of the movie. Look! Sound clips for the ignorant!

    70. Re:McDonald's by The_dev0 · · Score: 1
      Finished your little rant, fool? for a start, you misread the original post, whereas I was saying that a McD's bun has a much higher sugar content than a normal bread roll from the bakery, and that the sugar level is comparable to that of an iced donut. Read very carefully, it might get a little confusing for you here. I just checked it out and the McDonalds website says a Big Mac Bun contains 9.2 grams of sugar, and the Krispy Kreme website says one of their donuts has 10 grams. Is that rational enough for you? Or would you prefer I shot my mouth of at a complete stranger, while hiding behind the title of AC, when I am completely and utterly wrong, like you?

      Fucking Child. You could have had a look for yourself, you know.

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
  2. obligatory by wankledot · · Score: 3, Funny

    "This tates like grandma!" Love that episode.

    --
    My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    1. Re:obligatory by bruns · · Score: 1

      Another classic, but unrelated quote...

      "Mine tastes like burning!"

      --
      Brielle
    2. Re:obligatory by WTFmonkey · · Score: 1

      Yay! Sleep is where I'm a viking!

    3. Re:obligatory by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      "My god, this does taste like grandma! I'll take the whole basket."

      I wonder if/when we can expect to see this in stores?

    4. Re:obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one's also incorrect.

      "Oh, boy - sleep! That's where I'm a Viking!"

    5. Re:obligatory by HoldmyCauls · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "By God, this *does* taste like Gramma!"

      ewww...

      --
      Emacs: for people who just never know when to :q!
    6. Re:obligatory by generic-man · · Score: 1

      What's even better is that they actually incorporated that quote into one of the news segments. It cracked up the news anchor after the segment ended. :)

      --
      For more information, click here.
    7. Re:obligatory by jedrek · · Score: 1

      The best Ralphie Wiggum quote:

      "Me fail English? That's unpossible."

  3. Simpsons science is always a reality by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, just look at Skittlebrau!!

    --



    ...spike
    Ewwwwww, coconut...
    1. Re:Simpsons science is always a reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah! I was drinking "Skittlebrau" long before it ever came up in the Simpsons. It was Sprite, Bacardi, and Skittles, and it was damn good.

  4. they taste like by cmorgan47 · · Score: 0

    grandma

    --
    no i have not shot my gun in the air and gone 'Ahh!'
  5. Tomacco by MeanMF · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That's just wrong.

    1. Re:Tomacco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Congratulations! You have not failed to succeed it! Thank you for your valuable contribution to this forum. It is thought-provoking posts such as yours that makes slashdot a joy to read for millions of retired manicurists every year. Please do keep it up. If even I didn't enjoy your savory post, there shall be no denying of it's rigorous and firm nature.. I have noticed from you post pasting history that you are a timidity with the power and responsibility you have to make slashdot a unique living experience. Please exercise a lack of restraint in your wisdom deposity postazoans.

      Your insightful succulent succinctity sends shivers up my sphincter. Truly a welcome addition. Welcome to my friend-of-a-friend list. You will always be +1 informative to my bookie. I wish you many successful encounters with members of the apathetic sex. If I ever meet you, I will milk your goat. Lovingly yours, an admirable fan.

    2. Re:Tomacco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it feels... so right.

  6. Retraction by Godeke · · Score: 2, Informative

    I do find it interesting that the linked site has a retraction of the "Fox News is going to sue us" story. Perhaps a slashback is in order?

    --
    Sig under construction since 1998.
    1. Re:Retraction by cgranade · · Score: 1

      They already did.

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    2. Re:Retraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link, please.

      Nothing is provable without a URL.

    3. Re:Retraction by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nothing is provable without a URL.

      Ah, that proves nothing.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:Retraction by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Nothing is provable without a URL.

      Ah, that proves nothing.


      Just use a statistic...
      'You can use statistics to prove anything even remotely true..' Homer I believe...

    5. Re:Retraction by Cplus · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
    6. Re:Retraction by jjeffries · · Score: 0, Redundant

      How about now?

    7. Re:Retraction by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      Infinite loop! Aaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

    8. Re:Retraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damnit, now I'm going to be here all day...

  7. Playing God, with hilarious results. by Sheetrock · · Score: 1, Informative
    Genetic engineering/splicing seems to rile some folks, but I think it offers some interesting insight into the potential for ecosystems by design.

    As I understand it, evolution/natural selection is the natural effect when beings are subjected to adversity: only the strong survive. Thinking about this, it becomes clear that in a model where evolution is the sole factor traits that affect survival are gradually weeded out over time because those without such traits are more likely to survive. So too beings that experienced beneficial mutation are likely to preserve such traits.

    But this article raises an interesting consideration. When I was in junior high, we took a brief field trip to collect pond water to view under microscopes, and one of the most interesting things was how those little critters with the thing called a flagellum would zoom around. This article brings up the point that this device, which is not exclusive to pond scum, is "irreducibly complex": it is made up of several parts, none of which separately would be of beneficial use to the creature employing it (in fact, such a creature would probably die off under natural selection.) The odds of a mutation creating all parts simultaneously are astronomical, and consequently, the only accepted theory that can sanely describe such a thing is intelligent design, which has been hinted at in many different real-life examples as well as probabistically explained by Pascal's Wager.

    This theory is currently derided and discriminated against in favor of older theories, mind you, much as Galileo was in favor of the theory that the Earth was flat, because it threatens to dredge up the uncomfortable unknown. But like any theory, the more evidence that is found to support it particularly to the exclusion of existing theories, the more likely it is correct. So as skeptical as I am of intelligent design, I can't help but notice how much of our biological model it predicts. Has anybody heard anything more about this?

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by MoxCamel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The article you're referencing doesn't live there anymore. It's here.

    2. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Intelligent Design explains these biological models so well because ID was created to describe them. It's basically some "scientists" way of saying "well, we don't know how it happened, it must have been done on purpose by some higher being!" - ie, basically giving up on scientific foundations and going for the easy out.

    3. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by homer_ca · · Score: 4, Informative

      That creationist argument is debunked here (number 15):

      "Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells."

    4. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe covers the topic of "irreducible complexity" at great depth. An interesting read, no matter where one stands on the evolution vs intelligent design debate.

    5. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by seringen · · Score: 1

      Damn straight! All that "old science" sucks, let's just come to accept that math and physics is for people with too much time on their hands!!!

    6. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by freeweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This theory is currently derided and discriminated against in favor of older theories

      Are you trolling, or just entirely ignorant of human history? The OLDEST, most WIDELY ACCEPTED theory of biological diversity is creationism.

      Evolution and natural selection are very new ideas (relatively), and are still not believed by most people on the planet.

      As for "how much of our biological model it predicts", well of course it does. It's specious/circular logic:

      "Something complex needs intelligence to make it, therefore something intelligent made everything that is complex."

      "I don't understand the origins/purpose/design of something, so it MUST have been created by something even more intelligent than myself."

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    7. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Politburo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The odds of a mutation creating all parts simultaneously are astronomical, and consequently, the only accepted theory that can sanely describe such a thing is intelligent design

      So lemme get this straight. It couldn't possibly have been a 1 in billion chance, because we've been trained that "1 in billion" means "never happens", so it must have been a guy in the sky with lightning bolts, and that's the only "sane" thing you could come up with?

    8. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      intelligent design hmmm i have not seen anything in nature that can be explained by inteligent design ... nope to me this seems pretty much like almost complete and utter chaos ...

    9. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by csimicah · · Score: 1

      probabistically explained by Pascal's Wager.

      What the smell? Pascal's Wager doesn't "explain" anything. It's a reason that it's "safer" to believe but it's certainly no kind of explanation.

    10. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the oldest method of starting fire is to bang rocks together. Does it mean it's the best, more "most right"?

      We walked around naked for a lot longer than we have clothed.

    11. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      . This article brings up the point that this device, which is not exclusive to pond scum, is "irreducibly complex"

      The rhetorical trick we see here is to slip a logical fallacy into the prelude, so it appears to be an indisputable axiom, rather than a challengable part of the argument.

      In fact, those structures are not irreducibly complex. In the case of flagellum, scientists have already explained how incomplete organs were beneficial to microbes.

      However, even if we do not have an explanation for how a complex structure could've evolved, that doesn't harm the theory of evolution. An inability to explain is not proof of falsehood. Just because you haven't seen a writeup walking through each and every little step of a process, doesn't mean that process can't work. (I don't think any human alive can truely understand all of the machines used for modern, daily life. Yet they carry on somehow.). In fact, given that primitive life was created so many billions of years ago in conditions that were so adverse to preserving evidence, it should be unsuprising that the precise details are unknown.

      If one disgards arguments simply because one cannot personally comprehend every little detail, then creationism could be assailed with many more objections.

    12. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by DesertFalcon · · Score: 1

      "I don't understand the origins/purpose/design of something, so it MUST have been created by something even more intelligent than myself." It was created by something more intelligent than yourself - it was created by a billion years long process of mutation and natural selection. That system seems to have the ability to test out nearly every possibility, and keep only the ones that work.

      --
      --- 11 meters/second, or 24 miles per hour - the airspeed velocity of an unladen European swallow. Really.
    13. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by gavinjolly · · Score: 1

      I love this Einstein Quote. It quite succinctly sums up a lot of our current wisdom :

      "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.
      In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case.
      If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations.
      He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison."

      --

      The weathers here - Wish you were beautiful

    14. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is made up of several parts, none of which separately would be of beneficial use to the creature employing it (in fact, such a creature would probably die off under natural selection.)

      Have you considered that maybe all of those parts evolved as one and then gradually became distinct.

      For example, consider a student taking an introduction to programming course. Say he has no intelligent ability to design. It is not reasonable to ask him to write a function right of that bat to sort number that will fit into a larger program to read in, sort, then output a list. Because he has no intelligence.

      Instead the way things are taught is that the student is told to write anything that runs, then slowly add to it (iterative enhancement).

      A main function will eventually exist to achieve most of the final program functionality. As time goes on sections of code will be separated into separate functions. The sort function that had no chance of being developed individually by the unintellegent student now exists.

      My point is you can't take the final product and suppose that it was evolved along a certain path then say the path couldn't have been traveled without help, because the theory of evolution leaves open the possibility of many paths.

    15. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      It was created by something more intelligent than yourself

      By the scientific definition of intelligence ("the ability to score highly on an intelligence test"), the planet earth is surely deficient, or at least not much better than a human slashdot poster.

      the ability to test out nearly every possibility, and keep only the ones that work.

      Indeed, for most modern researchers and philosophers, "intellgence" is specifically the ability to deduce a solution without exhaustively attempting every possible move (ie, those things humans do so much better than computers). AI developers think of brute-force solutions as cheating.

    16. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Ieshan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're missing the point. Evolution has no solution.

      Evolution doesn't work towards an end result. That's part of what makes it so difficult to understand. Since there's no stable environment, there's no ultimate solution.

    17. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm amazed that this hasn't been modded "troll". I also can't believe that people are still trying to use this argument when the inherent flaws have been demonstrated for hundreds of years. Like all "by design" arguments, this is similar to the watchmaker's argument. (Look it up if you don't know what it is.) There are more than a dozen flaws in this reasoning.

      The number one flaw in the "complexity requires design" premise is that by the very premise, the designer requires a designer, who requires a designer, ad infinitum. So, either complexity has always existed, without a "first cause", which contradicts the premise, or the premise is false. Because of the self-contradiction, the former means the premise is false, and the latter of course just states it outright. Either way, the premise that complexity requires design is false.

      This isn't rocket science, it's a simple logical deduction that has been well known for centuries. That people still try to use it says a lot about the state of education (or brainwashing) today.

    18. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by WaltFrench · · Score: 1

      > Genetic engineering/splicing seems to rile some folks, but I think it offers some interesting insight into the potential for ecosystems by design.

      Hmmm... yes, even designers intelligent enough to recognize the similarities between tobacco and tomato can create a combination. Interestingly, the graft has no genetic future: the seeds of this tomacco will grow plants that show the characteristics of the tomato that the graft came from (and the other parent plant), exactly per the expectations that have Mendel developed a while back, quite independently of tobacco.

      So we see that the non-ID crowd has a "theory" of genetics that is useful outside the realm of the facts that the theory was developed with. That's science, and a big part of why we love it: it works to broaden our circles of understanding. ("Evolution" isn't directly a part of this story, any more than ID is.)

      OTOH, the ID school only has only "this is so weird that only God could have created it" to fall back on. And yet, a probably very non-God-like being, this Simpsons watcher, pulled it off with only the type of tricks that closely resemble what could (conceivably) have happened due to a harsh windstorm.

      So this cross doesn't seem to do much to advance the ID cause: ID is not only unnecessary to explain the particular fact, it is demonstrably wrong about the level of intelligent design, as well as the significance of the event.

      Not to go too far into ad hominem reasoning, but I've always wondered about people who so enthusiastically push "theories" such as ID. "ID is the answer! What was the question?" Kind of a bootstrap theory: you would only consider ID as an 'answer' if you assumed it was necessary. ID is too messy, too self-referencing, too limiting to have sprung up in the real world without ID. =^>

      --
      "Inquiring Minds Want to Know!"
    19. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We walked around naked for a lot longer than we have clothed.

      And if I ever meet the jerk that invented clothes, I WILL KICK HIS ASS!

    20. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Durandal64 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      But this article [breakpoint.org] raises an interesting consideration. When I was in junior high, we took a brief field trip to collect pond water to view under microscopes, and one of the most interesting things was how those little critters with the thing called a flagellum would zoom around. This article brings up the point that this device, which is not exclusive to pond scum, is "irreducibly complex": it is made up of several parts, none of which separately would be of beneficial use to the creature employing it (in fact, such a creature would probably die off under natural selection.) The odds of a mutation creating all parts simultaneously are astronomical, and consequently, the only accepted theory that can sanely describe such a thing is intelligent design, which has been hinted at in many different real-life examples as well as probabistically explained by Pascal's Wager.
      Intelligent design explains nothing. Please tell me how it increases the predictive capacity of any scientific theory in any way. All the intelligent design pushers do is observe something and say, "Aha! It must have been designed that way, or else it wouldn't work that way!" In other words, it's a tautology.

      Furthermore, in an infinite universe, astronomical odds mean nothing. It had to happen somewhere in the universe; intelligent life just happened to happen here. Unfortunately for us, we're just as screwed when the sun burns out.
      This theory is currently derided and discriminated against in favor of older theories, mind you, much as Galileo was in favor of the theory that the Earth was flat, because it threatens to dredge up the uncomfortable unknown. But like any theory, the more evidence that is found to support it particularly to the exclusion of existing theories, the more likely it is correct. So as skeptical as I am of intelligent design, I can't help but notice how much of our biological model it predicts. Has anybody heard anything more about this?
      It's a load of horseshit. It does not add to the predictive capacity of any scientific theory and is completely circular in its logic. If human beings were intelligently designed, do you think we'd be using the same pipe for breathing and swallowing solid food, thus introducing a potential choking hazard? Or would we have blind spots in our eyes? Wouldn't our bodies be robust, meaning that any part can fail with the rest continuing on? Any flaws of this magnitude in any modern piece of technology would be considered completely unacceptable and the result of inexcusable incompetence on the part of the designer. All of the glaring flaws in the human body are easily explainable by evolutionary theory, but intelligent design is helpless to explain them without assuming that the designer is a complete retard.

      Intelligent design is simply creationism in a clown suit, just like Windows 3.1 was to DOS.
    21. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 1

      > The OLDEST, most WIDELY ACCEPTED theory of biological diversity is creationism.

      And 1000 years ago, the OLDEST, most WIDELY ACCEPTED theory of the shape of the planet was "flat".

      Just think what we'll know tomorrow.

      --
      if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
    22. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by FrostedChaos · · Score: 1
      Pascal's wager doesn't work, because different religions tell you to do different, and often directly contradictory things. You can "burn in hell" for being a heretic, just as easily as you can for being a nonbeliever.


      Perhaps you should be worshipping the grand poobah of Crapholistan-- after all, there is about as much evidence for that point of view as there is for any other religious view.


      IMHO, religions are just mental parasites anyway. No legitimate idea would propagate like a disease, or try to tempt people with pyramid-scam-like rewards.

      --
      "Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
    23. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Holy Intelligent Design, only answer to Irreducible Complexity, I will fear no Evilution for thou art with me. Thy Flagella and thine Eye comfort me in the presence of the RatMats, when they tempt me with Explanation. Thy Clotting Blood is a curtain between me and Understanding. Yea, even when I tremble when the Scientists doth mock my silliness, thou lendest me Words with which to feel less silly, words even unto the bigness of the words of the Scientists. etc."

    24. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by nathanh · · Score: 1
      By the scientific definition of intelligence ("the ability to score highly on an intelligence test")

      That sounds more like an administrative definition. I'm pretty sure the scientists would turn to something like the Turing test.

    25. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by DesertFalcon · · Score: 1

      Hmm... okay. Intelligence was the wrong word. But surely we can agree that it's a process which has created some fascinatingly elegant solutions, and that such a system must be attributed some degree of sophistication?

      --
      --- 11 meters/second, or 24 miles per hour - the airspeed velocity of an unladen European swallow. Really.
    26. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, in an infinite universe, astronomical odds mean nothing. It had to happen somewhere in the universe; intelligent life just happened to happen here. Unfortunately for us, we're just as screwed when the sun burns out.

      Nah. It's an infinite universe, and astronomical odds mean nothing. The sun will suddenly spring back into life. :-)

      Wouldn't our bodies be robust, meaning that any part can fail with the rest continuing on?

      Actually, if you think about the degree of abuse we constantly take, it is pretty astounding. We're constantly being bombarded with UV and higher frequency rays that chew up our genetic material and cause uncontrolled growth. We're constantly being attacked by zillions of parasites and bacteria. We can lose chunks of almost anything and regrow it, and in many cases other, less damaged parts are capable of compensating. We have multiple central processing components, for God's sake -- separating the two halves of the brain produces a person that can continue functioning. We can lose a lung or a kidney, pretty fundamental components.

      Now, we don't think of these as a big deal, because it's stuff that we just shrug off, like a 3000 foot tall armored robotic space ninja shrugs off small missiles and doesn't think about it.

      To steal a line from Neal Stephenson, we're all stupendous badasses. If we weren't, we'd be dead.

    27. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually no. My definition is from a psychologist, whose field was the first that studied "intelligence". Because "intelligence" was such a controversial thing to define, they choose a minimal, inarguable definition so that research results could be unambiguously compared.

      The Turing test is not used by many (any?) scientists yet, not even CS or AI types. And it's not intended to measure intelligence either... all it could really present is a boolean guess.

      A real intelligence test is conducted by a dedicated psychologist, and has a greater range of values the scan-o-matic forms you may be used to. It's capable of measuring, supposedly, low intelligences like a dog (15 IQ) or venus flytrap (1 IQ). (And yes, there are some humans who score that low) As part of the process, the examiner will converse with the subject, thus subsuming the activities of a Turing test.

    28. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by nathanh · · Score: 1
      My definition is from a psychologist, whose field was the first that studied "intelligence".

      I would have thought philosophy was the first field to study intelligence.

      A real intelligence test is conducted by a dedicated psychologist,

      I'm not disagreeing with you but the way you phrased it sounds like the "Not a True Scotsman" fallacy.

      What distinguishes a "real" intelligence test from the unreal variety?

    29. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligent design explains nothing. Please tell me how it increases the predictive capacity of any scientific theory in any way.[...]In other words, it's a tautology.

      That may be, and while that would make it useless to science, that alone does not make it false.

      Furthermore, in an infinite universe, astronomical odds mean nothing. It had to happen somewhere in the universe;

      Excellent... somewhere in the universe, an exact duplicate of me is sleeping with 50 incredibly hot women. :D

      If human beings were intelligently designed, do you think we'd be using the same pipe for breathing and swallowing solid food, thus introducing a potential choking hazard? Or would we have blind spots in our eyes? Wouldn't our bodies be robust, meaning that any part can fail with the rest continuing on?

      I dunno, what was the design specification? You can't very well criticize a design unless you know what the goal was.

      If the goal was to produce the most fit species for survival then you're right. We suck. But while that's what evolution promotes, what makes you think that's all we are here for? (ah, probably presupposing unguided evolution)

      Maybe these are all features. Perhaps robustness is orthogonal to our true purpose. Our "design flaws" certainly haven't held us back much.

      Any flaws of this magnitude in any modern piece of technology would be considered completely unacceptable and the result of inexcusable incompetence on the part of the designer.

      To be perfectly honest, you don't know how serious these flaws are. I guess we'll find out when we can genetically engineer people with these issues fixed and watch them quickly take over the earth and enslave us lesser beings. (Note to scientists working on this: do not test with monkeys.)

    30. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what makes you think that's all we are here for?

      what makes you think we're here for any reason at all? (ah, because then the dark doesn't seem so scary ?)

    31. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Here, here slashdot. I agree. I believe I shall call this new theory "tardism:" the belief that god exists, and is all powerful, but has severe learning disabilities. Hence the duckbill platypus, the flying squirrel, most if not all Mollusks, quantum mechanics and the uncircumcised human penis, which is the fucking strangest thing in the known universe.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    32. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by beady · · Score: 1

      Consider it Brute Forcing a viable complex life form... it will work, eventually.

    33. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by mikebelrose · · Score: 1

      Nah. It's an infinite universe, and astronomical odds mean nothing. The sun will suddenly spring back into life. :-)

      No, it means in a sufficiently large universe, you won't be surprised if this happens *sometimes*, not all the time. You shouldn't make fun of mathematics when you don't even understand it.

      Actually, if you think about the degree of abuse we constantly take, it is pretty astounding. We're constantly being bombarded with UV and higher frequency rays that chew up our genetic material and cause uncontrolled growth.

      Actually, we don't handle it that well. That's why we keep getting skin cancer the moment the ozone layer weakens even a little. We live in a pressurized, temperature-regulated, magnetically shielded biosphere. We're not particularly hardy.

      We're constantly being attacked by zillions of parasites and bacteria.

      They are living things, and have weaknesses just like us. No surprise we can defend ourselves against other cells. Not to mention sometimes the bacteria win.

      We can lose chunks of almost anything and regrow it, and in many cases other, less damaged parts are capable of compensating.

      Actually, the human body is pretty bad at this. Many organisms can regrow limbs, or just have so many limbs regrowth is never necesary.

      We have multiple central processing components, for God's sake -- separating the two halves of the brain produces a person that can continue functioning.

      Get your brain hemispheres separated and then come back and tell me you're "functioning." It's not fun, and causes very strange disorders.

      We can lose a lung or a kidney, pretty fundamental components.

      We do have a spare kidney, but not a spare heart. How come when we have redundant parts, it proves ID, but when we lack them, it doesn't disprove it? You can't walk up to a glass, say it's half full, and then use that as proof of your pet theory about supernatural glass-fillers.

    34. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what makes you think we're here for any reason at all?

      We're here to propagate the species. So start breeding!

    35. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by happyDave · · Score: 1

      You need to read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett. He explains in there how you can have something like "intelligent design" without an intelligent designer, or even any designer at all.

    36. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Chacham · · Score: 1

      And 1000 years ago, the OLDEST, most WIDELY ACCEPTED theory of the shape of the planet was "flat".

      Um, not really.

      Pythagoras, measured the Earth's circumference. Aristotle brought proofs that it was round (round shadow on moon, ships on horizon, etc.). Atlas is holding a ball. For Judaism, the Talmud and the Midrush say its round. For Xtians, the early church fathers said it was round, and even debated life on the antipodes. Apparently, there were a couple church fathers who assumed flatness. Their influence in the church is debated.

      The best claim that people actually believed that nonsense, was between 400 and 1100. It is painfully clear that before and after then everyone knew it was round. The entire objection to Columbus's journey was that the world was larger than he thought, and that he would die at sea. They actually were correct. Had Columbus not bumped into America, he simply would have died from lack of provisions.

      There are probably more people today who believe the Earth is flat (E.G. the Flat Earth Society), then there have ever been.

    37. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Get your brain hemispheres separated and then come back and tell me you're "functioning." It's not fun, and causes very strange disorders.

      Despite the letters, "fun" has nothing to do with "function".

      That said, you can [and people do] function with only one half of their brain intact. Some of them entirely normally [if it happened sufficiently early].

      As an aside, why only one heart? Because it's timed. It's one of the few systems of the body with a clock.

    38. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      ID does nothing more than moveing the problem. If we were created by something intelligent (God, Aliens, the neighbours dog,...). Then where did God, the Aliens or the dog come from?
      It's a typical religious answer. It holds up only for as long as everyone simply accepts it.

      OTOH, they could claim Earth was made by God, God was created by SuperGod and SuperGod was made by MegaGod and so on.

    39. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
      Your proclamation that "There are probably more people today who believe the Earth is flat (E.G. the Flat Earth Society), then there have ever been." is not a useful statement since the planet is more heavily populated today. I believe that as a percentage, more people believed that the Earth was flat 1,000 years ago. You mention church elders and scientists as knowing that the Earth was not flat. But your average peasant working in a field probably believed that the Earth was flat based purely on their own involvement and looking at it. Let's remember that there was a much larger gap between the educated classes and those who toiled in the fields. I'm surprised that you can infer from the fact that scientists and church elders knew the Earth was not flat, that means "everyone knew it was round." Please offer some evidence of this.

      As it stands, my argument is much more reasonable. The majority of people were uneducated people who toiled in the fields and probably held similar views about the Earth as the Native Americans did - who we know thought the Earth was a large turtle's back and therefore flat. Don't be so quick to make sweeping generalizations like "everyone knew it was round" in the future. Also realize that comparing raw numbers between time periods is normally not of any actual value and more of a sad defense of a weak argument than anything else.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    40. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using that same arguement, I can justify a creation theory.

      "An inability to explain is not proof of falsehood."

      Yet, anytime the theory is broached on Slashdot, it gets shouted down because it lacks proof.

      Pot, meet kettle.

    41. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the error often made when taking about creationism & evolution etc. is that creationism only attempts to define what has happen in the past. Evolution given us an idea of what will happen in the future. The "predictive ability" as you put it. However, evolution does not exclude the possibility of creation.

      Let's say an organism from a previous location of intelligent life landed on earth millions of years ago by an asteroid, evolved and becomes us. It's plausable and is compatible with the theory of evolution. So how is that different than a higher power plopping down some humans and animals, who then evolved? Is the problem not wanting to recognize any higher power? I really don't see the theories as incompatible.

      Anyway... funny how tomacco gets us arguing over God and the scientific process.

    42. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      No, it means in a sufficiently large universe, you won't be surprised if this happens *sometimes*, not all the time. You shouldn't make fun of mathematics when you don't even understand it.

      Oh, I see. So this should happen sometimes, eh?
      Perhaps I misunderstood your comment. What we currently call the universe is not "infinite" in size. It's bounded (really, really freaking big, and been expanding since the Big Bang, but still finite) I figured you were talking about inifinite complexity. Is the universe not a continuum, filled with infinite complexity? Why is it that, somewhere in there, we don't see a spark that starts the entire thing blazing? Inifinite possibilities for it to happen, as there are an infinite number of positions for a particle to happen, infinite configurations of the system.

      Actually, we don't handle it that well. That's why we keep getting skin cancer the moment the ozone layer weakens even a little. We live in a pressurized, temperature-regulated, magnetically shielded biosphere. We're not particularly hardy.

      Well, I suppose it's all relative. It's like arguing whether something is "big" or not. Not much point. My original point was that we frequently overlook how robust we are, and that when you suddenly realize it, it's pretty impressive. I don't think you can argue on absolute terms at all one way or the other.

      They are living things, and have weaknesses just like us. No surprise we can defend ourselves against other cells. Not to mention sometimes the bacteria win.

      The fact that you're alive says that you're winning a lot more than you're losing.

      Actually, the human body is pretty bad at this. Many organisms can regrow limbs, or just have so many limbs regrowth is never necesary.

      As I said, it's all relative. I'd have a hard time designing such a robust system. :-)

      Get your brain hemispheres separated and then come back and tell me you're "functioning." It's not fun, and causes very strange disorders.

      Slice your P4 in half and then talk about "strange disorders". :-)

      We do have a spare kidney, but not a spare heart. How come when we have redundant parts, it proves ID, but when we lack them, it doesn't disprove it? You can't walk up to a glass, say it's half full, and then use that as proof of your pet theory about supernatural glass-fillers.

      Huh? No, I don't give a damn one way or the other about the existence of God or creationism or all that. I think it's pretty established that you aren't going to know one way or the other, and that arguing about it is a pretty moot point, and that it's a pretty good guess that the best way to function is to assume that things are pretty much as we see them.

      I'm not arguing in favor of creationism. I'm just pointing out that you were trivializing the human body.

      As far as I can tell, you simply don't want creationists to "win" an argument. A suggestion. Not all arguments that sway one away from your viewpoint and toward creationism are wrong. The only arguments you should be rabidly sticking to your guns on is whether we have any justification for believing that we were intentionally designed. You can't disprove creationism, but you can point out that using generally-accepted reasoning principles, we "should" function as if we weren't intentionally created.

    43. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      "I don't understand the origins/purpose/design of something, so it MUST have been created by something even more intelligent than myself."

      Works for me, especially when trying to install Linux.

    44. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see. So this should happen sometimes, eh?

      When it's physically possible. The sun simply defying every known law of physics and continuing to burn after it has expended all its fuel is impossible. Life forming from a combination of chemicals by chance is possible and permissible by the laws of nature. Nice job at completely misrepresenting my argument.

      Perhaps I misunderstood your comment. What we currently call the universe is not "infinite" in size. It's bounded (really, really freaking big, and been expanding since the Big Bang, but still finite) I figured you were talking about inifinite complexity. Is the universe not a continuum, filled with infinite complexity? Why is it that, somewhere in there, we don't see a spark that starts the entire thing blazing? Inifinite possibilities for it to happen, as there are an infinite number of positions for a particle to happen, infinite configurations of the system.

      In an infinite universe, anything that can happen will happen, somewhere. Does this mean that my chair could possibly convert all of its thermal energy into kinetic energy and go flying around my apartment? No. That's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

      Well, I suppose it's all relative. It's like arguing whether something is "big" or not. Not much point. My original point was that we frequently overlook how robust we are, and that when you suddenly realize it, it's pretty impressive. I don't think you can argue on absolute terms at all one way or the other.

      Bullshit. Intelligent design has very specific implications, meaning that we should hold the human body accountable to the same (or higher, if the designer is omniscient) standards that we hold any modern piece of technology to. We generally consider a lack of robustness and the possibility of complete destruction when performing a routine task (humans can die from eating because we use the same pipe for breathing as ingesting solid food) to be indicative of total incompetence. Why is this "intelligent designer" held to lower standards than modern-day mechanical and electrical engineers, even though the "intelligent designer" is supposed to be a code-word for God?

      The fact that you're alive says that you're winning a lot more than you're losing.

      That's thanks almost 100% in part to modern medication, which a good chunk of the world does not have. Without it, we'd be fucked. Without modern medicine, we can die from a common cold.

      As I said, it's all relative. I'd have a hard time designing such a robust system. :-)

      Irrelevant. The intelligent designer is purported to be omnipotent and omniscient. He has no such excuse.

      Slice your P4 in half and then talk about "strange disorders". :-)

      You can replace a CPU with very little effort. You cannot do so with a human brain, which does the central processing and data storage. Imagine how much flack any computer company would take for shipping a system in which the CPU and hard drive were inseparable. Yet, when it comes to the human body, this kind of design indicates intelligence.

      Huh? No, I don't give a damn one way or the other about the existence of God or creationism or all that. I think it's pretty established that you aren't going to know one way or the other, and that arguing about it is a pretty moot point, and that it's a pretty good guess that the best way to function is to assume that things are pretty much as we see them.

      I can confidently argue that there is no god, since those making the claim have not satisfied the burden of proof. We're never going to know for sure if there is an invisible, intangible family of unicorns living under my carpet, but that doesn't make the idea worthy of serious consideration.

      As far as I can tell, you simply don't want creationists to "

    45. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1
      So as skeptical as I am of intelligent design, I can't help but notice how much of our biological model it predicts.

      Please elaborate. What does ID predict?

  8. What the hell... by madmarcel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Did I miss something?

    Is it the 1st of April?

    Surely you are pulling my leg yes?

    Splicing/grafting plants together is not that hard, but I thought this could only be done with plants of the same eh..family.

    1. Re:What the hell... by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 2, Informative
      Splicing/grafting plants together is not that hard, but I thought this could only be done with plants of the same eh..family.

      According to http://www.museums.org.za/bio/plants/solanaceae/, tomatoes & tobacco are both in the same family (Solanaceae), along with potatoes, peppers and eggplants. I don't know how closely they have to be related for splicing/grafting tho.

    2. Re:What the hell... by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1

      My father would graft tomatoes and potatoes all the time, actually. Great way to get more out of limited garden space.

    3. Re:What the hell... by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good question. I've got one of my own. I'lll preface this by saying that I know absolutely NOTHING about botany, or plants. I can barely identify an oak tree. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I can identify an oak tree. Now then,

      So, you can graft together a fruit and tobacco, and get a fruit with nicotine. Could you graft a fruit and, oh, I don't know...say...a cannabis plant, and produce a fruit with THC? Would that be illegal? I mean, marijuana is illegal...but is a tomaijuana? (that would be a tomato with THC in it).

      Purely theoretical, of course....just wondering and all ;)

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:What the hell... by benjamindees · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Try hops.

      It was reported by Warmke and Davidson (1944) that hop scions grafted onto Cannabis stocks produced cannabinoid resins and this led to interest in the technique as a means of producing such material while avoiding legal restrictions.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    5. Re:What the hell... by baka_boy · · Score: 1

      Probably not with a tomato, given the distance of the plants; however, you might have pretty good luck with hops.

    6. Re:What the hell... by milkman_matt · · Score: 1
      Splicing/grafting plants together is not that hard, but I thought this could only be done with plants of the same eh..family.

      Well, Although I can't attest to that, I -do- know that Pig and Elephant DNA just won't splice...

      -matt

    7. Re:What the hell... by monkeyfinger · · Score: 0
      Could you graft a fruit and, oh, I don't know...say...a cannabis plant, and produce a fruit with THC?

      Exactly what I was thinking, except I had come up with the name Tommanabis.

    8. Re:What the hell... by monkeyfinger · · Score: 0

      The hops/cannabis idea has it's good point too. You could make beer from the hops....Cannabeer.

    9. Re:What the hell... by dfn_deux · · Score: 2, Informative

      This was later tested and disproved, it seems that THC is only produced in the buds and leaves of marijuana and as such grafting hops onto a marijuana root stock produces no measurable THC.

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
    10. Re:What the hell... by deglr6328 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If a Tomarijuana (or some such) plant is ever made (and the insane inflation of the price of marijuana created by the War on Drugs virtually assures that it eventually will be) it won't be done by simple grafting. It will be done with gene splicing, the gene that encodes the THC production in MJ will be inserted into another organism which will then produce THC in it's own cells. I don't know why this hasn't been done yet, it seems almost trivial considering the number of genetically modified crops that already exist. BAKED POTatoes anyone? (sorry) :-]

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    11. Re:What the hell... by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 1

      Well, if it IS real I'd call it Franken-fruit.

      --
      uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
    12. Re:What the hell... by DzugZug · · Score: 1

      THC is a small molecule not a protien. Individual genes code for protiens (peptide chains). Thus all of the trangenic crops we have seen so far are created with the addition of a single gene coding for a specific protien. One can make a glowing rabbit by adding the gene for green flourecent protien (GFP) from a jelly fish. The way that a plant makes THC is by converting one molecule to another using enzymes until THC is the final result. These enzymes are coded for by genes, so one could, in theory, make some plant produce THC but you would have to geneticly add the entire synthesis pathway, which is likely a large number of genes. It's not imposible but very difficult.

    13. Re:What the hell... by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Thank you, that is where people on the purely industrial hemp side of the debate (like myself) get royally screwed. With modern science, we can grow sterile hemp plants, no bud, negligible thc content, but Uncle Sam won't let my family go back to growing it like we did pre-45.

      Funny story about hemp production, my great-grandfather stopped growing after the 1937 season, since uncle sam said he couldn't anymore legally, fast forward 4 years and the here comes the tax man saying "grow the hell out of it, we need the rope for the war effort." so he did, 1945 was the last crop that was raised legally anywhere in the US, and he switched to tobacco and beef production until he died.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    14. Re:What the hell... by 0utlaw · · Score: 0

      Franken-fruit....lol...sounds like a gay Frankenstein

    15. Re:What the hell... by satterth · · Score: 1
      So, you can graft together a fruit and tobacco, and get a fruit with nicotine. Could you graft a fruit and, oh, I don't know...say...a cannabis plant, and produce a fruit with THC? Would that be illegal? I mean, marijuana is illegal...but is a tomaijuana? (that would be a tomato with THC in it). Purely theoretical, of course....just wondering and all ;)
      How the hell do you smoke a tomato?
      --
      Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
    16. Re:What the hell... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      Pomatoes????? Thats like mixing Irish and Italian ;-)

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    17. Re:What the hell... by jtcm · · Score: 1
      Could you graft a fruit and, oh, I don't know...say...a cannabis plant, and produce a fruit with THC?
      It's (supposedly) already been done with oranges!

      Hold on a sec while i find a link....googling...aha:
      I looked briefly for a more legitimate-looking source, but couldn't find much more than the above. I'd love to verify this story in a more personal fashion ;-)
      --
      @ASP.NET's parent-teacher meeting: "Little Johnny.NET is very bright, but he doesn't play well with others."
    18. Re:What the hell... by Condor7 · · Score: 1



      How the hell do you smoke a tomato?

      That's easy. You just lead it a little less.

    19. Re:What the hell... by greenstork · · Score: 1

      You have to burn THC to get high so unless you plan on smoking tomatoes, perhaps you should just stick to pot.

    20. Re:What the hell... by cujo_1111 · · Score: 1

      Have you heard of hash cookies? No smoking going on there...

      I bet you have 'friends' that smoke pot but never tried it yourself, right?

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    21. Re:What the hell... by maharg · · Score: 1

      No, that's not correct.
      THC dissolves quite nicely in fat (i.e. cookies, brownies, flapjacks etc work very well) or even better, in alcohol. Try steeping a pound of high grade marijuana in a liqour of your choice for a coupla weeks, then ingesting the result.

      --

      $ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
      @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
    22. Re:What the hell... by Rebelli0n · · Score: 1

      Actually he's right enough to make you wrong.

      THC does have to be burnt or at least heated to work, eating loads of weed won't get you very high. you need to smoke it, or make a tea from it, to activate it properly.

      Hash cookies usually don't have actual direct buds/leaves from cannabis in them, they have 'hash' in them, which is cannabis resin. I'm pretty sure the thc is boiled out of the cannabis and reduced down. This means hash has already had the thc 'activated'.

      The cookie making process also heats the THC up.

    23. Re:What the hell... by balloonpup · · Score: 1

      Why not Frinken-fruit? I mean, at least you'd have the reference with it all...

      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
    24. Re:What the hell... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      We'll have to rely on Holland researchers to produce Tomaujauna ;-) Something has to convince our society that marijauna prohibition is a complete waste of time, money and lives.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    25. Re:What the hell... by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >THC does have to be burnt or at least heated to work, eating loads of weed won't get you very high. you need to smoke it, or make a tea from it, to activate it properly.

      You're just plain wrong. Eating completely uncooked pot (say with a piece of bread to make it chewable) will get you as high as any other way of ingesting it. Sure, it'll take a little longer to kick in, but it works perfectly well.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    26. Re:What the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, Addicted to spuds...

    27. Re:What the hell... by size1one · · Score: 1

      "It will be done with gene splicing, the gene that encodes the THC production in MJ will be inserted into another organism which will then produce THC in it's own cells."

      I'm sure we won't have a problem finding human test subjects who want a perma-high.

    28. Re:What the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That would be impossible, since there isn't actually any THC present in marijuana plant matter, and thus no "THC gene." There are various cannibinolic and hydrocannibinolic oils in marijuana. When the plant material is burned, only then do these compounds convert to THC.

      If you tried to eat marijuana plant matter, you might get a stomach ache, but not much else. The conversion to THC requires heat. This is why marijuana "cookie" recipies work -- the plant material is HEATED.

      Not to mention, the experience of getting "stoned" is not only due to THC but hundreds of other related compounds. It is this "cocktail" of cannabinoids that provides the distinctive marijuana experience. Taking THC on its own will certainly get you high, but not in the same way as the "natural stuff."

      Causing another species to produce cannabinoids in exactly the right proportions to duplicate the marijuana blend will probably be next to impossible for the coming future -- even if we learn how to transplant and activate the genes, we won't know how to balance the mix.

      I'll stick to the real shit.

    29. Re:What the hell... by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      WRT the insane War on some Drugs, and prices; have a look at this recent Forbes article on the subject.

      Cannabis cultivation is worth $7Billion to Cannabis Farmers, $5B in beef for ranchers, wheat a paltry $1.7B, $4.3B for Logging and only oil and gas is more @ $15B.

      Drug prohibition is one of the gravest mistakes of Modern Culture.

    30. Re:What the hell... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      +1, Wierd Al fan :)

    31. Re:What the hell... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Sure, it'll take a little longer to kick in, but it works perfectly well.

      That's one-sided, you drug-hating communist :) (I don't know why I felt like saying that).

      You forgot the good side to the slow release. First, you get ALL of the THC into your system when eating it, as opposed to the large amount that goes "up in smoke" during more traditional consumption.
      Secondly, and more importantly, although it takes longer to kick in, it lasts a WHOLE lot longer. Eat a couple of well-made "brownies," and you can be messed up for a day & a half (though you have to use good stuff).

    32. Re:What the hell... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Try steeping a pound of high grade marijuana in a liqour of your choice for a coupla weeks

      A pound? Christ, man, you gotta be a friggin millionare to drop a pound like that. If you don't have 2 grand to throw away, I suggest using an oz or so for a litre of vodka. It turns a beautiful green color and goes down pretty easy... Too easy, maybe.

    33. Re:What the hell... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      "grow the hell out of it, we need the rope for the war effort."

      Sure, the GI's had to smoke something.

      I'm just pulling your leg - the farmers are getting screwed. Everybody knows hemp is innocuous, but Congress gets money from Big Tobacco and Big Paper, not from Little Farmers. Representation is dead.

      This in a country where the most popular drink is Coca-Cola.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  9. It's only Monday, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I feel very safe awarding this individual the Too Much Time on Your Hands Award for this week. Surely, nobody can surpass this.

  10. Hmm.. by dduardo · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder where they got the plutonium to grow the crop?

    1. Re:Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem; it's already in the groundwater.

    2. Re:Hmm.. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      They called Lenny and had him send it in the outgoing mail (while Carl watched and commented).

      Duh.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    3. Re:Hmm.. by Gunnery+Sgt.+Hartman · · Score: 1

      If uranium would work you can get that at http://www.unitednuclear.com

      --
      [ ]
    4. Re:Hmm.. by smegball · · Score: 0

      Well duh... From a group of Libyan nationalists of course.

    5. Re:Hmm.. by Unixinvid · · Score: 1

      I think that it was the social engineering of Bart calling the LOS Alamos labs in NM that he got the plutonium that homer need to get for his plants. Its for the love of simpson science I mean come on Homer did invent the spine replacer with a garbage can!!

  11. Someone's very happy by buddhaunderthetree · · Score: 3, Funny

    If Phillip Morris starts selling tomatos, I'm not buying.

    --
    "Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it." Max Firsch
    1. Re:Someone's very happy by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Kraft foods.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    2. Re:Someone's very happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kraft Foods is owned by Altria, not Philip Morris.

    3. Re:Someone's very happy by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Well up until this year Phillip Morris was also a in the food business.

    4. Re:Someone's very happy by cens0r · · Score: 1

      I do believe that you are wrong. But if you look closely on Altria's website, you will find that they are actually Phillip Morris. If I remember correctly they also own Miller Beer.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    5. Re:Someone's very happy by mickwd · · Score: 1

      Would that be an Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes ?

    6. Re:Someone's very happy by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      They sold (at a minimum a majority stake in) Miller to South African Brewery (SAB), they import Pilsner Urquell from the Chezck republic, it's pretty good, and makes a great black and tan. They're not really well known in the US, Heinekin beat them in the import race, but they are one of the bigger international breweries. In general beer is a natural monopoly, where the biggest player is highly unlikely to be knock out of the way, and each has a home turf that they own and export to the others areas where they make a small profit.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    7. Re:Someone's very happy by Banjonardo · · Score: 1
      But you buy oreos, right?

      You know, the addictive little cookies....yeah, that's right. From Nabisco.

      And who owns Nabisco?

      --

      -----

      Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

  12. MOD THIS POST UP +5 IMMEDIATELY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome my alien tommaco overlords!

    spend your mod points NOW

    1. Re:MOD THIS POST UP +5 IMMEDIATELY by ShortSpecialBus · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I might have given it one of my current mod points if you had gotten the quote right, you tool.

      --
      //FIXME: Bad .sig
    2. Re:MOD THIS POST UP +5 IMMEDIATELY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one doesn't have to be a kreskin to know that you will not lose your virginity until you are 28 years of age and even then, you will lose it to an african-american prostitute

    3. Re:MOD THIS POST UP +5 IMMEDIATELY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and?

  13. Tomatos aren't fruits. by veredox · · Score: 0, Interesting

    They are actually a type of vegetable called a fruit vegetable. Like a pumpkin.

    1. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right and glass isn't a liquid but a solid without a crystaline structure.

      Killjoy.

    2. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's botanically a fruit and culinary vegetable. There's no such thing as a "fruit vegetable".

    3. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that because a tomato is eaten during the course of a meal--and not for dessert--it could be classified as a vegetable and therefore could be subjected to import tariffs like other vegetables. But it is really a fruit (a special type of fruit called a plant fruit. Like an apple.)

    4. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      "It is knowledge that tells us that a tomato is a fruit. It is wisdom that keeps us from putting it in a fruit salad."

      MT

    5. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      All fruits are vegetables, much like every other plant on the planet. If it's alive, it's not an animal, and you can see it without a microscope, it's a vegetable.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    6. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by Number13 · · Score: 1

      fungus...

    7. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by kayen_telva · · Score: 0

      tomato is a fruit. fruit veggie is not a scientific term.
      although I did find this page that shows it clearly NOT in the fruit veggie category
      fao.org

      Here is what defines a fruit:
      ">ualr.edu

    8. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by GlynDavies · · Score: 1

      There's no need to be abusive. ;-)

    9. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      although I did find this page that shows it clearly NOT in the fruit veggie category

      Read your chart again, genius. It clearly IS listed underneath the category of fruit veggie. "Fruit Veggie" is the class, in which there are 5 subclasses, one of which is "berry fruits" to which tomato belongs.

    10. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by localghost · · Score: 1
      Wordnet:
      fruit
      n 1: the ripened reproductive body of a seed plant
      2: the consequence of some effort or action; "he lived long
      enough to see the fruit of his policies"
      3: an amount of a product [syn: yield]
      v 1: cause to bear fruit
      2: bear fruit; "the trees fruited early this year"
      A tomato is the ripened reproductive body of a tomato plant. A tomato is a fruit.
    11. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      They are actually a type of vegetable called a fruit vegetable

      No, you're thinking of Richard Simmons if he were in a coma.

    12. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by Random832 · · Score: 1

      from what i can tell That page is badly designed... the "empty category" "Fruit Vegetables" actually refers to all rows below it... similarly, "Herbage vegetables" refers to all rows below it and the FV header, and "Earth Vegetables" is intended to be on its own line as a header above "Roots"

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    13. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by Hepkat · · Score: 1

      you can't really, as far as I am aware, see a "fungus"...
      you can see a colony of fungi... therefore his description is fairly valid...
      on the other hand, who really cares?

    14. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Tomatoes are indeed fruits, as are pumpkins, cucumbers, watermelons, squash, and zucchini... although tomatoes are in genus Lycopersicon while Cucumbers, interestingly enough, are in the genus Cucumis, which is really a Melon. Squash, which is really a lot like a cucumber, actually lives in the genus Cucurbita, along with the Pumpkin and the zucchini. Watermelon lives in genus Citrullus. All fruit...

    15. Re:Tomatos aren't fruits. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Wow. That post just screamed troll, but after a quick search it seems the story is actually true!

  14. the standard profit formula by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Create Tomacco
    2. Profit!

  15. Soon, a Tomacco V8 by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It will be low calorie, high in vitamins and addictive. At least you get something for your nicotine poisoning.

    1. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      Nicotine has just beome another essential nutrient!
      Heak, it may be *mildly* "poisioness", but then, isn't everything poision to you? Grandma's cooking, vitimin C, Vitimin A, Fried chicken, etc?

      With all the vitimins, minerals, fiber and wholesome goodness of "all natural"
      Tomacco V8 has to be good for you!
      "IF it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger"
      -Grump

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    2. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      The best one is that now KFC is trying to pimp themselves as "healthy". I'm convinced that we are through the looking glass.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    3. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the drug nicotine isn't as "deadly" as the article casually states. It's a naturally occuring alkaloid in the same class as caffeine.

      Most people unscientifically associate nicotine itself as highly dangerous because of it's close ties to tobacco - which is a notable plant for having the amount and variety of OTHER chemicals that are definitely bad news.

      It is an addictive drug with powerful physiological effects, but it's not deadly unless you OD on a large amount, which is true of many drugs.

      The most they can come up with on long-term nicotine use itself is a tentative link to heart disease. But out of all the heart attack cases I've heard about, there always seems to be other significant contributing factors, like a couple decades of couch potatoing and pizza eating, if you know what I mean.

      Hell, I started using the patch and I don't smoke, after doing a little research on it. Helps with my music and programming, very real reasons why too, the nicotine molecules interact with the synapses in your brain and improve the electrical responses. Based on real life productivity levels, I seem to be doing fine.

      (erk... dies of a heart attack on the spot :-)

    4. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      Heak, it may be *mildly* "poisioness", but then, isn't everything poision to you?

      IIRC, nicotine is among some of the most poisonous substances known. It is used as the active ingredient in some insecticides. The only reason cigarettes don't kill you immediately is that they contain it in very minute amounts.

    5. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Well, if you have enough of it, anything is poisonous, even things we need to live like water and oxygen are deadly if you overdose. The dose for nicotine just happens to be lower than that for some other substances, the nicotine isn't what makes cigarettes deadly anyway, only addictive. If we're going to go after addictive substances which are deadly with the wrong dose we can always go after caffeine.

    6. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by bendude · · Score: 1

      Special thanx go to the person who found this body, lifted it off the keyboard, clicked on "Preview", waited.... and then submit.

      --


      Get the Hell off my planet, you slimy mobster Bush!
    7. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Special thanx go to the person who found this body, lifted it off the keyboard, clicked on "Preview", waited.... and then submit.

      I'm feeling better, actually. False alarm.

      Admittedly, nicotine is more dangerous than that, someone said it can also damage your blood vessels and lead to an increased chance of blood clots.

      Probably true, but I think the biggest risk factor is your genetic susceptibility to these effects. It's all a crapshoot.

      I *personally* don't worry too much about using nicotine due to what I've seen in my family line.

    8. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's a naturally occuring alkaloid in the same class as caffeine.
      This may be true, but caffeine is not thought to cause respiratory failure and paralysis in sufficient yet small quantities (less than 50mg) or serious heart palpitations, lowered blood pressure, nausea, or dizziness. In fact, while caffeine causes minor increases in blood pressure and has one addictive side-effect (headaches as withdrawl symptoms), it's generally considered, at least compared to nicotine, harmless.
      which is a notable plant for having the amount and variety of OTHER chemicals that are definitely bad news.
      Very true. Cigarettes contain plutonium, after all.
      It is an addictive drug with powerful physiological effects, but it's not deadly unless you OD on a large amount, which is true of many drugs.
      Large amount being a relative term. It is an exceedingly strong poison, and the reason why it was tolerated for so long was that the quantities in cigarettes were so low. This, however, shouldn't be used to suggest it isn't dangerous. The drug is also thought, for example, to act as a catalyst with other carceogens, encouraging the growth of tumours. Cigarettes are probably uniquely dangerous because of the combination of carceogens and nicotine.
      Hell, I started using the patch and I don't smoke, after doing a little research on it. Helps with my music and programming, very real reasons why too, the nicotine molecules interact with the synapses in your brain and improve the electrical responses. Based on real life productivity levels, I seem to be doing fine.
      Do you know that, or just think that?
    9. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 1

      I've had 1200mg of caffine before, and I was fine.

    10. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by Viceice · · Score: 1

      You know, you could make a really good diet for obese smokers.

      Think about it, because the tomato contains nicotine, it could be used just like a patch, so you replace the cig's with salad, low calorie pasta etc. With a bit more research, you could likely graft a few more crop plants and you'd have a veriaty of vegetarian foods for which to make a good weight loss diet and help one kick the habit at the same time.

      Plus, for once, the subject won't mind sticking to a vegitarial diet coz they'll get a mild kick out of it.

      --
      Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
    11. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      KFC "healthy" comparison.
      Ok, so if I were to go to get some fast food:
      1. I don't buy a drink. Drinks are their highest profit margin, worst use of "my" money.
      2. I can be a big eater, I'm 5'11, 200 pounds. 20 yrs old.
      3. Being 20 and not making 100+k a year, "my" money is important. (you don't see me driving around in an NSX do you?)
      4. When I go to KFC, I get 3 pc thigh/leg w/buscuit. I have calculated the cost/item to be lowest this way. "best deal"
      5. I don't normally go to a fast food joint and eat all that much. But i'm trying to be comparable with KFC.

      KFC: 3 piece thigh/leg w biscuit (
      Calories: 1090
      Fat 72 g
      Cost: 3.40+tax

      Jack In The Box: 1 Ultimate Cheeseburger, 2 reg tacos.
      cal: 1330
      fat: 74
      cost: 3+tax. (currenetly, JIB has a 1.99 ultimate cheeseburger deal)

      McDonalds: 2 McChicken, 1 double cheeseburger.
      ca: 1340
      fat: 72g
      cost: $3+tax
      All 3 are 70ish in fat, but in calories, KFC is about 300 lower.(that is a 1/2 hour of jogging)
      Cost is also about the same.

      However, if I were to go to JIB, it would just be an Ultimate Cheeseburger, and Mcdonalds would simply be 2 McChicken.

      Thus, KFC would be less healthy, and cost me more money too.

      -Grump
      Note: Prices approximate, nutritional values were taken from the respective restruant web pages.
      If I have mislead you in any way, SUE me!

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    12. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      Yup. A single drop of pure nicotine will kill you in seconds. It is a deadly nerve agent, but is organic and would break down quickly into (relatively) harmless components in the environment. It could be cheaply and easily refined from tobacco plants. I suspect the reason why the military has not followed through on this is because the cigarette industry would cut off their supply of smokes...

    13. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      True, that. Of course, by your reasoning, we all may as well well jump off a tall building, since, after all, we could die just as easily from a concussion after stumbling over a pebble.

      (That is sarcasm. I am trying to point out that you have demonstrated utter cluelessness in comparing risks. Some activities are high-risk. Some are low-risk. None are no-risk. Society's goal should be to MINIMIZE risk. We cannot eliminate it, and we should not recoil from lowering risk simply because we cannot eliminate it. Perfect is the enemy of good enough; good enough is the enemy of better. Find a happy medium.)

    14. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by mpe · · Score: 1

      IIRC, nicotine is among some of the most poisonous substances known. It is used as the active ingredient in some insecticides.

      Nicotine is one of a large group of plant produced chemicals known as alkaloids. The reason plants produce these chemicals is to protect themselves.

    15. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by mpe · · Score: 1

      None are no-risk. Society's goal should be to MINIMIZE risk. We cannot eliminate it, and we should not recoil from lowering risk simply because we cannot eliminate it.

      Actually things arn't so simple. Place people in a situation where they feel "too safe" and they will behave recklessly.

    16. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by mpe · · Score: 1

      Large amount being a relative term. It is an exceedingly strong poison, and the reason why it was tolerated for so long was that the quantities in cigarettes were so low.

      As well as cigarettes being a rather inefficent way to ingest the drug. Most likely nicotine being such a potent neurotoxin is also why it is so addictive.

      This, however, shouldn't be used to suggest it isn't dangerous. The drug is also thought, for example, to act as a catalyst with other carceogens, encouraging the growth of tumours. Cigarettes are probably uniquely dangerous because of the combination of carceogens and nicotine.

      Any kind of cigarettes, regardless of the plant(s) used, are hardly exactly healthy.

    17. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1

      Not quite true... You also have to take into account the way of delivery - nicotin uptake during smoking is way lower than nicoting uptake during ingestion. While you won't get nicotine poisoning from smoking three cigarettes in a row, the amount of nicotine contained in these cigarettes will give you serious problems if extracted and taken orally. So tomacco is definitely not a good idea.

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    18. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

      To continue the Simpsons theme, our lawyers have asked us to make it clear that V8 juice is NOT 1/8 gasoline.

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    19. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      I rather disagree. I think it's society's goal if you live in a socialist republic. If you live in my libertarian utopia :) it's the individual's responsibility to manage risk.

      I think most of the issues of the day (wars, social security, medicaid/care, etc) are essentially driven by people who think like you do ("it's the job of society") whereas people like me ("bah, it's everyone's individual responsibility") see potential results and solutions far differently. Oh well...

    20. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      I suspect the reason why the military has not followed through on this is because the cigarette industry would cut off their supply of smokes...

      Actually, I suspect it's because they have a better way of incapacitating or killing the enemy army--bullets.

      The CIA, OTOH, probably has "distilled nicotine" as one of their poisons. And they kill people so rarely, we just don't notice.

    21. Re:Soon, a Tomacco V8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You used to be able to buy it fairly pure (for mixing with water and spraying). I still see it at estates sales now and them. I'm to scared to buy it. It's like keeping WMD in your house.

  16. An alternative to the patch? by pi+eater · · Score: 0

    I guess they could use tomatoes as an alternative to the patch now?

    funny geek shirt

  17. Let's make our own TV show by wackybrit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everyone seems to set about making the impossible things in TV shows become a reality. Perhaps we need to start a TV show where geeks get laid by hot chicks all the time?

    1. Re:Let's make our own TV show by JFMulder · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't lose hope. NBC is doing just that right now. It's called "Average Joe". See it here.

    2. Re:Let's make our own TV show by retro128 · · Score: 1

      Actually I think what parent poster had in mind is 12 hot chicks and one nerdy guy, not the other way around.

      --
      -R
    3. Re:Let's make our own TV show by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't watch the show, but it seems to me each guy has some private time with the girl to impress her and each week she decides which guy quits the show and at the end the stays with the guy or something. Anyway, as I said, it's a start. :p

      Anyway, as long it's not 12 guys AT THE SAME TIME with the chick....

    4. Re:Let's make our own TV show by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anyway, as long it's not 12 guys AT THE SAME TIME with the chick....

      Yeah, geeks can already download plenty of that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Let's make our own TV show by retro128 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't have to watch the show because I'm going to tell you how it ends: She will spend the whole show finding out how much each guy's got in his bank account, and pick the one with the biggest number. The End :)

      --
      -R
    6. Re:Let's make our own TV show by greymond · · Score: 1

      geeks get laid by hot chicks all the timewithout paying for it?

    7. Re:Let's make our own TV show by stor · · Score: 1

      >each guy has some private time with the girl to impress her and each week she decides which guy quits the show

      What a deal! I'd expect geeks to be lining up for the public humiliation.

      Sheesh, the geek (actually the male) ego is fragile enough as is.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    8. Re:Let's make our own TV show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That show's a joke. 1 or 2 fat nerds and some lawyers vying for a hottie? CRAP. NEXT !

    9. Re:Let's make our own TV show by Canuckanuck · · Score: 1

      Get ready to lose hope. Quoth thy host, Kathy Griffin:

      "How did the guys react to Melana?
      The guys all had different reactions [to Melana]. Some were in love within 20 seconds, others seemed more into each other. Talking about Star Trek, going in the hot tub. Nerd guys aren't so into chicks, they're into comics and fantasy football."

    10. Re:Let's make our own TV show by the_real_tigga · · Score: 1

      >>Anyway, as long it's not 12 guys AT THE SAME TIME with the chick....

      >Yeah, geeks can already download plenty of that.

      For example using nicotine.

      --
      my .sig is better than yours.
    11. Re:Let's make our own TV show by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      Fantasy football?

      Yea right!

      Geeks aren't into sports or football. I've watched one football game in my life. It was boring.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    12. Re:Let's make our own TV show by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Try this (www.fastseduction.com) and make it a reality.

  18. What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetables by qewl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Start them early with Tomacco's! They'll start craving vegetables.. then just give them regular tomatoes. They'll have already made the connection that tomatoes make you feel better!

    Also seems like a good way to try to quit smoking?

    --

    (\_/)
    (O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
  19. They are. by benjamindees · · Score: 5, Informative


    They are both nightshades.

    Tomato plants can get the Tobacco Mosaic virus, too.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:They are. by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Something makes me think Tomacco would be the "deadliest" nightshade...

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    2. Re:They are. by spektr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tomato plants can get the Tobacco Mosaic virus, too.

      Frightening. Is IE also vulnerable?

    3. Re:They are. by daeley · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is IE also vulnerable?

      IE is *always* vulnerable. ;-)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    4. Re:They are. by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but people can get chicken virus. I think that there is a fish virus too that we are capable of getting. And mad cow disease. Still we aren't birds or fish or ... errr....

      Oh hell, it's a good point anyway. Both nightshades, ok.

    5. Re:They are. by Gumber · · Score: 1

      Also in the nightshade family:
      Jimson Weed
      Digitalis
      Foxglove
      Beladona

      Tomatos were not well regarding as a food plant because of this lineage. I remember reading that european colonists in the New World wouldn't eat them until they had gained a foothold back in the old world.

      The same book had a story of a guy who tried to create a hearty tomato plant he could transplant in the early spring by grafting a tomato stalk onto a jimson weed rootstock. It did marvelously and they had nice juicy tomatos at a record early date. They didn't eat many of them, after the first one caused the whole family to hallucinate.

    6. Re:They are. by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      The same book had a story of a guy who tried to create a hearty tomato plant he could transplant in the early spring by grafting a tomato stalk onto a jimson weed rootstock. It did marvelously and they had nice juicy tomatos at a record early date. They didn't eat many of them, after the first one caused the whole family to hallucinate.

      Hmmm, what is the name of this book?

    7. Re:They are. by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      I dunno, it's kinda tough to top the death-rate from tobacco.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    8. Re:They are. by killthiskid · · Score: 1

      This tomato makes me think I'm grandma!

    9. Re:They are. by freeweed · · Score: 1

      I'd volunteer bullets, but those don't grow on plants.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  20. Botanical vs. Legal by thorrbjorn · · Score: 5, Funny

    yes, tomato is a fruit technically

    Yes, botanically the tomato is a fruit. However, legally, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, tomatos are vegetables.

    1. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The passages cited from the dictionaries define the word 'fruit' as the seed of plaints, or that part of plaints which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants, covering and containing the seed. These definitions have no tendency to show that tomatoes are 'fruit,' as distinguished from 'vegetables,' in common speech, or within the meaning of the tariff act."

      I just don't get this paragraph in this judgement. It's as if the judge said something like "a computer program is a set of instructions written in some language that tells a computer which actions to take. therefore the linux kernel is not a program." What the hell? What is a tomato if it is not "part of plaints(sic) which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants, covering and containing the seed" ?!?!

    2. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by roemcke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmm... I guess the Supreme Court has the power to overrule the laws of nature.

    3. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      Wow, that judgement truely encapsulates all of the fine principles of the US legal system. Screw reality, just go with the money. I like it!

    4. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I guess the Supreme Court has the power to overrule the laws of nature.


      No, but the Supreme Court does have power over dictionaries.

      `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master-- that's all.'
    5. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by bechthros · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that and half a million people's votes...

    6. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And pi is 3.

    7. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by newhoggy · · Score: 1
      Yes, botanically the tomato is a fruit. However, legally, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, tomatos are vegetables.

      Reading your link, it seems they are a vegetable only in commerce or in trade rather than legally as a whole.

    8. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      I think what they meant was "yes the definitions you showed us show that tomatoes are fruit, but everyone knows the real definition is fruit are sweet, so thats the one we'll use"

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    9. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all flowerings plants produce fruits, when they reproduce sexually. a fruit is a fruit even if it contains only one single seed and has no fleshy parts, e.g a grass seed is a fruit. in fact, a fruit can lack seeds altogether (a partenocarp), like cultivated bananas. the fruit of tomato is a berry. 'fruit' and 'berry', used as botanical terms, have precise meanings.

      to define a vegetable is trickier, so we leave it to the lawmakers.

    10. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legally Ketchup (Catsup) is a vegetable, thanks to the Reagan administration.

    11. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was a berry.
      nevermind..

    12. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      However, legally, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, tomatos are vegetables.

      So was ketchup, according to Ronald Reagan. Did anyone ever rescind that?

      Too lazy to Google for it. Now, THAT'S lazy.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    13. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by chendo · · Score: 1

      No...

      Now tomatoes are a DRUG!

      --
      Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
    14. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but botanically, the tomato really is a berry, related to e.g. a strawberry. The botanical difference between a fruit and a berry is that a fruit has a large seed (or kernel, I don't know the correct botanical term in English) in the middle, while a berry has small seeds spreaded all around in the berry.

    15. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

      The word "fruit" dates from the 12th century. For some reason, scientists think they can take a word that has been in usage for hundreds of years and then redefine it for their own insidious purposes.

      -a

    16. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by Canuckanuck · · Score: 1

      So a banana is a berry then?

    17. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by ampersandTHORN · · Score: 1

      And according to Dan Quayle, tomatoe was a vegetable.

    18. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by the_real_tigga · · Score: 1

      > So a banana is a berry then?

      Yes.

      --
      my .sig is better than yours.
    19. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by Tellalian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm... I guess the Supreme Court has the power to overrule the laws of nature.

      Not at all. What the judge determined is that the definitions for "fruit" and "vegetable" vary depending on context. To scientists and botanists, the tomato is a fruit as defined by its physical structure, but in commerce the tomato is a vegetable as defined by its use, acceptance, and general association with other "vegetables".

      It's not like the judge ruled that gravity doesn't exist. He just made a legal distinction based on the context of a word.

    20. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the Supreme Court has the power to overrule the laws of nature.

      They certainly do, especially in their recent sodomy decision. Those unnatural faggots! Soon they'll be a'marrying!

    21. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      The idea that the grammar and vocabulary of the English language is a subest of the Laws of Nature horrifies and disturbs me.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    22. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      As does my ability to spell said language....

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    23. Re:Botanical vs. Legal by nyseal · · Score: 1

      And we ALL base our knowledge of the science world on laws interpreted by the US Supreme court, right?

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
  21. Tomacco this, tomacco that... by jptechnical · · Score: 1

    Noone pays any attention to his Mincemeat Pies.

    --

    Boredom's not a burden anyone should bear.
  22. This Might Be The First Patent Application... by cmason32 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wherein The Simpsons serves as prior art.

    1. Re:This Might Be The First Patent Application... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scary fact...it isn't.
      Matt Groening has at least 2 with Futurama too.

    2. Re:This Might Be The First Patent Application... by beebware · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I have a plan to block out the sun" - "Professor Chaos" (aka Butters), South Park. First cartoon characters and now scientists are finding out that "The Simpsons already did it".

    3. Re:This Might Be The First Patent Application... by IncredibleCrisis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but didn't Family Guy already do Homer's taking over for Death last night?

    4. Re:This Might Be The First Patent Application... by andrewagill · · Score: 1

      Yet prior to that, there was apparently an article from the 1959 Scientific American where someone did the same graft. It was reprinted in Bio-Organic Chemistry 1968 pg. 170 ISBN 0-7167-0974-0

    5. Re:This Might Be The First Patent Application... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was blatant, but that whole idea was from some old movie. Anything that you can think of has already been thought of.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  23. You Just Can't Stop Eating Them! by divide+overflow · · Score: 3, Funny


    They're simply addictive! We hope to have a full line of Tomacco snack food products on the shelves as soon as we can get the pro-forma FDA approval.

    -- R.J. Reynolds

    1. Re:You Just Can't Stop Eating Them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think the phrase you're looking for is "betcha can't eat just one". (No really, we did bet -- we bet the R&D budget that it took to create the nicotine-containing snack products.)

  24. Now! by blackmonday · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's get this guy working on the raining donuts!

    1. Re:Now! by ectospasm · · Score: 1

      That's easy... blow up a Krispy Kreme truck...

      --


      We are the music makers. We are the dreamers of the dreams.
    2. Re:Now! by redherring22 · · Score: 1

      donut? what's a donut?

  25. The return of the killer tomatoes by HermanZA · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can see the crowds at the movie theaters...

  26. Gotta be safer that cigarettes.... by ciroknight · · Score: 1

    Hey, at least now people can poison themselves eating devil fruit instead of smoking and getting lung cancer... this has gotta be highly marketable to those wanting to kick the habit.. easier to kick eating the tomato than smoking a cigarette... and probably hella cheaper too.

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    1. Re:Gotta be safer that cigarettes.... by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      The day will come when a bored researcher puts the active gene for your favorite chemical mood modifier into say bermuda grass or even one cell algae. Poof...end of drug cartels. Poof...end of ability to keep drugs out of the hands of any citizen who wants to get zipped.

    2. Re:Gotta be safer that cigarettes.... by DeltaSigma · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah... I was going to do that... with acid... had it growing in strawberries... but then I tried it and kinda... forgot how I did it... along with eight years of college...

    3. Re:Gotta be safer that cigarettes.... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the cartels don't exist because is hard to make/grow drugs now, even idiots can do it.

      the why it's hard part(and the part why organized crime, cartels, owns the business) now is because it's illegal.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Gotta be safer that cigarettes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever try to make cocaine? I spent the better part of one night at it and screw that, all I did was get messy.

    5. Re:Gotta be safer that cigarettes.... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      cocaine is a childs play compared to most industrial chemical processes.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  27. Camatos! by clutch110 · · Score: 1

    Now all we need it caffine infused tomatos!

  28. Married with children.... by ubugly2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm still waiting for the "tobaccy and clam ice cream" for chain smoking otters.

  29. Nicotine not so bad by marko123 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Setting fire to tobacco leaves and breathing in the smoke gave Nicotine, an innocent bystander (in moderation), with potential for improving the brain's concentration levels, a bad name.

    Bad company corrupts good character. And in the case of Nicotine, bad cigarette companies.

    --
    http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
    1. Re:Nicotine not so bad by 11223 · · Score: 1

      Is Nicotine any better at these things than the far less addictive caffiene?

    2. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nicotine, an innocent bystander (in moderation)

      Nicotine is only innocent because it can't make any choices. Nicotine is very addictive and dangerous, even in moderation.

    3. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Number13 · · Score: 1

      Nicotine is dangerous to consume over a long period of time, even without the tar and other crap in a smokey treat. Fscks with your heart. Take too much in a single setting, and you die. It's poison. But gawd I love it.

    4. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      Much like the delicious coca plant.

    5. Re:Nicotine not so bad by DynaSoar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      marko123 sez: "Setting fire to tobacco leaves and breathing in the smoke gave Nicotine, an innocent bystander (in moderation), with potential for improving the brain's concentration levels, a bad name."

      A bad name is right.

      When the Taino people discovered and rescued that lost Italian guy, Columbus, he saw that they took these dried leaves, rolled them up into a tube, lit them on fire, and breathed in the smoke through their nose. When he asked them what they called that, they replied "tobago".

      Tobago is Taino for "tube". It started with a misunderstanding, and that continues to this day.

      The original residents of North America have always considered tobacco to be a medicinal plant, to the point of being considered sacred. Science is now finding that nicotine is beneficial to several disorders. Furthermore, there's something in tobacco (other than nicotine) that prevents Parkinson's in two-thirds to three-quarters of people who use it. And yes, that's adjusted for mortality/comorbidity.

      As with anything, it's a matter of using it appropriately, or bad things happen.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    6. Re:Nicotine not so bad by marko123 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you posting in the right place? Your comment was full of information and completely lacking in radical bias.

      Thank you. I think I learnt something today.

      Cheers

      --
      http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
    7. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Pav · · Score: 1

      I watched a documentary on this on the ABC (Australia) and they were saying that the main reason nicotine is so addictive is the delivery method. The smoke is inhaled and gives an instant highly concentrated hit. Instant positive reenforcement. I'd imagine ingested nicotine would be much less addictive.

    8. Re:Nicotine not so bad by NorthDude · · Score: 1

      Take too much in a single setting, and you die. It's poison. But gawd I love it.

      Caffein: Take too much in a single setting, and you die. It's poison. But gawd I love it.

      Sugar: Take too much in a single setting, and you die. It's poison. But gawd I love it.

      And finally, for this incredible adrenaline rush!>

      Man... anything can and WILL kill you in to much a single setting, even an adrenaline rush!

      --


      I'd rather be sailing...
    9. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Innocent? That's why it's used as insecticide and herbicide.

    10. Re:Nicotine not so bad by budgenator · · Score: 1

      People I've know who've quit both smoking and chewing tabbaco at diferent times consistantly said quiting smoking is easier. I assume that when chewing, a higher amount is absorbable, when smoking you get a higher, quicker peak dose that doesn't last as long.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Reage · · Score: 1

      Sugar: ORL-RAT LD50 25800 mg kg^-1
      Caffeine: ORL-RAT LD50 192 mg kg^-1
      Nicotine: ORL-RAT LD50 50 mg kg^-1

      I think I know which ones I'd rather play around with.

    12. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      I'd guess that the nicotine from chewing tobacco is absorbed through the oral mucosa, sort of like nicotine gum or sublingual tablets (sl lorazepam tablets, which dissolve under the tongue and are absorbed there, are much quicker acting - and from what I've seen, more addictive - than the regular tablets, which dissolve in the stomach).

    13. Re:Nicotine not so bad by stapedium · · Score: 1

      Smokers do in fact have a lower incidence of Parkinson's Disease.

      What you fail to mention is that the protective effect of smoking is far outweighed by the increased chance of stroke, oral cancer, heart and lung disease.

      Your second point that the studies controlled for "mortality/comorbidity" is a little misleading.

      It is a current matter of debate among neurologists as to whether smoking is truly protective. Increase numbers of cholinergic receptors (the ones that Nicotine binds to) are seen in brain scans of people who have difficulty quitting smoking. One theory is that the number or receptors has increased because of constant exposure to nicotine (positive feedback loop). The other is that these people are predisposed to becoming addicted because this high number of receptors is present at their baseline.
      So once again, correlation does not prove causality, even when "mortality/comorbidity are accounted for."

      The jury is still out on this one, but it does make one wonder.

    14. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 1

      I think that your ^-1 is a mistake.....

      I've personaly consumed caffine doses as high as 1500mg, and been fine.

    15. Re:Nicotine not so bad by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      stapedium sez: "What you fail to mention is that the protective effect of smoking is far outweighed by the increased chance of stroke, oral cancer, heart and lung disease."

      I also failed to mention several other irrelevant facts. There is no reason to suppose that the level and methods of use of tobacco which result in such problems are necessary to obtain the benefits. The obove need only be stated for the sake of political correctness, a point on which I'll delay responding.*

      and then he sez: "It is a current matter of debate among neurologists as to whether smoking is truly protective." [snippage: much stuff re: cholinergic mechanisms]

      The debate among neuropharmacologists and electrophysiologists is not whether there is a neuroprotective factor in smoking, but rather on what its mechanism is. Everyone's pretty much agreed it's not cholinergic. The best evidence is it's dopaminergic as a primary activity and neuroprotective as a side benefit. My money is on the MAO inhibitor trimethyl naphthoquinone, but then I'm not the chemist that isolated it, I'm just the electrophysiologist that showed its dopaminergic effect on EEG.

      and then he sez, he sez: "So once again, correlation does not prove causality, even when "mortality/comorbidity are accounted for."

      But when these things are accounted for, it shows the correlation is stronger than if they weren't. That results in more confidence in the theory and justifies testing the hypothesis. That is being done by innoculating mice with TMN and lesioning them with the neurotoxin thought to cause Parkinson's apoptosis, MPTP. 60+% more mice survive the lesioning after TMN than without it.

      * If I *were* intending to be politically correct, it would have taken a very different tone than the inevitable cliched "but it's still BAD for you". It would have been along the lines of: "Look. We've been trying to tell you people for over 500 years now that it's a medicinal plant if only you'd use it right, which you refuse to do, and then you try to blame the results on the plant instead of your own stubborn stupidity. I've got me a PhD now based in large part on WE TOLD YOU SO, but will you listen? Apparently only long enough to hear a pause so you can interject yet more blame against the plant rather than your selves. NOTHING is all good or all bad, and the largest factor in differentiating the two is what you do with it."

      Guess that blows the shit out of "lack of radical bias", huh?

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    16. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jumping into this argument.
      I seem to remember reading caffeine shows similar effects to nicotine?

    17. Re:Nicotine not so bad by paxil · · Score: 1

      DynaSoar said: ...lesioning them with the neurotoxin thought to cause Parkinson's apoptosis, MPTP.

      Actually, MPTP is not involved in the pathophysiology of Parkinson's. MPTP is, however, very usefull for creating an animal model of Parkinson's disease, and has proven to be a very useful tool for the study of PD.

    18. Re:Nicotine not so bad by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      Was it pure?

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    19. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are days that I get so depressed I am nearly reachin for the nearest rope/knife/gun to put me out of my misery. I found smoking a small amount of tobacco is an instant remedy for what ails me. I have never been a "smoker" so it is not from any withdrawals that I feel bad. I can attest to the medicinal properties of the leaf.

      In the second world war they handed out cigarettes to calm the populace.

    20. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No mistake. mg of substance per kg of body weight. Assuming you weigh more than 20 lbs or so, there's nothing to worry about. Except maybe a killer headache when the soda machine is out of Mountain Dew.

    21. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 1

      In food. Specificly, these

    22. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In the second world war they handed out cigarettes to calm the populace."
      Wow, I thought they just gave out penicilin to combat the STDs. I didn't know they gave out free post-sex cigarettes too. Our government just isn't fun like it used to be.

    23. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the 200mg in those includes the weight of the herbs along with Caffeine - and I'd wager the herbs weigh significantly more than the caffiene

    24. Re:Nicotine not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Trinidad and Tobago means Trinidad and Tube? Was there a water slide there at one time?

    25. Re:Nicotine not so bad by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I've personaly consumed caffine doses as high as 1500mg, and been fine.

      Unless you weigh 7.8 kg, that's not a lethal dose. I am not sure where the -1 came from, but the measures are in milligrams per kilogram. Meaning, if you weigh 200 lbs, you need over 17,000mg to be lethal.

    26. Re:Nicotine not so bad by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      paxil sez: "Actually, MPTP is not involved in the pathophysiology of Parkinson's. MPTP is, however, very usefull for creating an animal model of Parkinson's disease, and has proven to be a very useful tool for the study of PD."

      Fact is endogenous (ie. already in the body) MPTP conversion to the neurotoxic metabolite MPP+ via MAO in neural mitochondria is being examined as the (or at least, one) mechanism of apoptosis in Parky's. That's the process being studied as disruptable by TMN. References can be found starting with Castagnoli of Virginia Tech and following the trail from there. This wouldn't be the first time a substance thought to be exogenous was found to be an effective physiogenic agent, only to find later it was at least an analog for an endogenous substance, such as opioids (endophins/enkephalins) and recently, cannabinoids. In the case of MPTP, there's no doubt there's an endogenous level of it in everyone. At question is when/why it starts turning over to MPP+ at toxic levels, and conversely, why it doesn't in some.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    27. Re:Nicotine not so bad by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if it's not pure, which I doubt it was, then the amount you consumed was probably a lot lower. Those MSDS sheets don't lie. They are dead on about adrenaline, and nicotine. A drop of nicotine, under the tongue, is sure death. Just the act of inhaling adrenaline is potentially life-ending.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
  30. +1 Funny by MeanMF · · Score: 4, Funny

    The odds of a mutation creating all parts simultaneously are astronomical, and consequently, the only accepted theory that can sanely describe such a thing is intelligent design

    Intelligent Design is an "accepted" theory?! I think you've been smoking too many tomacco leaves...

    1. Re:+1 Funny by Godeke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank you for that. Gradual transitions are pretty much accepted by science, and don't require miracles: something moderately useful can be selected for and adapted to high complexity very quickly *on the geological scale*. The difference from jumper to glider to flight isn't as big as the theologists would like you to believe. Good grief, we have flying fish, flying squirels and flying snakes. None of them actually fly (they glide) but if such diverse animals can independently become airborn, then it isn't much of a trick.

      Similarly, the eye is often brought up as "but it wouldn't work if all the parts weren't there". Light sensitivity is useful unto itself, and the individual steps are simple once you have light sensitivity. Shutters for the light sensitive areas? Optical concentration of light? Each can be created independently, but surely those who get the combinations right are more "fit".

      Of course, creationists come from the same school of thought as radical religionists everywhere: "don't think, don't make progress and whatever you do, don't argue with us. God told us were right."

      --
      Sig under construction since 1998.
    2. Re:+1 Funny by Disco+Stu · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This was a good post.

      This was interesting:

      Thank you for that. Gradual transitions are pretty much accepted by science, and don't require miracles: something moderately useful can be selected for and adapted to high complexity very quickly *on the geological scale*. The difference from jumper to glider to flight isn't as big as the theologists would like you to believe. Good grief, we have flying fish, flying squirels and flying snakes. None of them actually fly (they glide) but if such diverse animals can independently become airborn, then it isn't much of a trick.

      As was this:


      Similarly, the eye is often brought up as "but it wouldn't work if all the parts weren't there". Light sensitivity is useful unto itself, and the individual steps are simple once you have light sensitivity. Shutters for the light sensitive areas? Optical concentration of light? Each can be created independently, but surely those who get the combinations right are more "fit".


      Had you stopped there, you would have made an interesting and valid point about creationists. Alas, you proceed to destroy your credibility with an ad hominem attack:


      Of course, creationists come from the same school of thought as radical religionists everywhere: "don't think, don't make progress and whatever you do, don't argue with us. God told us were right."


      One could argue that you come from the same school as Slashdotters everywhere: "don't let your arguments speak for yourself; everyone who doesn't think exactly as you do is an idiot; and whatever you do, make sure your post includes at least one grammatical error". One could, but I won't.

    3. Re:+1 Funny by Godeke · · Score: 1

      You are correct. I almost deleted the last part but I hit submit while running out the door to pick up my son. Normally those kinds of stupid comments get edited out before then.

      --
      Sig under construction since 1998.
    4. Re:+1 Funny by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Alas, you proceed to destroy your credibility with an ad hominem attack:

      There's nothing wrong about an "ad hominem" claim if it is both true and topical- it's actually a valid (though rare) part of formal philosophical debate. In this case, his statement is sufficiently true: creationists are religionists, who believe their position was Divinely affirmed.

      An "atheist creationist" is not a contradition in terms; somebody could decide that life evolved by natural selection on some distant planet, from which bioengineers came to Earth in flying saucers. But you don't find people with those beliefs, because (virtually) all creationists are starting from a religious perspective, and then trying to squeeze science to fit the viewpoint they've already decided on.

    5. Re:+1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "don't think, don't make progress and whatever you do, don't argue with us. God told us were right."

      You, sir, are full of shit.

    6. Re:+1 Funny by Godeke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This was what triggered the comment, although I admit it was poorly executed due to timing. Science is the application of a critical eye to everything, including the currently held concepts. But more than that, it proves its worth by providing predictions, and then having those predictions proven or disproved. Neither is worse than the other: a disproved theory is still progress in science.

      If you are watching The Elegant Universe on PBS, you will see that the primary argument against the string theorists is that they theories they propose contain no testable (in the reasonable future) concepts. What made Einstein so amazing was he came up with the consequences for the rules of gravity and light virtually out of whole cloth in his head. But his theory made predictions: if they had proved wrong, he would be barely a footnote.

      Creationists refuse to submit to the rigors of prediction and testing. If evolution predicts there should be an animal of characteristic X in the record, finding it after such a prediction helps bolster the theory. Working with fruit flys and bacteria have allowed many of the concepts of evolution to be tested, and have help refine the theory. Creationists point to a book and a failed understanding of complexity theory, with little else to stand on. That attitude, in the guise of being "scientific" infuriates me.

      --
      Sig under construction since 1998.
    7. Re:+1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How about blood clotting? Too little, and with a single cut, the organism dies. Too much, and the blood solidifies - organism dies. Can we gradually get to high enough complexity to clot, (without getting too much clotting going on), and still then propogate that improvement rapidly enough to procreate througout an entire species?

      All I am really saying is that Intelligent Design isn't as off base as you think. There really are biologic functions that are irreducibly complex.

    8. Re:+1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That is wrong. Completely, utterly, dangerously, stupidly, flat out WRONG.

      Ad hominem is a fallacy. It can never be a logical complaint. All that matters is whether their arguements are sound or not, NOT the person who states said arguements.

      I'll reiterate: all that matters is whether the arguements are valid or not. A Nobel laureate might say that 2 + 2 = 5, but that doesn't mean they are right. Moreover, an idiot might assert that E = MC^2, but that equation is still a valid part of the Theory of Relativity.

      Thus I repeat myself: debunk the arguements. The person who says them is irrelevant. The same arguements will be right or wrong no matter who is asserting them. Focus on that. The rest is just a pointless, fruitless distraction.

    9. Re:+1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There really are, are there?

      How do you know or prove that something is irreducibly complex, other than making a judgement call based on human prejudice about purpose?

      The state & functionality of the organism or biological subsystem is obviously possible since it exists, how can you possibly say there exists no chain of evolutionary events leading to that functionality from another? Just because you can't imagine it after thinking about it cursorily for a few minutes?

      Bah.

      And they wonder why we roll our eyes at them.

    10. Re:+1 Funny by nathanh · · Score: 1
      Ad hominem is a fallacy. It can never be a logical complaint. All that matters is whether their arguements are sound or not, NOT the person who states said arguements.
      Thus I repeat myself: debunk the arguements. The person who says them is irrelevant. The same arguements will be right or wrong no matter who is asserting them.

      Ad hominem is an attack against the person. I think the fallacy you're looking for is "Argument From Authority".

    11. Re:+1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they wonder why we roll our eyes at them.

      No we don't. We don't care what you think. Science explains thing up until a certain point, at which point aethiests say, "we don't understand this yet, but there is no God." You guys are silly.

    12. Re:+1 Funny by iamjason · · Score: 1

      The worst thing about these debates is that one viewpoint is always left out. Both the creationists and the scientists are trying to keep us out of the dialog.

    13. Re:+1 Funny by Empiric · · Score: 1

      As of now, the parent is modded +4, Troll. The wonders of creationism debate.

      Much comes down to exactly how "big" these transitions in fact are, in terms of complexity. Michael Behe, professor of biochem, says they're really, really complex, beyond what is statistically reasonable to assume via random mutation (check out the book, an analysis of the chemical processes involved in sight makes it appear to be as complex as, say, Mozilla).

      He's a professor of biochemistry. Asking one to arbitrarily toss out his analysis is as closeminded as the "creationists" are accused of being.

      And... how exactly do you know what meaning "creationism" has for any given person? One can be of the view that the entire universe runs via scientific law, but that "God" caused the initial "Big Bang" event. Your argument strikes me much like those of other academics I've seen, so stridently insisting on the absolutism of their viewpoint, they're willing to just engage in straw man arguments in a strained effort to impress.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    14. Re:+1 Funny by Godeke · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have no problem with the God Formula Big Bang theory... but the earlier discussion was the "Intelligence Directed" evolution, which is different from "Initial Rules" evolution. I don't believe in a meddler. Either God is all seeing and can create the universe right in the first place, or he vanishes in a puff of logical smoke.

      --
      Sig under construction since 1998.
    15. Re:+1 Funny by KillerHamster · · Score: 1

      I really don't see why there is so much debate over Creationism. It can neither be proven nor disproven, since God, assuming He exists, is completely outside the realm of science. Furthermore, Creationism does NOT conflict with the theory of evolution. I believe the evolutionary process, created by God, combined with the laws of physics, also created by God, is what probably guided the development of life on Earth. See? No problem with either theory. I can believe what I want, and science marches on uninhibited by unprovable religious beliefs.

    16. Re:+1 Funny by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      No. That is wrong. Completely, utterly, dangerously, stupidly, flat out WRONG.

      No, you are wrong. If you want to be formal about it, go find a good philosophy book and you can learn that there are at least 5 variantions of the ad hominem technique, not all of them fallacious.

      Ad hominem is a fallacy. It can never be a logical complaint.

      It's only a fallacy in the restrictive world of facts that are so simple all interested parties can trivially understand them.

      In the real world, there is more complexity out there than one human brain can handle. We must rely on others to help us think through problems we can't handle ourselves. And when deciding whether one person's opinion should be trusted, the rightness of his other opinions can be a valid predictive factor.

    17. Re:+1 Funny by bani · · Score: 1

      the problem is that creationists try to promote creationism as science, and weasel their religious beliefs into the classroom under that lie.

      it's dishonest.

    18. Re:+1 Funny by Copid · · Score: 1
      Wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong! I'm sorry, but I'm just keeping up the energy level.

      I know you're parroting what you read in an introductory philosophy or logic book, but it's not totally right. Yes, truth is truth no matter who tells it, but there are very valid reasons for pointing out that the speaker does not have any credibility.

      For example, we have a debate over whether cigarettes cause cancer or not. Pointing out that a researcher works for a cigarette manufacturer is not an invalid ad hominem argument, but rather a very valid point that the claim being put forth may be tainted. Just the same, if you cite a paper written by an independent physician and published in a medical journal, and I cite an opinion piece in a middle school newspaper, you're perfectly justified in pointing out that a twelve year old most likely doesn't know jack about lung cancer. Your pointing this out isn't an invalid personal attack against the paper's author. It's just pointing out that my source sucks.

      The bottom line is, credibility matters. An irrelevant ad hominem is always a fallacy (e.g. "You're wrong because you're ugly." or "Bob is wrong because we all know he's a jerk."), but, "You're a twelve year old boy. What authority do you have to claim that childbirth is not painful?" can be very relevant to the debate at hand.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    19. Re:+1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude the bible sayz ur just plain wrong.

    20. Re:+1 Funny by Dinny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that it is entirely possible to believe in both creationism and evolution. The problem that I have is that no one I have ever met who describes their belief as Creationism accepts evolution. The always chose to say that the Bible is literaly correct. They believe that the world was created in 7 days, 168 hours as we measure it. It would be so easy to back the Bible if they took the position that 7 days was a figurative measure and could have been as long as tens of billions of years.

      It is entirly possible to reconsile science and a divine creator, but many Creationists actively choose to disbelieve science.

    21. Re:+1 Funny by sdcharle · · Score: 1

      Pretty effective, though. Coca-Cola uses the same trick for marketing purposes. Hey kids, let's do an experiment to see how much sugar is in Coca-Cola! Now let's do an experiment to see if Coke really does 'add life'. Wow! It brought the sea monkeys to life...well, they WERE living. QED!

    22. Re:+1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with this argument ("God in the Gaps") is that when we do understand it, what does that say of God? Or do you just jump to the next thing we don't yet understand?

      Here it is in simpler terms:
      Evolutionist: "We don't know how 'A' happened yet."
      IDist: "God did it."
      [Wait for some time.]
      Evolutionist: "We figured out how 'A' happened."
      IDist: "Well, what about 'B'? You still don't understand it. God must've done it."

    23. Re:+1 Funny by Senecca · · Score: 0

      the evolutionary process, created by God
      The evolutionary process is not created by God (or anyone else), it simply is a natural process. Things exist, get offsprings, and die. The longer they live (the fitter they are), the more offsprings they get. So their genes become more widely distributed and dominant. Add mutation and there you are. You see: its natural, logical, there are no alternatives.. no need for an Inventor

    24. Re:+1 Funny by nyseal · · Score: 1

      One side of this debate I often found interesting was from my wife; a devout Catholic....what makes us NOT believe that God created evolution? He had to start somewhere and he apparently has plenty of time!

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    25. Re:+1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can believe whatever you want. It's when you want to force public schools to teach that crap to other peoples' kids that they have problems with it.

  31. FDA? Patriot Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Imagine the laws this guy must have broken! (the same laws nobody heard of that are twisted to suit the immediate need of the government every day...)

    Sell the tomatos? Go to jail like the pharmacists who made stop-smoking nicotine lolly-pops.

    Somehow he must have violoated some genetic experimentation ban.

    What if a child ate the tomato? Child abuse!

    Deny anything you are charged with? GUILTY...denial is the first symptom!

    1. Re:FDA? Patriot Act? by angryelephant · · Score: 1

      Genetic experimentation? all he did was 1. cut tomato plant 2. cut tobacco plant 3. tape them together

    2. Re:FDA? Patriot Act? by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      Yes, but somehow a corporation will get him for violating the DMCA. ;-)

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
  32. Yes, but ... by Mr.+Dop · · Score: 0, Funny

    ...does it smell like Grandma?

  33. nicotine itself is good, not the cigarettes though by modme2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Delicious AND deadly!"

    this is wrong. nicotine itself has many benefits, including making you think clearer and faster. this is part of the reason it's so addictive.

    it's the delivery device (cigarettes) that's the problem.

  34. Re:Tomato aren't fruits. by anto · · Score: 1

    Tomatos are a fruit, pumpkins are a fruit - both mean absolutly nothing as they are just names we give the object that grows from the flower of plants & holds the seeds. If it makes you feel any better you can call them mushy seed pods... There is also no disco fruit even though you will see ppl use bananas in interesting ways at night clubs.

  35. Not a good idea by DumbWhiteGuy777 · · Score: 2, Funny

    If The Simpsons has taught us anything, and it hasn't, it's that Tomacco plants aren't a good idea.

    1. Re:Not a good idea by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Tomacco plants aren't a good idea.

      Tomacco plants are a great idea, you can make buttloads of money off of it. The problem comes in when you get those talking sheep with bloodshot eyes running after you...

  36. STOP GM FOODS NOW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm so mad that I'm fuming!! Yet another example of science gone awry. I hope to god this doesn't happen, but I have a feeling that I'll be reading a story soon about how this "tomacco" plant has been found growing in the wild, after some seeds escaped from the lab. All of our tomato crops are at risk!! I believe this is the GM plant to be modified with a known poison. How many others currently on the market will be found to be poisonous?? They certainly aren't tested.

    1. Re:STOP GM FOODS NOW!!! by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      No genetic engineering here. He physically grafted them together. It's 19th Century technology.

    2. Re:STOP GM FOODS NOW!!! by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      THe link is slashdotted right now, but where did it suggest that there was any generic modifications going on? The report suggests they merely grafted a tomato plant onto a tobacco plant. This procedure has been done for hundreds (probably thousands) of years. Not even any science involved. Not modern science, anyway;)

    3. Re:STOP GM FOODS NOW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luddite.

  37. Astronomical? by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Insightful


    First:
    I hate to be the one to point this out, but astronomical or not, there are thousands and thousands of these bacteria in every cup of water, and the pond is a lot bigger than that.

    And so is the ocean.

    And they've had literally millions of years to stumble upon it.

    I'm not sure what your definition of Astronomical is, but maybe you don't see what I see.

    Second:
    The mutations didn't all need to happen at the same time. As long as the original mutations didn't give the organism some disadvantage, there's no reason why it couldn't have spawned thousands and thousands of other organisms with the same oddity, and one of those could subsequently have evolved into the bacteria we see today. Remember, selection pressure works in both directions: unless something is being selected against, it isn't selected out of the gene pool.

    1. Re:Astronomical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      unless something is being selected against, it isn't selected out of the gene pool

      Makes you wonder about slashdot...

    2. Re:Astronomical? by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Astronimical = 2.734 metric craploads

      FYI

      --
      ymmv
    3. Re:Astronomical? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Also in line with your Second point, DNA does not specify the position of every atom or even cell. It simply does not contain that much information. A mutation might cause two things to occur, seemingly unrelated. As long as the net change is beneficial, odds are that the mutation will be passed on. So some little lump that became a flagella could have been related to some seemingly unrelated mutation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Astronomical? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what your definition of Astronomical is,

      Heh, or as somebody's sig puts it, "the Moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds".

      (Oh, and your numbers -- "thousands and thousands" and "millions of years" -- are both too small by several orders of magnitude, meaning that your point is even stronger than you make it.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    5. Re:Astronomical? by Ieshan · · Score: 1

      Hmph. Thousands and Millions are both clearly terms that could mean "any number larger than one or more thousands or millions". (grin)

    6. Re:Astronomical? by modecx · · Score: 1

      What exactly makes you think it has to "contain" that information?

      DNA and all of its quirks is the programming language of life--as we know it. This is at least accepted by most people, and there is adequate evidence to back this up.

      As with any programming, it's possible to write a program that dosen't "contain" all of the information in it's domain (e.g. a lookup table). It would be infeasible, and quite impossible to create a program that knew every prime number in existance, for example. It is, however, possible to create a program that uses known rules and algorithms to derive that information. Given a very, very, very long time, a simple computer running a simple program that uses simple rules could derive a great many of those prime numbers; certianly many more than the device could hold in it's memory, at any rate.

      Likewise, the same thing goes for things like fractals. You can't store all of that information--that would require infinite storage. However, with many iterations, you get a clear picture. With more and more iterations, you approach perfection--which is, of course, intangible--because there is no such thing except in our imaginations.

      I don't doubt for a minute that DNA isn't some sort of very large program, and that when given the right parameters, will produce a very similar thing, but not identical--because it's impossible to get every exact detail right (biological iterations). Witness twin siblings. The actual program that causes these things to happen is probably more simple than we would care to realize, but it takes an inordinate amount of arguments.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    7. Re:Astronomical? by Random832 · · Score: 1

      but how much is that in libraries of congress?

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    8. Re:Astronomical? by Random832 · · Score: 1

      yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean that, so your point is still made weaker... it would be weaker still had you said "scores" or "dozens"...

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    9. Re:Astronomical? by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt for a minute that DNA isn't some sort of very large program, and that when given the right parameters, will produce a very similar thing

      Of course it's part of a very large program given precise parameters... Feed it an answer and it will respond with the question, very advanced stuff..

      Earth (ZZ9-plural-Z-alpha sector)
      It will produce a very precise and exact answer... or, queston... It only takes 10 million years.

    10. Re:Astronomical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's utterly pointless to point out flaws in the reasoning of the pseudo science of xians. They don't care. They have absolutely zero interest in whether their ideas & arguments are rational or eye-roll-inducingly bogus.

      Intelligent Design et al, is in no way intended as a rational argument. It's a litany, chanted with words pulled here and there from the sciences. It's like doing the rosary to resist temptation, a prayer to say to ward off the evil influence of RatMats.

      "Holy Intelligent Design, only answer to Irreducible Complexity, I will fear no Evilution for thou art with me. Thy Flagella and thine Eye comfort me in the presence of the RatMats, when they tempt me with Explanation. Thy Clotting Blood is a curtain between me and Understanding. Yea, even when I tremble when the Scientists doth mock my silliness, thou lendest me Words with which to feel less silly, words even unto the bigness of the words of the Scientists. etc."

    11. Re:Astronomical? by happyDave · · Score: 1

      The net change doesn't even have to be beneficial. It just has to not be selected against. That means there's lots of random mutations floating around that haven't been eliminated from the gene pool.

    12. Re:Astronomical? by etn991 · · Score: 1

      Are you sure?

      From Google calculator


      Your search - astronomical in metric craploads - did not match any documents.

      Suggestions:
      - Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
      - Try different keywords.
      - Try more general keywords.
      - Try fewer keywords.
      Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.

    13. Re:Astronomical? by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 1

      I guess google DOESN'T know all.

      --
      ymmv
    14. Re:Astronomical? by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      How'd you get this? Did you ask google calculator for 1 Astronomical in metric craploads?

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    15. Re:Astronomical? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Last time I saw a unit describe as "astronomical", it meant 93 million or thereabouts... ;)

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    16. Re:Astronomical? by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 1

      Google was of no help, I had to calculate it using a combination of the imperial to metric crapload conversion formula and the value of astronimical as it applies to SCO chances of surviving the decade.

      I am writing a white paper, all will be made lucid.

      --
      ymmv
    17. Re:Astronomical? by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 1

      In fact:
      1 Astronomical Unit = 149,598,000,000 meters or
      149,598,000 kilometers

      But the context of the relevant parent is using a more arbitrary statistical value, not one of distance. I have calculated the statistical value.

      --
      ymmv
  38. This is possible because. . . by kfg · · Score: 3, Informative

    the tomato and tobacco are both variaties of nightshade, as is the potato.

    All of these plants already contain nicotine, so of course he found them, and various other alkaloids. The only question is the concentration and where that concentration is.

    You'll also find nicotine in things you might not expect, like bananas, beef, cow's milk and cottage cheese.

    Eat a tomato leaf, potato leaf, or even the wrong parts of a potato and you can end up, very, very dead.

    Enjoy your fries and ketchup.

    KFG

    1. Re:This is possible because. . . by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've seen that in health-nut sites & rags, but as biologists classify things, there is a very large family Solanaceae, which has genus Nicotiana (including those bad Nicotiana Tabacum species), and genus Solanum, which includes over 1400 species including the beloved spud & tomatoes. So really not too closely related.....I suspect many health nuts were dropping too much LSD in the 60's instead of paying attention in biology class.

    2. Re:This is possible because. . . by pio!pio! · · Score: 0

      tomato leaf and potato leaf are deadly??

      in the link, it said that the tomacco itself may be deadly? why?

    3. Re:This is possible because. . . by kfg · · Score: 1

      Can't say I'm a health nut. In the 60's I was too interested in astronomy and lepidoptera to pay too much attention to LSD. My head was in the clouds already. Besides, why waste that kind of money and brain capacity when a good Henry Clay was both cheap and legal? (It was a different age) Can't say I find Nicotiana Tabacum as particularly bad. So sue me. (No. . . wait!)

      I was particularly fascinated by the way some lepidoptera had specialized in eating toxic plants in order to make themselves toxic or evil tasting to larger predators. Tomato and Tobacco Hornworms are seriously cool. Being able to collect them is one of the fringe benefits of keeping a small plot of tomatos and tobacco.

      I'm afraid I'm one of those youthful ubergeeks who skipped high school entirely in favor of "adult education" and college, so I didn't have biology class there, but I found myself, in the early 70's, studying under Hans Selye and Linus Pauling for a spell.

      I tried to pay attention, but their specialty was in the "higher" orders.

      KFG

    4. Re:This is possible because. . . by kfg · · Score: 1

      in the link, it said that the tomacco itself may be deadly? why?

      Because it makes good copy.

      The idea of the toxic tomato isn't new either.

      http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:Fbw399p1Rrg J: lamar.colostate.edu/~samcox/Tomato.html+tomato+his tory&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

      KFG

    5. Re:This is possible because. . . by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Speaking of toxic tomato/potato leaves, in my wife's country (cambodia) they actually have recipes using tomato and potato leaves. They also have some other "vegetable" salads that are so very bitter I wonder about poisonous alkaloids. Of course, she has a similar opinion about chocolate and various other oily/fatty crap we americans love so much.

    6. Re:This is possible because. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it catsup or ketchup? Catsup seems to be the normal term, right?

    7. Re:This is possible because. . . by kfg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, I left out the part where heat destroys the alkaloids. :)

      That's why, while you have to worry about green potatoes, you don't have to worry about green potato chips. But where's the fun in telling people that? Christ man, I was trained on usenet back in the day when "that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard" wasn't even considered a flamebait and trolling was considered an art form.

      So is eating plants that contain alkaloids. I eat a lot of milkweed (Euell Gibbons, not a health nut, and Monarch butterflies taught me about that) and dandelion. Controling bitterness is a developed skill, but then so is learning to like bitter.

      KFG

    8. Re:This is possible because. . . by kfg · · Score: 1

      Niether one is really correct, but either one will do. It's an Anglicization of a Chinese word, and the Chinese word itself has several regional variants. There are also variants in nearly every Asian country if it comes to that. Seems like we got the word filtered through the Dutch in any case. Basically it means "sauce" and doesn't even have to made out of tomatoes.

      When I was a kid I got confused over this issue so I went and did some research. Geeks are like that.

      So just pick whichever one makes you happy. There is no authority for "correctness" in English. Only common usage.

      KFG

    9. Re:This is possible because. . . by ministerofsickeningr · · Score: 1

      catsup is ketchup without sugar in it.

    10. Re:This is possible because. . . by juglugs · · Score: 1

      As opposed to slightly dead?

      --
      This sig is in Spanish when you're not looking....
    11. Re:This is possible because. . . by kfg · · Score: 1

      As opposed to slightly dead?

      Exactly! At last, someone who understands.

      KFG

    12. Re:This is possible because. . . by Viceice · · Score: 1

      Eat a tomato leaf, potato leaf, or even the wrong parts of a potato and you can end up, very, very dead.

      Really? Coz here in Malaysia where I am, we've been frying up potato leaves in shrimp paste and chillie and it's absolutely delicious.

      --
      Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
    13. Re:This is possible because. . . by kfg · · Score: 1

      And I had tapioca pudding at lunch the other day, which, as it happens, can also be poisonous.

      KFG

  39. Mmmmm.... by badfrog · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've never wanted to go out for a veggie break so bad before.

  40. Clamatos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, that's easy.

    It's a can of tomato juice and that clam juice...

    oh wait. Nevermind.

  41. Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Bizarrely enough, there's actually a US Supreme Court Decision on this (Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893)). There was a tariff on fruits, but not veggies, imported from the West Indies. Plaintiff claimed that, since tomatoes are fruits, his imported tomatoes should be exempt from the tariff. The Supremes begged to differ:

    "Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans and peas. But in the common language of the people ... all these are vegetables, which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with or after the soup, fish or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.

    "The attempt to class tomatoes with fruit is not unlike a recent attempt to class beans as seeds, of which Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for this court, said: 'We do not see why they should be classified as seeds, any more than walnuts should be so classified. Both are seeds in the language of botany or natural history, but not in commerce nor in common parlance.'"

    Hence, tomatoes are legally vegetables in the US, botany be damned.

    1. Re:Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by Quixotic+Raindrop · · Score: 3, Informative

      So is corn; it's botanically a fruit (in fact, an achene, IIRC), and nutritionally a starch, but nearly always treated as a vegetable. Just because the Supreme Court can't be bothered to do the Right Thing(tm) doesn't mean that we should tolerate it. Take back the tomato! Demand the fruits of justice!

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
    2. Re:Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by cens0r · · Score: 3, Informative

      Corn is a grass, and is classified along with the other grasses: oats, wheat, barley, etc. I guess you could call the husk a fruit but since we only eat the seeds I wouldn't.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    3. Re:Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by iabervon · · Score: 1

      Tomatos are clearly vegetables in a culinary sense; there it matters more how sweet something is than what part of the plant it came from. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret laws, and what they were deciding in this case is that it is the culinary sense, not the botanical sense, that the legislature intended in the tariff law.

      Furthermore, the use in cooking matters more for imported goods which are obviously no longer on a plant at all.

      So, in effect, they were saying that legislators, like most people, care more about food than plants, and therefore, unless the legislature actually specifies "botanical fruit", they probably intend that you ask a grocer rather than a botanist.

    4. Re:Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      If you read the entire opinion, the court held that tomatoes are vegetables for the purpose of the tariff act under consideration. The court wasn't dictating scientific fact - it was only determining whether or not tomatoes would be subject to the tariff. The court came to a very common-sense decision - tomatoes are vegetables for the purpose of the tariff because people eat them as vegetables and think of them as vegetables.

      It's better than the alternative - letting scientists dictate the law by classifying tomatoes as a fruit.

      Of course, in the Dredd Scott decision, the Supreme Court decided that slaves who managed to make it into free states were property in the nature of loose cattle, and not people with legal rights, even if granted to them by the state government.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    5. Re:Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, corn is a grain, like wheat and rice. A grain is a seed of a grass plant, such as wheat grass, barley grass, and rice grass.

      P

      Dictionary definition of a grain

      Dictionary definition of corn

    6. Re:Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by Quixotic+Raindrop · · Score: 1

      "The edible portion of the cereal plant, commonly called the grain or kernel, is technically a complete fruit whose ovary-dereived layer very thin and dry." (On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen , McGee, Harold, Fireside 1984). I did not remember correctly about corn being an achene, but the part of the corn that we eat is, in fact, a fruit. It is a grass plant, as you point out, but that has no bearing on how it reproduces.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
    7. Re:Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by juglugs · · Score: 1

      A tomato is a fruit because it contains seeds a la apples, oranges, bananas etc...

      --
      This sig is in Spanish when you're not looking....
    8. Re:Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      I think I'd rather the Supreme Court left edible fruits and veggies where they are and get that vegetable out of the White House.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    9. Re:Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by adagioforstrings · · Score: 1
      the Supreme Court can't be bothered to do the Right Thing(tm)

      Quite honestly, I think the Supreme Court did do the right thing. The Supreme Court seemed to rule in favor of the intent of the law, not just its technical definition. I prefer using precise language wherever possible and reasonable being a technically-minded person, but that often doesn't happen with lawmakers who can't be experts in every field they make legislation for. I really wish the courts would do this sort of thing more often since it seems a shame when folks get around laws because of a loophole caused by imprecise wording. There are definitely exceptions, of course, since some laws are decidedly harmful (I suppose one could think of tarriffs as harmful, depending on your economic beliefs). Anyway, it's just my opinion.

    10. Re:Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by ornil · · Score: 1

      You have to remember that what they call "corn" in the US, is called "maize" in the UK. What they call "corn" in the UK is basically all kinds of grain, such as wheat or oats.

      So you have to make clear of which kind you speak (or perhaps of both)

    11. Re:Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by danila · · Score: 1

      That's interesting. It appears that food can change its classification when crossing the national borders... What are melons then? In Russia they are eaten for dessert, so they probably are fruits. In neighbouring Finland they are included in salads, so they must be vegetables. And if I start hunting them, will they suddenly become game?

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    12. Re:Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      I suppose you'd like hunting fish in a barrel too, huh? Not a lot of sport in hunting melons.

    13. Re:Tomato is legally a veggie (in the US at least) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That law makes about as much sense as the DMCA

  42. Tomacco Patches? by FerretFrottage · · Score: 5, Funny

    Would ketchup packets replace nicotine patches?

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
  43. good idea by iLeader · · Score: 1

    i like wackybrit's idea best

  44. An open plea to the Simpsons writers: by OECD · · Score: 5, Funny

    An open plea to the Simpsons writers:

    Please, more episodes about cold fusion.

    Thank you.

    --
    One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
  45. What ELSE will they predict? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly, Matt Groening (pronounced: p-uh-mpk-in) is the Isaac Asimov of our time.

  46. hum... by DraconPern · · Score: 1
    it turns out "the lab hasn't tested if the actual tomato has nicotine in it yet, but they say it probably does."

    I see, so someone at the lab ate them already and is now paying the price.
  47. scaffolding theory by johnjay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know there are several other theories that explain how irreducibly complex structures could evolve through agencies other than "intelligent design". The only one I can think of at the moment is the "scaffolding" theory. According to this theory, there are intermediate elements that are developed during the evolution of the complex organ, but they are lost when the entire organ is created and the intermediate parts become redundant.

    In an analogy, the intermediate pieces are the equivalent of the scaffolding that holds up an arch while the arch is under construction. When the arch is completed, the scaffolding can be removed, making it appear to people who don't understand arch-construction (but do understand physics) that the arch must have been created by magic.

    I don't know anything about flagelli, so I couldn't give you an example of how there could be intermediate stepping-stones to a completed flagellum.

    Also, it doesn't make the resultant complexity any less cool. It probably is even more cool because it was created by evolutionary pressure rather than intelligent design.

    1. Re:scaffolding theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong, I say, wrong. It's turtles, all the way down!

  48. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 1

    Tomatoes are fruits (berries).

    --
    Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
  49. -1 offtopic by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Informative
    If the poster had actually read the article he would know that the article talks about grafting, not gene splicing. Grafting is an ancient technique invented by the chinese and is used for those highly dangerous things like apple trees, roses and grapes. It involves sticking different roots on things, typically from the same or a related species/variety.

    In this case he has grafted a tomato plant on a tobacco root.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    1. Re:-1 offtopic by shplorb · · Score: 1

      My family runs a large citrus nursery that's been around for about 50 years. All of our trees are budded/grafted, which we do for a few reasons: disease resistance, growth control (dwarfing rootstock so trees can grow comfortably in a large pot) and resiliance/suitability to our climate. The vast majority of citrus trees in peoples backyards in South Australia are from the same few budwood trees. Quite freaky when you think about it, but they're not all genetically identical. Take this story for example:

      About five years ago we started growing a new variety of Lime that was becoming popular thanks to celebrity chefs - the Kaffir. The variety was new to Australia and there are different strains of it. One has large, pale and smooth-edged leaves and no thorns and the other has typically dark green citrus leaves that are small with serrated edges and huge bastard thorns. We found that the latter was the better variety because the smaller, darker leaves contained more volatile oils - which are the things that make them good and tasty in cooking.

      Now the point of all this is, is that over the next couple of years we built up our stock levels by taking buds from existing plants and using them to create new ones (like cellular division.) When we started selling them we tore our arms and faces to shreds on the thorns when moving them (never seen thorns like them!). But one day, we were watering the trees and my grandpa spotted out of the corner of his eye one that had no thorns - the bud that it grew from was what's called a sport - a mutation. We looked through the few thousand other trees but couldn't find any others like it so we took that one tree aside and put it under lock and key and gave it all the attention it needed. We took buds from it and grew about 50 other trees, then took buds from them and repeated the process until we had a big enough stock of trees to sell.

      That mutation was literally a 1 in a billion chance - a bud is where the leaf grows out of the stem. Think how many leaves are on your average citrus tree, then multiply that by a few hundred (number of budwood source trees) and then multiply that by three or four (number of years of collecting budwood before it appeared) then factor in failure rates for buds to take to the rootstock and the tree surviving to maturity, etc. and finally, that the mutation was for really tiny thorns and nothing else.

      We don't sell the bastard thorny variety anymore, that chance mutation is what we have propagated and sell now - it has the best of both original strains we considered growing - no/insignifcant thorns and leaves that are full of flavour.

      If that isn't a brilliant example of evolution/survival of the fittest then I don't know what is. I also don't know what this has to do with tomacco, which is equally cool (grafting tomato to tobacco would most-definately be easier said than done.)

  50. Marketing potential.... by public_class_name_ex · · Score: 0

    Could appeal to those who are quitting smoking but are also concerned about they weight they will gain because of it.

    Like the grapefruit diet, they could eat a salad with these tomatoes, when they get a craving.

    (The grapefruit diet also recomends high quantities of caffeine drinks like coffee, which also goes well with cigarettes.)

  51. Let's file this under the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..."who gives a shit?" category.

  52. Just you wait and see... by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    Somebody will come up with something with a web site that shows Darl McBride with Hitler, Stalin, Bill Gates, etc. in a parody of the "Evil Bert" campaign of a few years ago.

    myke

  53. im more worried about the fact that by narkotix · · Score: 1

    how did this guy get the plutonium to do this stuff? Did Lennie send it to him?

    --
    We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
  54. I'm wondering when someone will do the same... by JFMulder · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... but with marijuana plants. Tomajuana anyone?

    1. Re:I'm wondering when someone will do the same... by kennedy · · Score: 1

      heh heh heh speaking of marijuana.... *spark*

      yeah, i totally just did a bong hit. heh heh

    2. Re:I'm wondering when someone will do the same... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pipe for me. sweet, sweet glass.

    3. Re:I'm wondering when someone will do the same... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      You could make pizza with the tomato sauce. Then you'd get the munchies, and fulfill the craving at the same time.

    4. Re:I'm wondering when someone will do the same... by Vapor · · Score: 1

      I think you would call it Whacko Tomacco or wacky tomaccy... you'd get the munchies, so you'd just keep eating them

    5. Re:I'm wondering when someone will do the same... by Mabidex · · Score: 1

      How about Coca leaves? V8 will never be the same again....

  55. Idiot by Teahouse · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is a hybrid. It was created by grafting the roots of a tobacco plant with the stem of a tomato plant. Both are in the nightshade genus, so they grafted OK. This is not a seeding, or reproducing plant. It's a single freak. Thereis no genetic engineering involved, just plain old grafting, a practice that has ben practiced safely for over 1500 years. Get a life freak!

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
  56. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

    And fruits, including berries and tomatoes, are vegetables...

  57. Use it in food, smoke-free restaurants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not just McDonalds, but lasagne, linguini, moussaka, taco salsa, et al. - a LOT easier to make restaurants smoke-free.

    A BLT with smoked bacon and smokers tomato...

    Drinks too - what about the Smokin' Hot Bloody Mary?

    The possibilities are endless. Homer is a true humanitarian.

  58. Point... by Cyno01 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Altria is Phillip Morris... or was, Phillip Morris International changed its name to Altria. Altria owns both Phillip Morris USA (the tobacco company), and Kraft Foods.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  59. Shall we end it all right now? by WTFmonkey · · Score: 3, Funny
    The Ralph Wiggum File

    btw, you're wrong.

  60. Solanaceae, to be precise by cryptochrome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Solanaceae family also includes potatoes, chile peppers, and eggplants.

    So not just tomacco on your sandwiches, but also tomatsup and a side of potacco fries. A trip to taco bell would be loaded with tobalsa, in addition to tomacco. Tomeggplant parmesan with tomacco sauce would be absolutely loaded with it.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    1. Re:Solanaceae, to be precise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must... continue... typo-bashing...

      "Lisa, honey, are you saying that you'll never eat another vegetable sauce again? What about catsup?"
      "No!"
      "Pizza sauce?"
      "No!"
      "Spaghetti sauce?"
      "Dad, those all come from the same plant."
      "Heh heh yeah right, Lisa... a wonderful, magical plant."

  61. PATENT IT!!!! by boy_afraid · · Score: 0, Redundant

    PATENT IT!!!!

    1. Re:PATENT IT!!!! by pvt_medic · · Score: 1

      The simpsons should really start trying to patent all their random hairball ideas. I mean who wouldnt be taken for the add that says as seen on the Simpsons.

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
  62. This is sooo old news! The Reds beat us to it! by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Informative

    Its common knowledge that tomatos can be grafted on to a wide range of plants in the Solanum family including potatoes, tobacco, Datura, etc. In fact the Russians made a tomacco back in 1956 (See Glavinic, R., 1956 (Vegetative hybridization between tomato and tobacco). Priroda (Nature), Leningrad No. 11: 98-100. (Russian)).

    Now if we only had only had slashdot back in 1956.....

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:This is sooo old news! The Reds beat us to it! by WetCat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Having in mind that 1956 was still a year when Lysenko (Stalin's ally, Genetic killer) was at power in Soviet biology, I would be really not sure about the real results produced for this paper...

    2. Re:This is sooo old news! The Reds beat us to it! by ubugly2 · · Score: 1

      ...In Soviet Russia....?'never mind.

    3. Re:This is sooo old news! The Reds beat us to it! by SethJohnson · · Score: 0, Troll


      In soviet russia, the tomacco grafts you!
    4. Re:This is sooo old news! The Reds beat us to it! by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      mod parent up

      --
      [o]_O
    5. Re:This is sooo old news! The Reds beat us to it! by rubbertails · · Score: 1

      Now if we only had only had slashdot back in 1956.....

      /. still would have posted a duplicate story.

    6. Re:This is sooo old news! The Reds beat us to it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, no, no, this is more funny

      In Soviet Russia, Tomacco smoke you

      Tim

    7. Re:This is sooo old news! The Reds beat us to it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, black marketeers demand graft for their tomatoes.

    8. Re:This is sooo old news! The Reds beat us to it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, ....

      Aw, fsck it.

    9. Re:This is sooo old news! The Reds beat us to it! by C60 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in Soviet Russia, the Tomacco eats you :)

      --
      Karma: 0 (But I wield a mean +10 Vorpal Apathy)
  63. Fatal tomatal by Teahouse · · Score: 1

    he guy who grew it thinks the tomatos probably contain a lethal dose of nicotine in them. I don't see this going to market any time soon, but it sure is a fun little story. Now if we can just get Flavin's teleportation machine out of the garage sale and into my living room everything will be good in the world!

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
  64. BS by LauraW · · Score: 1
    Nonsense. There are perfectly plausible explanations of how various types of flagella evolved, and some single-celled critters that are alive today have structures that are at various points along the proposed evolutionary path. "Irreducible?" I don't think so.

    (-1 Offtopic :-)

  65. More plant grafting ? by Jesrad · · Score: 2, Funny

    Applacco: An applacco a day keeps the cigarette away !

    Cabbageacco: There's now a way to make your kids WANT to eat their cabbage soup.

    Carrotabacco: It's not a problem if you overcook them !

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  66. Re:nicotine itself is good, not the cigarettes tho by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 1
    "Generally in the fruit there is more material concentrated because that's what everything's going through to produce the fruit for the next generation. I would expect there would be more." And that would make the real life tomacco plant very poisonous.

    And I think that's all that needs to be said.

  67. Better duck.. not! by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    I'd throw a whole bunch of tomaccos at you for this... but at $379.50 a carton... who would ever do that!!

  68. Cool, now we by Phunction · · Score: 2, Funny

    just need the tomeato plant.

    --
    Sig?
    1. Re:Cool, now we by MikeXpop · · Score: 1

      Probably someone in Iraq will make them. They in fact need thier Tomeatos of mass descuction. I wonder how many people will get the reference.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    2. Re:Cool, now we by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      I don't care what you say I'm not playing bad music just to stop them. ;-)

      Then again the thought of giant Tomeatos rolling up the White House lawn is kind of appealing...

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
  69. Ahem. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    Intelligent Design could predict EVERYTHING. That's why it's a useless theory.

    If you come up against anything you don't care to analyze, you can lump it in under, "oh-thats-clever-therefore-god-designed-it", and that's the end of it.

    So we shouldn't try to figure out how the hell flagellum evolved, and just accept this axiomatic designation of "irreducibly complex"? I think that's a pretty piss-poor attitude.

    If you take away any of the parts, it doesn't work. Okay genius... what if there were 4 components before, and one went away... or what if all three were changed from other things in one cataclysmic genetic event that propogated fast down because it was so successful?

    I'm not even a microbiologist and this is pretty obvious to me.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  70. This could be fun by nate+nice · · Score: 1

    Graft a Marijuana plant with all types of vegtables/fruits and grow it. Take the seeds of this plant and plant them everywhere. Make sure to plant them close to large corn fields etc, so when next years crop comes up we are all getting high. This could also be an effective tool for terrorism. Simply graft something toxic with a regular plant and make sure to pollinate it everywhere so hopefully (for the terrorist) people everywhere will eat your food and die.

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    1. Re:This could be fun by pocopoco · · Score: 1

      >and make sure to pollinate it everywhere

      Grafting has no genetic effect on the seeds/offspring which will be descendents of whichever plant's reproductive parts produce them.

      In the case of the article, for example, it's a tomato plant with tobacco roots. So the offspring will be normal tomato plants (of course the nicotine levels in the parent may hurt the seeds, but that's a different matter).

  71. Re:nicotine itself is good, not the cigarettes tho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately nicotine is also carcinogenic.

  72. Soft drinks by phorm · · Score: 1

    I've often heard about certain soft drinks containing addictive and even illegal substances in the past, so I wouldn't be surprised if soembody takes advantage of this: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp But on the other hand, could nicotine-tomatoes, like the patch, become a viable substitute for those trying to quit smoking?

    1. Re:Soft drinks by princewally · · Score: 1

      Per the article:

      The lab hasn't tested if the actual tomato has nicotine in it yet, but they say it probably does. "Generally in the fruit there is more material concentrated because that's what everything's going through to produce the fruit for the next generation. I would expect there would be more." And that would make the real life tomacco plant very poisonous.

      So, it probably can't be considered viable.

      --

      -
      "Vengeance is fine," sayeth the Lord.
    2. Re:Soft drinks by Greventls · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the cocaine was added to give people energy, much more energy than caffeine gives. In regards to other elixars and such, opium was added to try to relieve pain to trick the people into thinking it cured them. It wasn't to make them addicted.

    3. Re:Soft drinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cocaine was also legal when it was added to drinks, and caffeine replaced it (kind of) when it became illegal.

    4. Re:Soft drinks by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      Caffiene is addictive but not illegal. No addictive substance should be illegal.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    5. Re:Soft drinks by lelnet · · Score: 1

      Cocaine wasn't illegal when Coca-Cola contained it. (Drug prohibition is a 20th century creation...Coca-cola is older than that.)

    6. Re:Soft drinks by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 1

      Cocaine was not *added* to Coca-Cola. Period.

      The original recipe for Coca-Cola (and hence it's name) was Coca leaves (the plant that produces cocaine) and Kola nuts. Scientists at Coca-Cola worked for years to reduce the amount of actual cocaine in the recipe, but for years they kept the Coca leaves in the mix to protect their name. They couldn't trademark their 'secret formula' but they could trademark the name, and they were worried that without Coca in the mix that they wouldn't be able to continue to use (and protect) their valuable brand name.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
  73. What are the chances you say?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People say "What are the chances this Earth could exist like this?! It must be planned!"

    Out of the infinite universe it really isn't that shocking that somewhere in the entire universe a planet with complex life developed.

    If the chances are 1 in 500 trillion, well 500 trillion out of infinite is fairly regular then no?

    So just be happy that you're on the planet that won the lottery instead of worshipping some make believe superspirit...sheesh...

    1. Re:What are the chances you say?! by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1
      Here's another interesting thought on probablity. Suppose you flip a coin 10 times, and the result is HHHHHHHHHH. The chance of that occuring is 1/2^10, pretty small. Now you flip it 10 more times, and you get HTTHHTHTHH. Again, the chance of getting exactly that is 1/2^10, very low. But it still happened.

      Saying life is improbable is like looking at the past record of coinflips, noticing that the probability of everything occuring exactly as it did is astronomically low, and concluding that it didn't happen. Yes, life being exactly, down to the smallest detail, like it is now is low. The chances of sentient beings existing is much higher - they just might have been different from us. And as measured by a sentient being, the chance of existance of sentient beings is 1.

      And finally, chance isn't the only factor. Why are there no huge raindrops? Raindrops form and combine by chance, right? No, when they get to big, they die, just like unfit individuals in a population. Other factors, aerodynamics in the case of raindrops, the environment in the case of animals, organize the chance happenings. Design them, if you will.

  74. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Vegetable originally meant any plant, as in "the vegetable kingdom", or Twenty Questions' opening gambit, "animal, mineral, or vegetable?" And fruit meant any edible plant part. With the development of the science of botany, however, the meanings of the words have shifted. Vegetable is now used to refer to herbaceous (non-woody) food plants or their edible parts. Fruits are the reproductive parts of a plant, the ripened ovary of a flower and its contents and related parts; vegetables as well as other plants like trees can have fruits." Source.

    --
    Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
  75. Taco, please read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter how hard you ass-rape Timothy, it's not possible to get him pregnat. Sorry, you'll just have to face facts here.

  76. Hmmmm by O · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Too bad that won't work with cannabis, despite the old urban myth that it does. Mmmm, I'd be sure to get my daily recommend dose^H^H^H^Hserving of vegetables per day.

    --

    1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
  77. In Reality... by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    In Reality, not everyone lives in the US. Tomatoes ARE a Fruit.

  78. Tobacco is a natural choice for transformations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tobacco is the easiest plant to use for genetic manipulation, which is why so many genetic hybrids are based on it. Tobacco mutates a lot in the wild. Often a genetic transformation is attempted on tobacco before a more difficult plant is used. This saves on work and expensive ligases. I learned that in my genetic engineering in agronomy class in college. This is interesting, but not nearly as interesting as a few years ago when an FSU professor crossed THC and oranges as revenge against drug policy that led to the family car being impounded due to the son having weed paraphernalia inside.

  79. Warning: Botany lesson inside by dheltzel · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Tomato fruits are actually berries. Ironically, raspberries are not really berries, but are "aggregates of drupelets" (a good example of a drupe is a plum, a single seed surrounded by fleshy material). Strawberries aren't true berries either, because their seeds are on the outside of the fruit.

    In general, if what you eat has seeds (or is supposed to have seeds, like bananas and certain grapes), they you are eating fruit. We eat corn and bean fruit by strict botanical definitions. "True" vegetables are when we eat the leaves, roots, stems, or flowers.

    We (mankind) have done so much genetic manipulation with our crops (for milleniums, not just from Monsanto) that most would never be able to survive without our continued cultivation.

    Whether we domsticated them, or they domesticated us, is debatable. From their perspective, it looks like they have enslaved the human race to do their bidding (spread their genes around the would and into the future).

    1. Re:Warning: Botany lesson inside by betis70 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you can answer a running debate between me and my dietician.

      She says Corn is a vegetable. I say it is really a grain, closer to barley than lettuce. I know the ancestor of corn (teosinte, if my recollection is correct) is a grass.

      I guess in normal parlance it is a vegetable (though I would argue if anything it is a fruit), but it seems more grain-like to me than anything.

      Damn, what a nerdy question.

      --
      I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
    2. Re:Warning: Botany lesson inside by Hepkat · · Score: 1

      I'll take a stab. It IS a vegetable as it is a plant that you eat. Fruit is a more specific definition in that it's the reproductive part of the plant... which the (normally)edible part of corn is. I'd say it is closer to a grain than to lettuce, but that doesn't preclude it from being either a vegetable or a fruit, which I say it is both.

    3. Re:Warning: Botany lesson inside by dheltzel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ask her this:
      If you take the corn, leave it on the cob for a few more weeks, then grind it up and make a tortilla or corn chips, does it still count as a vegetable ?

      From a dietician's perspective, she's guiding you into general nutrition groups and helping you balance your intake of carbs, fats, proteins, etc. so in reality it's ok to count it as a vegetable.

      Corn is a grass, so is sugarcane and bamboo shoots. Corn chips (fried in vegetable oil, of course) and corn syrup (Karo syrup brand around here) are certainly yummy ways to get your vegetables!

    4. Re:Warning: Botany lesson inside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our crop Overlords

    5. Re:Warning: Botany lesson inside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay guy, I read The Botany of Desire too. Way to show how smart you are!

    6. Re:Warning: Botany lesson inside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether we domsticated them, or they domesticated us, is debatable. From their perspective, it looks like they have enslaved the human race to do their bidding (spread their genes around the would and into the future).

      Well, that's just fucking stupid. Agricultural yield of wild vs. domesticated? ! Duh...

  80. Wouldn't work with marijuana by enosys · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This worked with tobacco because the nicotine is created in the roots and then transported to the rest of the plant. It wouldn't work with marijuana because the THC is produced in resin glands right where it's found (rather than transported there). The roots have no resin glands and practically no THC. (Read this)

    In order to do something like this with marijuana you'd have to resort to genetic engineering.

    1. Re:Wouldn't work with marijuana by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info, I'm sure you just stopped a geek somewhere to try it out!

      ...rushes down to the basement...

    2. Re:Wouldn't work with marijuana by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Odd. I had heard that you could graft marijuana roots onto hops roots to product psychoactive beer. (Of course that was years ago. Perhaps it was the other way round, but in that case I didn't [and don't] understand the purpose.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Wouldn't work with marijuana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or so you've heard, right

    4. Re:Wouldn't work with marijuana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If im not mistaken hops and marijuana are in the same plant family. Either way... there are hemp ales that use the non-psycho-active version of the hemp plant. Also I know a guy that just threw in marijuana instead of hops... he skipped the whole cross-breeding part of the formula.

    5. Re:Wouldn't work with marijuana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So did it work? I thought that THC wasn't water-soluble.

    6. Re:Wouldn't work with marijuana by cygnus · · Score: 1
      In order to do something like this with marijuana you'd have to resort to genetic engineering.
      monsanto be damned, dude i'm there!

      /me whips out his microscope (or whatever "genetic engineers" use... perl?)

      --
      Just raise the taxes on crack.
    7. Re:Wouldn't work with marijuana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is should be alcohol soluble

    8. Re:Wouldn't work with marijuana by c_jonescc · · Score: 1

      You can graft marijuana to hops quite easily, and the hops will carry the THC. I don't think you can make psychoactive beer though; THC breaks down in alcohol. You could likely smoke the hops though, but they would be quite harsh.

      --
      Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
    9. Re:Wouldn't work with marijuana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This worked with tobacco because the nicotine is created in the roots and then transported to the rest of the plant. It wouldn't work with marijuana because the THC is produced in resin glands right where it's found (rather than transported there). The roots have no resin glands and practically no THC.

      So screw the tomato and just make some very addictive bud.

    10. Re:Wouldn't work with marijuana by cybercuzco · · Score: 1
      Well I'll just do that then smart guy


      -H. Simpson

      --

    11. Re:Wouldn't work with marijuana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so make maribacco plants.

      The nicotine in the roots will cause cancer like normal smoking, but it won't be so bad because you can keep smoking it to get rid of the nasuea that will come from cancer treatments. Then pot heads would be around so long either. Society gets rid of losers and they can have a relatively peaceful death. Everybody wins.

    12. Re:Wouldn't work with marijuana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it DOES work with marijuana. Maybe they should be called Marihops...

      You can graft hops vine to marijuana root and grow hops with THC. Also, you can use gout pills to polyploid pot and make super hops. use google... no URL's for you slacker!

    13. Re:Wouldn't work with marijuana by chrootstrap · · Score: 1

      I think that the chief reason that such a graft would not work is because Cannabis and Nicotiana are of dissimilar geneologies. Nicotiana and Lycopersicon are sibling genera of the Solanceae (Deadly Nightshade; Belladonna) family. As noted in child posts, Humulus (Hops) are the only other genus in Cannabis' family and do, in fact, allow viable grafts. Warmke and Davidson claimed that this allowed plants which looked like hops to be rich in THC, but, this was later disproven by Crombie and Crombie. In regard to a later note, alcohol is an effective solvent for THC and other cannabinols and a 'hemp' beer is marketed in some countries.

      --
      Hacking articles at http://www.geocities.com/chroo
  81. Obvious troll. by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

    Nice try, but anyone who actually holds that opinion is most likely incapable of correctly spelling or using the word 'awry'.

  82. Well slashdot is loading quickly tonight... by matth · · Score: 1

    Anyone else getting 404's for the images?

    1. Re:Well slashdot is loading quickly tonight... by savaget · · Score: 1

      yes, only get the little sylies!

    2. Re:Well slashdot is loading quickly tonight... by savaget · · Score: 1

      yes, only get the little smylies!

  83. yeh a good way to stop smokers by emkman · · Score: 1

    if u watched the newscasts or read the article, you would have seen that one tomacco would be extremely lethal. Go ahead and give that to your kids, they make the connection that tobacco is bad real quick.

    --
    Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
  84. Re:BURN IN HELL, NON-BELIEVER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hay doods whats going on in this jesus hating thread? oh wai

  85. Hey... by NorthDude · · Score: 1

    I don't know for sure that it's this show. But I heard on radio this morning that the guys finally refused to make the show when they learned that the girl was actually... a transsexual!

    Now, what you said about getting laid uh?!?

    --


    I'd rather be sailing...
  86. Had to be said. by greygent · · Score: 4, Funny

    Worst... plant... ever.

    1. Re:Had to be said. by horati0 · · Score: 1

      Worst... plant... ever.

      BOO YAH!

      --
      The neutrality of this sig is disputed.
    2. Re:Had to be said. by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      No, that would be brussels sprouts & tobacco.

    3. Re:Had to be said. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rest assured that I was on the internet within minutes, registering my disgust throught the world.

      Errrrr, wait a minute...

    4. Re:Had to be said. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our new tomacco overlords.

  87. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

    Citing e2 is a laughable form of proof. And, botanists have no right to redefine words in the English language.

    Specialists in a field often like to create new definitions for existing words when they find more specificity to be convenient. But nobody outside that field is obligated to obey them. "Experts" like to forget this, such as military types who claimed John Allen Muhammad wasn't a "sniper" because he attacked from less than 500 meters. Or computer salesmen who claim a hard disk drive isn't "Random Access Memory".

  88. I dunno about you... by thadeusPawlickiROX · · Score: 1

    But I'm still waiting on my hotdog tree to grow. I planted that hotdog years ago, and the tree still hasn't sprouted...

    --
    take off every sig for great justice
    1. Re:I dunno about you... by davidc · · Score: 1

      Hey, I planted one of those too. Mine has started growing - the young plant looks surprisingly mushroom-like at present, but who knows?

  89. Re:This is not a hybrid or GE. Just grafting by spinel · · Score: 0

    Looks to me like he only grafted tomatoe on tabaco rootstocks. A hybrid would be an actual genetic cross between the two. I have never done it but have seen in botony books that you can do much the same with cannabis rootstock and hops. Both are a closely related monotypic genus. You would be in deep doo doo if someone caught you growing this kind of hops to brew your beer with. After you harvested the hops and destroyed the hemp roots I do not know what would happen if the FDA or DEA wanted to check your beer! This is a clear case where IANAL. Get competent legal advice before you try such a scheme. You can probably find criminal monkeys in India to do initial testing. don't blame me for any trouble they get into.

  90. Mod parent +FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    heh heh heh...

  91. They did... by volpe · · Score: 1

    ...but "Seinfeld" was cancelled several years ago.

  92. Re:BURN IN HELL, NON-BELIEVER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A round of applause for the Reverend Phelps, please. Now stand under this piano for a moment. Thanks.

  93. Or, as Bilbo would put it by jefu · · Score: 1
    Struck by lightning! Struck by lightning!

    The only sane thing I could come up with.

  94. Re:nicotine itself is good, not the cigarettes tho by Michael+Crutcher · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nicotine is most definately not good for you. It constricts blood vessels and raises blood pressure. Unless you're shooting for a heart attack I'd avoid nicotine.

  95. How long until TOMARIJUANA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Well, would somebody please outline how to go about grafting up a tomarijuana plant, or maybe even a tree of some kind?

    Now THAT would be an accomplishment.

    1. Re:How long until TOMARIJUANA? by kosmonaut+pirx · · Score: 1

      You can only graft hop on hemp roots, because hop's the only known plant to be related to hemp.
      But you can brew a fine beer out of this marihop.

      Kosmo

  96. Not if you are a bug.... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

    Many of the items us humans eat and enjoy are actually designed by the plant to deter or kill insects. Caffeine, THC, opium, nicotene, chilli (hot peppers), black pepper, garlic, onions, etc. all make those chemicals to keep bugs and other stuff from eating them.

    Caffeine is used as a topical insecticide spray and will murder many types of bugs in minutes.

    So in a sense, they are all posions.

    Nicotine (I believe) is actually a carcinogen, but less so than a lot of the other stuff that comes with smoking tobacco. I still wouldnt want it in a food anyway, I have enough additions as it is already. I don't need that one.

    1. Re:Not if you are a bug.... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > designed by the plant to deter or kill insects. Caffeine, THC, opium

      If I were a bug, that would make me MORE likely to eat them. Of course, if I had insectoid physiology I might not think so. I'll have to get back to you after mind swap.

  97. Image change in progress by GQuon · · Score: 1

    Image change in progress. Stay tuned. (Speculation on my part.)

    I will have to unfriend all my friends, because "neutrals" look so cool in shades. Nice shades matth.

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  98. Minor correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I recall Seinfeld was not cancelled ... he just wanted to do something new. NBC offered him 5 million per episode to stay.

    1. Re:Minor correction by volpe · · Score: 1

      Sure it was cancelled, because it's not on anymore. It's just that Jerry was the one who cancelled it. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

  99. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by Random832 · · Score: 1

    are you _actually_ siding with lusers who say "oh, i have 20 gigabytes of ram, 2.4 ghz hard disk, and a 256 megabyte processor?" that's likely the kind of behavior the computer salesman you criticize was correcting. props to whoever it was for being clueful enough to know that, rather than BEING the salesman who sells a computer with "20 gigabytes of ram", etc

    --
    We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
  100. Actually tomatoes naturally contain THC by Zen+Programmer · · Score: 1

    Albeit, in minute amounts. Read the Botany of Desire for more info.

    1. Re:Actually tomatoes naturally contain THC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn informative comment. Just when I'm outta mod points

  101. What will those silly lawmakers think of next? by rk · · Score: 1

    Changingthe value of pi?

  102. Why can't we make hybrids of plants that matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's my THC tomato?

  103. Yum! by Garg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Goes great with a nicotini!

    Garg

    --
    Garg
    Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
    1. Re:Yum! by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Interesting link.

      "This is craziness," said Glenn Singer, a lung specialist at the Broward General Medical Center. "It's crazy to give people nicotine-laced cocktails so they don't have withdrawal."

      Like the medically-approved patch, gum or inhaler? Oh, that's right, the patch ads assure us they're giving us "medicine". Much better when you call the nicotine that.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  104. nicotine is deadly by drmike0099 · · Score: 1

    The clip mentions this, but nicotine is very hazardous to your health. I distinctly remember one of my crappy college jobs, which involved cleaning and organizing cabinets full of chemical compounds for a lab, filled with acids and toxins (it was a lab that studied pesticides). The container that was the most heavily protected and labelled as toxic? You guessed it, nicotine. It was in a sealed glass jar, containing another plastic container that held the actual container of the nicotine, all labelled as extremely poisonous.

    Nicotine is extremely cardiotoxic, and can easily kill you if you took too much of it. The amount in an individual cigarette is pretty miniscule, but the longterm cardiac damage is what winds up killing smokers as often as lung cancer does. Too bad nicotine also happens to be one of the most potent neuro stimulants...

  105. Re: not an urban myth, you can graft hops on canna by spinel · · Score: 0

    Hops and cannabis are both closely related monotypic genii. My botony text says you can plant cannabis for rootstock then graft hops onto them. Warning soft herbs like hops and cannabis are much more difficult to graft than fruit trees. Your legal liability for use of this technique is on your own head the same as if I told you how to make a dirty bomb.

  106. ID doesn't work as science or theology by rbird76 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The big problem with ID is reliance on probability as proof of existence of God. Improbable things happen on regularly, or at least improbable sequences (take lottery winners over a fairly short period (1-2 yr.) in a single state); the probability of a single sequence of lottery winners is on the order of the probabilities quoted for the development of organs such as the eye. Instead of many slightly improbably events, there are a few highly improbable ones - both situations reduce to the same thing. Ultimately, in many situations, all of the events are improbable, so an improbable event must occur. Probability (even of highly improbable events) doesn't distinguish between the existence or absence of God - either the argument becomes circular (highly improbable events are done by God) or falsifiable (how do you distinguish between improbable events facilitated by God and events not facilitated by God?). In addition, the cutoffs for "probable" events are arbitrary - again enters circularity.

    Of course, this becomes irrelevant in a religious sense. If God means what science can't explain, you get the "God of the gaps" (see Wired - 2002 -article about the Vatican chief astronomer). Faith isn't determined by proof - if so, it's fact, not faith. ID is an attempt to mandate God - either to support a faith that is weak and needs proof or to force others to believe in a god of your choosing. It is not necessarily Luddite - people want power over others, power that comes from asserting absolute right, although this is destructive to the means (faith) and the ends (choice of individuals to believe and achievement of the results of that belief). I don't think the people asserting ID neceesarily want people to go back - a technologically advanced world might be OK if they could control it. The difficulty in controlling technology makes this hard to do - so they try to get rid of what they can't control, which is ultimately everything.

    ID is bad science and worse theology.

    1. Re:ID doesn't work as science or theology by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 1

      Good points. My favorite response to arguments from probability is the simple observation that the "laws" of probability are not laws at all (as compared to physical laws): they don't regulate how events will turn out. All they do is tell us how surprised we should be when whatever was going to happen happens. Add to that the fact that probability claims are inherently tied up with our knowledge, and the probability of an event changes depending on how much we know about the situation. Example: I have a standard deck of cards. The top card is face down. I conclude that the chances the top card is the ace of spades is one in 52. I have another deck of cards. The top card is face up and is the ace of spades. I conclude that the chances that the top card is the ace of spades is 1 in 1. The problem with many of the claims of "creation science" (or related charlatans, like the "Bible Code" guys who find "improbable" messages encoded in scripture) is that they simply say that the probability of such-and-such occurring is fifty-squizillion to one without telling you what sample pool they are drawing from or what knowledge is used to calculate the odds.

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
  107. Many Veggies NATURALLY contain nicotine by anagama · · Score: 1

    • If you spend three hours in a room with minimal tobacco smoke, you get about the same amount amount of nicotine in 5 oz. of potatoes, 8 1/2 oz. ripe tomatoes, 9 1/2 oz. cauliflower, and 1/3 oz. eggplant. Cooking decreases some of the nicotine. These results are appearing in medical journals (e.g. The New England Journal of Medicine) from the experimental laboratories of Dr. Edward Domino, University of Michigan and colleagues. Extensive research is needed with the food nightshades to determine the culprits causing the subtle deteriorating effects on the human body as well as livestock. The horticulturalists need to study the possibility of "breeding down or out" the poisonous culprits in the highly popular and addicting food nightshades. Addictive Vegies


    Google Search

    Obviously, this means we should just eat meat.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  108. me waits for tomajuana (nt) by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    nt

  109. Next up: by lawpoop · · Score: 1

    Apples with THC. Talk about forbidden fruit!

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  110. So? by pimpybra · · Score: 1

    I went as Duffman for halloween... Where's my news story?
    Halloween 2003

  111. I'll take a crate by EverDense · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe we'll start seeing actors eating a LOT of tomatoes in TV and movies.

    --
    http://jesus.everdense.com/
  112. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 1

    Citing e2 is a laughable form of proof.
    And citing a website titled "Crazy English Page" and written by a Korean who appears to have a meager understanding of both English and HTML is somehow less laughable?

    And, botanists have no right to redefine words in the English language.
    What botanists may or may not do with respect to the English language and its common usage is of no concern to either of us. The fact of the matter is that even in the common usage of English fruits and vegetables are quite different, hence the phrase "fruits and vegetables". So, pray tell good sir, if both botanists and the common layman believe fruits and vegetables to be distinct, why should they be anything but?

    --
    Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
  113. Re:nicotine itself is good, not the cigarettes tho by CB-in-Tokyo · · Score: 1
    Actually, Nictoine is one of the more potent poisions out there. It is three times as toxic as aresenic and one-and-a-half times as toxic as strychnine.

    http://www.nicotinevictims.com/poison.htm

  114. What this guy didn't know... by psyconaut · · Score: 1

    ...was that I've been awarded a patent on genetically modified tomato/tobacco plants and am now going to sue him and Fox!

    (And if you knew anything about the US patent system, you'd know that prior art doesn't mean squat!). :-)

    -psy

  115. Somewhere in Virginia by ratfynk · · Score: 1

    The evil Dr Eugene Cross, takes the final step. His brilliant isolation of the gene group took 10 years. The technique of group splicing, which he introduced at Cal Tech, but for which he was censured and poohooed worked! Now he would get even with the industry and scientific community that rejected him. His 5000 bags full of THC spliced tobbaco seeds would show the world once and for all his genius!

    --
    OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
  116. It's in reruns.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Its called MacGyver... or Star Trek (TOS). Take your pick.

  117. Sorry... by MrIcee · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new addicted tomacco worm overlords

  118. You saay tomacco by $0.02 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I say tobato

    --
    If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
  119. Just like when lawmakers decided the value of pi? by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 1

    It was not TOO long ago that two states actually wrote into law the value of pi... and on top of that, an INCORRECT value.

    Why would this be different?

  120. Re:Tomato aren't fruits. by catbutt · · Score: 1

    Well the traditional definition of fruit is that it should be sweet (for instance in Websters: ..." the usually edible reproductive body of a seed plant; especially : one having a sweet pulp associated with the seed "). The reason a cucumber or tomato or pumpkin or squash etc are not generally considered to be fruits is that they are not sweet enough. Remember, the word was not invented by scientists, it was people who wanted to describe a certain kind of thing, and tomatoes and pumpkins and such probably did not fit what they were talking about.

  121. Re: not an urban myth, you can graft hops on canna by O · · Score: 1

    Yes, grafting would work, but, as THC is produced in the flowers of the cannabis plant, THC and the other cannabinoids would not transfer from the roots to the hops, thereby making the exercise pointless.

    --

    1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
  122. Tomacco by dentar · · Score: 1

    It's a perfectly cromulent word, kinda like embiggens.

    --
    -- I am. Therefore, I think!
  123. First Jules Verne, and now Matt Groenig? by Progman3K · · Score: 1

    Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, giants of litterature dreamed up science fiction foretelling real inventions.

    So now, with Skitlebrau and Tomacco, Matt Groening joins their rank.

    I wonder if the other two were as appreciated in their own eras?

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  124. BUDZU! by CrazyJim0 · · Score: 1

    One of my most dearest sci-fi inventions.

    Cross Pot with Kudzu.

    Suddenly, you have out of control pot plants conquering the landscape. Take that Washington.

    1. Re:BUDZU! by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I don't know what Kudzu (or budzu) is, but I do know that what you hold dear is already a reality: pot is considered an insideous weed - thus the term "ditch weed". It grows on it's own accord all throughout the midwest. It's obscenely easy to cultivate. Etc. etc.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    2. Re:BUDZU! by Holi · · Score: 1

      Here is the answer you need, courtesy of your favorite search engine.
      http://www.cptr.ua.edu/kudzu/

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  125. A graft is not a genetic change by sam_handelman · · Score: 4, Informative

    I can't believe no one mentioned this already (I searched the comments page.)

    In a graft, which is what has been done here, you stick the stem of one plant (tomato in this case) onto the root of another (tobacco in this case). If the two plants are closely related (as are tomatoes and tobacco,) the hybrid plant will grow and survive; often, chemicals (nicotine in this case) will move in the sap from the roots to the leaves (and presumably fruit.)

    This is NOT a genetic change. If you took these "tomacco" seeds and planted them, they'd grow into regular tomatoes. Making the genetic changes required for tomatoes to actually make their own nicotine (which would breed true,) is an entirely different and more complicated prospect.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    1. Re:A graft is not a genetic change by TummyX · · Score: 0

      well duh

    2. Re:A graft is not a genetic change by glassesmonkey · · Score: 1

      This is the same a most lawn trees where they take a healthy species of root-happy tree and in a nursery graft on the less robust-rooted but pretty tree that everyone wants in their yards.

    3. Re:A graft is not a genetic change by DarkZero · · Score: 1

      A graft is not a genetic change

      I can't believe no one mentioned this already (I searched the comments page.)

      In a graft, which is what has been done here, you stick the stem of one plant (tomato in this case) onto the root of another (tobacco in this case). If the two plants are closely related (as are tomatoes and tobacco,) the hybrid plant will grow and survive; often, chemicals (nicotine in this case) will move in the sap from the roots to the leaves (and presumably fruit.)


      The reason no one mentioned this is the same reason why no one mentioned that the creation of Skittlebrau is not an actual form of brewery and fermentation, but actually just some guy throwing candy into a beer mug: We all thought it was too obvious to mention.

      This is joke science, not real science. These people are playing around for the fun of it.

  126. cigarettes? by gid13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could this be used to wean people off of cigarette addictions?

    1. Re:cigarettes? by ratfynk · · Score: 2, Funny

      no...but it sure as hell could wean people off tomatoes!

      --
      OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
  127. Thanks for the answers by betis70 · · Score: 1

    I like my corn popped actually (air popped). But she won't let me have it that way because I guess the body treats popcorn as an almost pure carb.

    Though there is something about corn-on-the-cob, grilled slightly. Even without any toppings (butter is anathema) it is DAMN yummy.

    --
    I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
    1. Re:Thanks for the answers by Nick+Mitchell · · Score: 1
      hey, I just read that, while popcorn has a high glycemic index (72), it has a low glycemic load (8). Meaning that it has a high impact on blood sugar, but is pretty low in carbs -- so you'd have to eat a hecka big load of popcorn to impact your blood sugar levels appreciably.

      In comparison, a baked potato has a GI or 85 and a GL of 26. Carrots are 49 and 2, lentils are 30 and 5, brown rice is 64 and 23. Raw broccoli is basically zero on both figures.

      so I say go for the popcorn, dude! I'm not sure whether the GL figures account for the high fiber content of popcorn (compared to a potato). If it doesn't, then all the better!

      nick

    2. Re:Thanks for the answers by dheltzel · · Score: 1
      Sounds like you're married to this lady (or is she your mom?).

      Just eat the popcorn when she's not around. You body needs carbs anyway, and this way it's caffeine-free (unlike most interesting soda) and alcohol-free.
      If you need any more help rationalizing bad behavior, let me know :)

    3. Re:Thanks for the answers by betis70 · · Score: 1

      Nope not married, just a very strict diet program. It has worked so far ... lost 81 lbs, so I'll follow her advice.

      >>Just eat the popcorn when she's not around.

      Ha! Well I get to have lots of other things (like potatoes and corn-on-the-cob) so I really don't miss popcorn all that much.

      Once the weight comes off, I can have what I want (within reason, of course). Only 19 lbs to go!

      --
      I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
  128. Re:Just like when lawmakers decided the value of p by generic-man · · Score: 1

    Why would this be different?

    Because Alabama never changed the value of pi, and Indiana's bill was defeated in the state Senate 106 years ago. In other words, the whole "tomato is a vegetable" declaration actually happened.

    --
    For more information, click here.
  129. Incidentally... by Otter · · Score: 1
    The story of Fox News threatening to sue The Simpsons turns out to be false -- Matt Groening was joking, which apparently went over the heads of the Fox-obsessed media world.

    Story submitted to Slashdot, rejected. Maybe in a Slashback?

  130. Well... by G4Outcast · · Score: 1

    They could still run the risk of getting gum or throat cancer just like it happens with chewing tobacco.

  131. Tomatsup? by FireballFreddy · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Tomatsup"? Please post your "D'oh!" now or we will be forced to do it for you.

    --
    SQUEAK, the Death of Rats explained.
  132. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by monkeyfinger · · Score: 0

    ...or sprinkle cocaine on their bran flakes!

  133. Correct Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."

    1. Re:Correct Quote by Osiris+Ani · · Score: 1

      "Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forty percent of all people know that."
      - Homer Simpson

    2. Re:Correct Quote by hatchet · · Score: 1

      "Facts don't prove anything. Facts, schmacts..." - Homer Simpson

  134. Umm...excuse me? by geekwench · · Score: 1
    Per Dictionary.com:
    mushroom
    pron. mush'room
    noun
    1) Any of various fleshy fungi of the class Basidiomycota, characteristically having an umbrella-shaped cap borne on a stalk, especially any of the edible kinds, as those of the genus Agaricus.
    2) Something shaped like one of these fungi.

    Unless you're trying to say that portabellas and shitakes are made out of beef, I'm seeing fungus among us. ;)

    --
    Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
    1. Re:Umm...excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows that mushrooms are vegetables you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Umm...excuse me? by Hepkat · · Score: 1

      Ok, you might be right. I had originally considered mushrooms to be colonys of fungus cells, but then you have the issue of when a colony of cells becomes a single being.
      Also, I double checked how a fungus is defined and it ranges from a single celled organism to a "mass of branched filamentous hyphae" which I guess might give rise to the structure of a mushroom meaning the whole item is a single life form.

  135. You missed one by exhilaration · · Score: 1
    Synonym: homosexual

    :)

  136. So any news on flying cars? by crashnbur · · Score: 1

    We were promised flying cars by the new millennium decades ago. Any news on grafting automobiles with flight technology? I want my flying car!

  137. More BS on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, mister poster - I'd like you to cite some published works that conclusively show that nicotine is deadly. No, don't tell me to "do my homework" as doing "homework" is the job of the claimant, not the challenger of said claim. I can't get enough of you slashdot morons that come out and say $RIDICULOUS_CLAIM and then in the same breath "oh it's not my job to support my $RIDICULOUS_CLAIM, that's YOUR job! I don't have to prove shit - I'll just state it as fact and badmouth anyone who says otherwise"...

    And I thought K5 was bad... glad to see slashdot turning into just another mindless liberal shitrag...

    Nicotine is certainly addictive, but there certainly hasn't been any proof as far as I am concerned that it is deadly.

    1. Re:More BS on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicotine is mentioned among toxic substances in a table in "Essentials in Toxicology" by Ted A. Loomis. The toxicity of nicotine may partly be due to its similarity to several naturally occuring biomolecules (downstream from tryptophan including a B vitamin and others). This may be the reason for the body not responding "foreign" as with most other toxins. Additionally, Nicotine is listed as toxic by the EPA, and is an EPA Registered pesticide.

  138. Re:nicotine itself is good, not the cigarettes tho by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

    No kidding. It also damages blood vessels, producing atherosclerosis, and raises the risk of blood clots forming. The best thing a smoker can do to reduce the risk of an MI is to quit smoking, even if he's fat, lazy, with a crappy diet and high cholesterol.

  139. It's funny cause it's true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol ;-)

  140. Re:Tomato aren't fruits. by S.Lemmon · · Score: 1

    Ah, so lemons are veggies then....

  141. I hear tail of using pot roots on barley tops. by gumbysworld · · Score: 0

    I hear tail of using pot roots on barley tops. legal enough to pass prying eyes as what is that growning but the THC count will tell your a different story.

    Most times its the root system that produces them fun chemicals and the only problem is finding a plantthat will work on top.

  142. Not so deadly by chgros · · Score: 1

    Leaves and most likely the fruit (yes, tomato is a fruit technically) contain nicotine. Delicious AND deadly!
    I read somewhere that eggplants contained nearly as much nicotine as tobacco. Still, they aren't deadly.

  143. imagine... by pulse2600 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    a beowulf cluster of these!

  144. south park by per11 · · Score: 1

    Simpsons did it!

  145. Re:nicotine itself is good, not the cigarettes tho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nicotine is most definately not good for you. It constricts blood vessels and raises blood pressure. Unless you're shooting for a heart attack I'd avoid nicotine.

    Salt is most definately not good for you. It constricts blood vessels and raises blood pressure. Unless you're shooting for a heart attack I'd avoid salt.

  146. I hope he got a patent for it... by psxndc · · Score: 1
    Seriously, you can patent plants.

    psxndc

    --

    The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

  147. Re:nicotine itself is good, not the cigarettes tho by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

    it's the delivery device (cigarettes) that's the problem.

    So why does chewing tobacco cause cancer? Seriously, I'd like to know.

  148. PI is exactly 3! by arcadesdude · · Score: 1
    --
    --arcades
  149. Can Nuts and Gum be far behind? by ZipR · · Score: 1

    Homer was eating them a couple of years ago. And no science involved-- just good marketing!

    1. Re:Can Nuts and Gum be far behind? by gumbysworld · · Score: 0

      The only problem might be is if someone ate a whole can in one sitting. If and when they ever went to the bathroom, it may turn outot be a sticky mess.

  150. Probably already illegal. by blair1q · · Score: 1

    If the FDA doesn't rule it illegal to traffic in these things, the Tobacco industry will pay the government to outlaw it.

    Nicotine is their personal profit machine, and only they may benefit from your slow death.

  151. Re:Fuck The Creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and give their progeny a chance to evolve?! Hell no!

  152. OK this has to be said. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because some moron that works at slashdot can't fact-check another moron's story that was submitted to slashdot doesn't make the tomato a fruit. The tomato is as vegetable as fucking eggplant.

  153. YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I can stop using these stupid nicotine patches and move on to tomacos!

  154. Gack! by Sephiro444 · · Score: 1

    Right, but that's 12 or so geeks laying with one girl. And that's just ew.

  155. Obligatory soilant green quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tomacco IS PEOPLE!

  156. Wait for the next-gen tomato... by hahn · · Score: 1

    I'm still holding out for the "tomijuana".

    --
    "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
  157. Kind of redundant by benh999 · · Score: 1

    Tomatoes and tomato plants already contain nicotine.

    1. Re:Kind of redundant by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      So graft it to a potato plant(it's been done)
      vola1 french fries with a kick

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  158. My point by jdifool · · Score: 1

    When bananacaine will be made, then I will be more interested in DNA manipulations.

    --
    Let's overcome our weakness.
  159. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by fenix+down · · Score: 1

    And vegetables, including electromagnetic radiation and Regis Philbin, are matter-energy-information.

  160. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not my opinion but rather pointing out your own words.

    "God created everything."

    An inability to explain is not proof of falsehood.

    "The underpants gnomes really exist"

    An inability to explain is not proof of falsehood.

    Do you see the uselessness of that argument? It's almost as bad as "prove God doesn't exist".

  161. Most widely accepted *by nonscientists*, you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most widely accepted *ny nonscientists*, you mean.

    I guess you are saying that 4 billion morons can't be wrong?

    - AC

  162. Probably not, but... by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    You could probably do a gene splice if you really wanted to...

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  163. Uh, no by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    That was another show in the UK, made by Sky telivision (AKA FOX)

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  164. Tomatsup ... by zangdesign · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a Japanese corporation, if ya ask me.

    Ya didn't, but I'm just sayin' is all ...

    Tomatsup Heavy Industries - we make things with nicotine.

    --
    To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
  165. Yeah, no kidding by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    DH wins

    Check out that guy's definition of "Embarrased" ...In English, it only carries the abstract meaning of making ((sb)) feel confused, mentally frustrated, and/or self-conscious.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  166. When will we get Dilbert science? by mtnharo · · Score: 2, Funny

    I want my Tomeato.

  167. Eat 3 cigarettes and die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard somewhere recently (can't recall where) that if you were to eat the tobacco from three cigarettes, you would die within minutes. Any truth to this? I've routinely smoked more than 3 cigs in an hour's time, and I know people who smoke even more than that.

    Is it possible to OD on nicotine from smoking, or only via ingestion?

    1. Re:Eat 3 cigarettes and die? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I've routinely smoked more than 3 cigs in an hour's time

      Lightweight. Eating three cigarettes will probably cause you to puke before enough of it is digested, but you'll be in pretty bad shape regardless. I don't know if three will kill you, however (if kept down).

      The difference in smoking is that more than 90-some-odd percent of these chemicals in cigarettes are burned off before they can be inhaled. This is something those stupid anti-smoking commercials (Wackyland, or whatever with the grapes) like to leave out. Not that I endorse smoking for everyone...

  168. Re:nicotine itself is good, not the cigarettes tho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So why does chewing tobacco cause cancer? Seriously, I'd like to know.
    Because it, like cigarettes, is made up of tobacco. The parent didn't say tobacco isn't a problem, he was talking about nicotine (and he wasn't totally correct about that either).
  169. Franken-plant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, a graft is just a "Franken-plant".

  170. A better idea by Facekhan · · Score: 1

    Lets graft some fruit and nut plants onto marijuana plants.

  171. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

    * Vegetable has 2 common meanings. One of them includes tomatoes. When a person claims that is incorrect, he is wrong.

    * Fruit has a common meanings (culinary) and an uncommon one (botanical). The latter includes tomatoes, the former does not.

    So, pray tell good sir, if both botanists and the common layman believe fruits and vegetables to be distinct, why should they be anything but?

    The fact of the matter is that in the common use of English, tomatoes are not fruits. So pray tell, if the common layman and the skilled chef alike believe tomatoes to be vegetables, why should they be anything but?

  172. Re:nicotine itself is good, not the cigarettes tho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, well, the parent said it was the delivery mechanism that was the problem, not the tobacco.

  173. A few points by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 3, Informative
    • Nicotine, when not smoked, is not /that/ bad. Cigarettes are highly addictive because of it, but most of its deadly effects (cancer, mainly) are not due to it, rather to combustion byproducts.
    • Nicotine is very addictive in cigarettes, slightly less so in cigars and pipe, and less so when chewed, because its addictivity varies depending on how much time it takes for it to reach the brain. That's about 7s IIRC with cigarettes. Uptake much slower through other ways.
    • It's been experimented succesfully as a replacement for Ritalin / amphetamines in treating ADHD in the form of patch in children.
    • Nicotine is destroyed in the stomach. That's why nicotine replacements for quitting smokeing have to go through other means: skin (patches) or mouth tissue (gum and sublingual pills).
    1. Re:A few points by Swanktastic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nicotine is very addictive in cigarettes, slightly less so in cigars and pipe, and less so when chewed, because its addictivity varies depending on how much time it takes for it to reach the brain. That's about 7s IIRC with cigarettes. Uptake much slower through other ways.

      This may be, but a pinch of chewing tobacco contains about 3-5 times as much nicotine as a cigarette. People who dip don't even feel the effects from smoking one little cigarette.

    2. Re:A few points by Tin+Foil+Hat · · Score: 1

      Nicotine is destroyed in the stomach.

      THC isn't. You might consider that when you quit your other smoking addiction.

      --
      No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
    3. Re:A few points by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      Uh, no...

      It would kill you....

      Nicotine, unlike marijuana, is a toxic poison. The nicotine in one cigarette can kill. Fortunately, when smoking, the majority of the nicotine is destroyed.

      A common old-west murder trick was to soak a cigar in bourbon (or something to that effect), get them to drink it, and wait for them to die of nicotine poisoning.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    4. Re:A few points by praedor · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I don't know about the placement of chewing tobacco near the bottom. I have never smoked but I used to chew. It was "addictive" though I ultimately "just said no" and quit. In any case, I remember the first time I popped the spattin weed into my mouth (while driving). Within seconds I had a big high. The nicotine transfers directly into the blood via the capillaries in the mouth and then it doesn't take long at all.


      Though it has been YEARS since last I spat some tobacco, I still get a mild...craving...to do it again sometimes. Not only does spattin weed have the benefit of giving you a high (doubly nice if you sprits your big leaf chew - say Redman - with whicky) almost immediately, it is also nice and disgusting. Can't beat that.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    5. Re:A few points by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      most of its deadly effects (cancer, mainly) are not due to it, rather to combustion byproducts.

      This statement is a bit out of date. Research shows that nicotine is agonistic with the cancer-causing agents, accelerating the rate of cancer. Also, tobacco chewers get awful cancer of the throat and mouth, with no combustion products. Tobacco is bad all around.

      It's been experimented succesfully as a replacement for Ritalin / amphetamines in treating ADHD in the form of patch in children.

      Nicotine is a great drug - when you're up it helps bring you down, when you're down it helps bring you up - it's the addiction that's the problem.

      Nicotine is destroyed in the stomach.

      Interesting, makes sense - didn't know that. Thanks.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  174. Gratuitous Attack of the Killer Tomatoes ref. by thedbp · · Score: 1

    "Technically sir, tomatoes are fags."
    "He means fruits!"
    "Yes, fruits!"

  175. Re: Tapioca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, you've been hearing about the "School Lunch" version, have you?

  176. GLAVIN!! by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    The author was named Glavinic?

    "With the smoking and the snacking and the hey-hey-hey is it a fruit or is it a dangerously addicting DRUG glavin..."

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  177. Knowledge/Wisdom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sage, dude. Sage advice.

    1. Re:Knowledge/Wisdom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sprinkled with parsley

  178. toxic by KerPow · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is a nice link about why they would be toxic: Toxicity

  179. Kudzu and Ditchweed and Canadian Hemp by billstewart · · Score: 1
    The reason Kansas Ditchweed is so weak is that it wasn't originally bred for tastiness, it was grown for rope, so it was bred for big tough stems. During World War 2, when the Japanese had conquered the Philippines and the US could no longer get Manila rope for the Navy, and the Prohibitionists had only gotten hemp made illegal a couple of years before, you could get an exemption for hemp prohibition _and_ from the draft by growing a certain number of acres of hemp. (A friend of mine's grandfather, who'd grown tobacco in Kentucky before the war, switched to hemp, and after the war switched back to tobacco.) Unfortunately, this was no longer true during Vietnam...

    Meanwhile, across the Border in Canada, where they grow tobacco, but AFAIK aren't plagued by kudzu, the Americans talked them into making marijuana illegal, but hemp seeds don't contain significant quantities of THC, so they're not illegal. A couple of years ago, the hemp stores up there figured that they had sold enough seed to grow about 12 million pounds of pot, while their Federal government claimed that police had confiscated about 10 million pounds that year. So the good guys were _winning_, and the amount that was left was about an ounce for everybody. :-)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Kudzu and Ditchweed and Canadian Hemp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the hemp stores up there figured that they had sold enough seed to grow about 12 million pounds of pot, while their Federal government claimed that police had confiscated about 10 million pounds that year. So the good guys were _winning_, and the amount that was left was about an ounce for everybody. :-)

      Boy are you waaaaaaaaaay off. The amount that canada's underground economy makes from pot is somewhere between $4-7 Billion (with a "B") US dollars/year. See this recent article in forbes for more info.

      The "good guys" are losing. Badly.

  180. Try lime juice on the grilled corn by billstewart · · Score: 1

    If you're trying to behave yourself and not slather the corn with butter and salt, lime juice is pretty nice.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  181. Anonymous Ralph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they do that with cat food.

  182. Grains _are_ vegetables by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's a grain. You're not eating the stems or cobs, you're eating a seed with a bunch of seed-growing food attached. Depending on what condition it's in when you eat it, the seed-growing food may be mostly sugars (when it's still young and growing) or starches (after it's either been picked for a while or matured enough on the cob.) So if you want that sweet corn in perfect condition, start the water boiling right when you walk out into the back yard to pick it, and run back inside.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  183. Smoking Caffeine is bad .... by billstewart · · Score: 1
    So an acquaintance of mine and his druggie friends decided that, since other drugs like opium and coca have rather different effects between eating or drinking the raw plant form, using the refined active ingredient powder, or smoking it, it might be interesting to try crunching up some caffeine pills and smoking them.

    Do Not Try This At Home. You Don't Want To Do This. So he says that basically all the mean nasty things that caffeine abuse does to you happen all at once - headaches, nausea, jitters... This is one of those things that, when your high school teachers were telling you "Don't experiment with Drugs", may not have been quite what they were thinking about but was in fact good advice. Stick to drugs that are known to be safe and effective, like marijuana :-)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Smoking Caffeine is bad .... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > try crunching up some caffeine pills and smoking them.

      Is "your friend" (we all know who your "friend" is ;) the same kind of person who thinks snorting Pixie-Stix is a good buzz?

    2. Re:Smoking Caffeine is bad .... by billstewart · · Score: 1

      Don't know - he really isn't me, and he wasn't somebody I saw very often when I lived back East. Sure, I'm an occasional caffeine addict, but his story really didn't inspire me to try it. And usually when he wanted to snort things, he had more interesting stuff than Pixie Stix...

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  184. mangojuana by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

    im still waiting for the THC ridden mango... as much as i love simpsons, why havent they inspired that yet?

  185. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by Gherald · · Score: 1

    > ...or sprinkle cocaine on their bran flakes!

    Nah, too expensive.

  186. Grafting? by POds · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When you graft something, you'r not comgbining those plants are you? I thought grafting was taking a cutting and more or less implanting it into the stalk of another tree..

    If you really wanted Tomacco fruits, wouldnt you want to cross polinate or genetically engineer it?

    --


    Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
  187. Imagine a slashdotting in 1956... by kinnell · · Score: 1
    Now if we only had only had slashdot back in 1956.....

    Imagine a slashdotting in 1956: overloaded punch card readers causing the walls to vibrate; boffins in white coats clutching their ears in pain at the noise; miles of ticker tape flying around the room; vacuum tubes glowing so hot that the server really would melt.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  188. Non-obligatory Secret Policemen's Ball Quote by floydigus · · Score: 1
    (yes, tomato is a fruit technically)

    The whale is not really a fish. It is in fact an insect.

    --

    All things in moderation; including moderation

  189. Of course IE is by Barbarian · · Score: 1

    Haven't you ever read the "About Internet Explorer" box?

    Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

  190. It must be said by barcarolle · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new genetically-engineered plant overlords!

  191. Re:Playing God, with hilarious results. Mod up! by zoefff · · Score: 1

    Too bad that the parent comment of a nice /. discussion is modded down....

  192. "Intelligent" design?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone grafting a tomato plant onto a tobacco plant is hardly evidence for any theory of "intelligent design."

    Or of intelligent life on earth, for that matter.

    1. Re:"Intelligent" design?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's the best evidence they have.

  193. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by patches · · Score: 1

    According to the US Department of Education, Ketchuop and Salsa are both vegtables....

    --
    The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
  194. The way to defeat insane druglaws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Especially in the USA, the 'war on drugs' has taken on ridiculous proportions.

    This may be a way to counter it, just as continuous P2P networks counter (in practice anyway) ridiculous DMCA-laws and softwarepatents.

    Imagine doing this, not with tabacco and tomatos, but with cannabis and tomatos (or tabacco, or some other normal, not-illegal plant or weed). Can you see the ramifications of this? The war on drugs would become like the occupation in Iraq: impossible to hold on to in the long run.

    After all, it's not illegal to grow tomatos in your garden, nor to smoke them. This kind of bio-engineering has the potential of making tremendous social shifts. And while some may claim doom, I'm rather optimistic that human society as a whole is not going to be destroyed by social change (history has shown us that much).

    It's time someone tried it out.

    1. Re:The way to defeat insane druglaws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The war on drugs would become like the occupation in Iraq: impossible to hold on to in the long run.

      you mean as apposed to the bang up job the war on drugs is doing now? man. that is just depressing. if only i could get ahold of some illegal drugs to help relax, but alas, it is just impossible to get them.

    2. Re:The way to defeat insane druglaws? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Imagine doing this [...] with cannabis and tomatos

      This has, sort-of, been done. I believe Cannabis & Tomatoes are too distant to graft, but there is some kind of ivy/vine that it can be spliced onto. Also, hops (Humulus) seems to be a good choice.

  195. Best. Story. Ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been reading slashdot for over 3 years now and this is without question the best story I have seen so far ;)
    Tomacko!

  196. Re:A few points in REALITY by I-R-Baboon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nicotine is actually a poison . Before downplaying the intake of poison I would learn the facts. As for cigarettes and the diseaes they help bring on learn about how they get those little numbers on their packs before thinking you are any less exposed.

    Course, you could just prove it all wrong by soaking a pack or two of cigarettes in 32oz of water and chugging it after cutting off your phone service and access to medical help.

    --
    -1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
  197. "tube" or simply "pipe"? by rkaa · · Score: 1
    Tobago is Taino for "tube".

    The translation sounds a little weird. Is it taino for "tube" or "pipe"? To smoke a pipe makes perfect sense also in english.

    1. Re:"tube" or simply "pipe"? by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      rkaa sez: "The translation sounds a little weird. Is it taino for "tube" or "pipe"? To smoke a pipe makes perfect sense also in english."

      I'm told it means "tube". It also refers to the alternate method they used to smoke, in which a small wad of dried leaves was shoved into the end of a hollow reed, set of fire, and the smoke inhaled (again, into the nose) through the reed. The reed was also called a "tube". In this case it would be far more likely it could be interperated as "pipe". A rolled up leaf, though, just doesn't quite fit, to my mind.

      obHumor: I reckon I could call a joint a "bong", but if I did, someone would probably tell me "d00d! You've had enough!"

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  198. Actually that's just a assumption by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    They're assuming the tomatoes contain a OD quantity of nicoteine - they haven't tested them yet. If each tomato contains the same amount as what's absorbed from the average smoke then the tomatoes are no problem as far as eating are concerned.

  199. DDR? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Citing e2 is a laughable form of proof.

    Wikipedia says: "In botany, a fruit is the ripened ovary, together with its seeds, of a flowering plant. In cuisine, when discussing fruit as food, the term usually refers to just those plant fruits that are sweet and fleshy." (If you don't agree with Wikipedia, you can go in and change it.)

    The tomato is a berry, homologous and analogous to the fruits of other plants whose fruit is colloquially called "fruit"; as far as I can tell, the colloquial "fruit" is a botanical "fruit" that is sweet.

    Or computer salesmen who claim a hard disk drive isn't "Random Access Memory".

    Then would you claim that the Dance Dance Revolution Konamix CD for the PlayStation game console is "DDR memory"?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  200. Someone in Oz created Duff beer. by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    & News Limited sued them

  201. Are you a fruit or a vegetable or neither? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    In the English slanguage, a "fruit" is a homosexual man, and a "vegetable" is a person with severe impairment of mobility.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Are you a fruit or a vegetable or neither? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the English slanguage, a "fruit" is a homosexual man, and a "vegetable" is a person with severe impairment of mobility. now that was funny.

  202. Updated Movies by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The bed scene, after the lovin' is done...

    "Marinara sauce?"

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  203. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by Canuckanuck · · Score: 1

    Being a scientist, I much prefer the unambiguous language of botany when it comes to fruits and vegetables.

    But it makes me wonder, how did it ever come to be in gastronomy that a tomato is a vegetable, or a squash, or a cucumber, but a pineapple, a pear, and a banana are all fruits? What was the original criteria for separating these obviously analogous plant-parts into different classifications?

    Yeah, I'll stick with the botanical definitions thanx.

  204. That's how Sonny Bono owns you by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Anything that you can think of has already been thought of.

    This idea, combined with perpetual copyright, gives the entertainment industry entirely too much power over society.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  205. Grass? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Is cannabis a grass? If not, then why do habitual users of MJ call it "grass"?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  206. Atkins by yerricde · · Score: 1

    You[r] body needs carbs anyway

    Excess carbs become fat. Remember the recent Atkins article?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  207. What we need next. by blanks · · Score: 2, Funny

    Next we need
    popplers, Slurm, and solent cola.

  208. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by CyberGarp · · Score: 1

    The fact of the matter is that in the common use of English, tomatoes are not fruits. So pray tell, if the common layman and the skilled chef alike believe tomatoes to be vegetables, why should they be anything but?

    Why do layman call tomatoes fruit? Because the supreme court told them that tomatoes were fruit so they could collect more taxes. See Lawyer's Weekly for more details. It's an old flame, people have sued over these arguments.

    --

    I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
  209. Pestacide by luzrek · · Score: 1

    Actually a nicotene laced tomato plant may not be such a bad thing. The original use for tabaco/nicotene was actually as a pestacide. Perhaps the tomaco would be naturally insect resistant (and since it isn't a GMO would be acceptable for export to the EU, according to the article it was the result of a tomato plant spliced onto tabaco roots).

    --

    Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.

    1. Re:Pestacide by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      Uh, no.

      It would kill you.

      Nicotine, unlike marijuana, is a toxic poison. The nicotine in one cigarette can kill. Fortunately, when smoking, the majority of the nicotine is destroyed.

      A common old-west murder trick was to soak a cigar in bourbon (or something to that effect), get them to drink it, and wait for them to die of nicotine poisoning.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    2. Re:Pestacide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once ate a cig on a bet. It made me feel like ass, but it certainly wasn't fatal.

      Which makes me highly skeptical of your claim that a single cigarette's worth of anything will kill you.

    3. Re:Pestacide by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      I never said a cigarette's worth of "anything" will kill you.

      Take that cigarette you ate, and feed it to your cat.

      Or eat a whole pack yourself.

      Then I'll be laughing.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  210. MSG is evil by NighthawkFoo · · Score: 1

    It's a public health issue due to some people being highly allergic to the stuff. My aunt will start hyperventilating if she eats any MSG. My wife breaks out in hives if she's exposed to any, and my boss at work gets a quick "high".

    It's nasty stuff if you are one of the people who's body can't tollerate it. However, if it doesn't bother you, it's a cheap flavor enhancer.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
    - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:MSG is evil by GoRK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, I know. It's a neurotoxin, just like Asparthame (Nutra-Sweet), only more people are affected by MSG than Asparthame.

      The problem is that MSG is used in great quantities at fast food establishments and hardly at all in Chinese food (at least not anymore) -- but the Chinese food places have traditionally been the ones taking the heat for it. I know plenty of people who are unaffected by MSG that will refuse to eat at a Chinese food place without a "No MSG" policy, but they will happily go to McDonald's and wolf down some of that shit.

    2. Re:MSG is evil by pmz · · Score: 1

      It's a neurotoxin, just like Asparthame...

      Then why does the FDA list MSG as GRAS (generally regarded as safe)?

    3. Re:MSG is evil by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but they will happily go to McDonald's and wolf down some of that shit

      Wow, I was gonna call bullshit on you, but how wrong I was!

      At least they admit it, but here's a list of McDonalds foods with added MSG:

      Chicken McGrill
      Hot 'n Spicy McChicken
      Grilled Chicken Bacon Ranch Salad
      Grilled Chicken Caesar Salad
      Grilled Chicken California Cobb Salad
      Sausage, Egg & Cheese McGriddles
      Sausage McGriddles
      Sausage McMuffin
      Sausage Biscuit
      Sausage Biscuit with Egg
      Spanish Omelete Bagel
      Sausage
      Big Breakfast
      Sausage Breakfast Burrito

      The sad part is, a decent Sausage Biscuit with Egg would need no MSG at all, it's full of meaty favor, but apparently they can't help themselves.

      I mean, 4 salads with MSG added?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:MSG is evil by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Oh, and apparently, there's a conspiracy to hide MSG in food too.

      Bottom line, make your own damn food.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:MSG is evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only see 3. And they're all Grilled Chicken salads. I imagine the same grilled chicken is used on both the sandwich and the salads so its not surprising. Not sure why they need to have so many different types of Chicken salads, do THAT many people go to McDonald's for salad?

    6. Re:MSG is evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats because the FDA doesnt know its ass from its face....

    7. Re:MSG is evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John,

      Only you would know about what items contain neurotoxins... you have been destroying our braincells (and yours) for years....

      -
      Brian Deneke died for your sins.....

  211. Mmm THC Tomato .... by emdean091876 · · Score: 1

    So, how long before a tijuana plant is made?

  212. ObSoIMarriedAnAxeMurderQuote by himself · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Mike Meyers: "Dad -- how can you hate *The Colonel*?"
    Mike Meyers: "Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fort-nightly, smarrrrrrrtass! Oh, I hated the Colonel, with his wee, beady eyes: 'Ooooh, you're goin'ta buy my chicken, oooh!'"

  213. Rob Baur is EVIL! by UrGeek · · Score: 1

    "The Simpsons" are NOT role models! I love the Simpsons, they make me laugh but no one in their right mind would copy what they do!

  214. That's disgusting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ew.

  215. Heh heh by cshark · · Score: 1

    Forget the patch, I'm having spaghetti!

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

  216. D'oh! by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

    OK, I meant Tobatsup.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  217. Tobaco as a spice. by thbigr · · Score: 1

    Has any one else heard of a restuarant in NY that is selling dishes with tobacco in them? I thought I heard an NPR artical to that effect once.

    Sounds YUMMY!

    --
    Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
  218. Re:What to do if your kids won't eat their vegetab by Jouster · · Score: 1
    What was the original criteria for separating these obviously analogous plant-parts into different classifications?
    Sweetness on the palate.

    Jouster
  219. Nicotine by doppleganger871 · · Score: 1

    Actually, there have been some studies out (Heard on the Dr. Dean show) that show that nicotine could actually be benefitial to the heart in moderate amounts. Obviously, too much of anything will kill you. Something to check into, maybe these tomacco plants will be healthy as long as the nicotine level is quite low.

  220. Assumptions by DanDwig · · Score: 1

    This assumes that blood clotting was always critical to life,rather than merely beneficial. If you assume a primitive organism that merely had slightly enriched sea water running through its circulatory system, then clotting is beneficial, but not crucial to life. It therefore becomes possible to develop a low level clotting factor as a non emergency repair mechanism. I am not saying this is the way it happened, but if I can come up with a possible scenario in 2 minutes, random chance can come up with one given long enough.

  221. Tomatoes already contain trace amounts of nicotine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this an achievement?

  222. I agree... by precogpunk · · Score: 0

    People are stupid enough to get (mentally) addicted to anything. It's like banning food to cure obesity.

  223. Pedantry Time by P.+Legba · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course, all "vegetables" are "technically" fruits. The notion of "vegetable" as distinct from fruit is a cultural construct. Ain't Slashdot great?

    P.

  224. Tomatoes hate tobacco!! by Audeo · · Score: 1

    I'm incredulous....

    Considering tomatoes are subject to the virulant tobacco mosaic virus (TMV),

    see following link

    http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/pp/notes/oldnotes/ vg 15.htm

    I think that tomatoes would object to sex with tobbaco under these circumstances

    AudeoJude

  225. Re:A few points in REALITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking at those links (the ones that worked), all of them seem to discuss the effects of consuming too much nicotine. Your example of soaking a pack or two in water does this too. I think we can collectively agree that consuming too much nicotine in a short time is bad for you. However, if I consumed the amount of nicotine in two packs of cigarettes over the period of 3 months, would it be poisonous?

    In other words, how is this different from alcohol poisoning, carbon monoxide poisoning, etc.?

  226. MSG is not evil by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    It's a neurotoxin, just like Asparthame (Nutra-Sweet), only more people are affected by MSG than Asparthame.

    I call Shenannigans! Shenannigans!

    The whole bit about Aspartame being a neurotoxin is an internet urban legend. It has absolutely no basis in science. In particular, the claim about methanol poisoning from digesting the stuff is just wrongheaded since you get far more from drinking an equivalent amount of fruit juice or beer.

    Furthermore, the G in MSG is glutamate, an amino acid and is pretty safe. This is the component that people claim is a neurotoxin. It is true that glutamate can do nerve damage in high doses, but consuming MSG in food will not bring blood glutamate levels that high. You get a good amount of the amino acid from just breaking down proteins from plant and animal sources in the body. By the way, the reason that MSG works as a "flavor enhancer" is because the tongue actually has a fifth chemical receptor beyond those of salty, sweet, sour, and bitter -- one that bonds to glutamate.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:MSG is not evil by The_dev0 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are right, but my brother suffers severe asthma attacks and breaks out with hives when he eats food with a high MSG content. He does not suffer this reaction with any other foods at all, only those with a healthy dose of MSG. Also, his doctor has told us that reaction to MSG is quite common in people who suffer from asthma, a point that seemed confirmed when my brother went through allergy testing to make sure it wasn't something else. He is a chef by trade, so obviously being allergic to certain foods could detrimentally effect his employment.

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
  227. from Lord of the Flies parody by combinatorics · · Score: 1

    "Tastes like...burning" -Ralph Wiggum

    --
    Dada ended art.
  228. Ketchup is a vegetable! by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Hence, tomatoes are legally vegetables in the US, botany be damned.

    So is ketchup if you listen to the Reagan administration.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  229. Pfftt... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Is cannabis a grass? If not, then why do habitual users of MJ call it "grass"?

    Is cannabis cookware? If not, then why do habitual users of MJ call is "pot?"

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  230. The irony by deathcloset · · Score: 1

    http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hstoma1105,0 ,7531912.story?coll=ny-health-headlines such ironic irony. (text below) To reduce the risk of prostate cancer, it may take the whole tomato. New research on rats suggests eating whole tomatoes can reduce prostate cancer deaths more effectively than taking supplements of lycopene, a chemical found in tomatoes that has been associated with lower prostate cancer risk. Several earlier studies in humans had found a link between high lycopene blood levels and a lower risk of prostate cancer, but it was not clear whether lycopene was the effective agent or whether it simply signified tomato consumption. The new research suggests lycopene acts in concert with other nutrients in the tomato, creating a synergistic effect, said study author John W. Erdman, a professor of food science and human nutrition at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Lycopene is a carotenoid, a type of antioxidant that plays a role in disease resistance and includes beta-carotene, found in carrots and dark leafy greens like kale. "Lycopene clearly contributes to lower risk, but we never believed it was a magic bullet," Erd.man said. "There are a number of other good things in tomatoes," including other carotenoids and vitamins C and E, to mention just a few. "This study suggests that taking lycopene as a dietary supplement is not as effective as eating whole tomatoes," he said, encouraging the consumption of tomato products in pasta, salad, juice, even pizza. The study, co-authored by Dr. Steven K. Clinton, professor of hematology and oncology and nutrition at Ohio State University in Columbus, was published in the current issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, a peer-reviewed journal. It is one of a number of studies that have raised questions about whether the benefits of nutrients like antioxidants can be bottled. Jeffrey Blumberg, a researcher at Tufts University's The Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy and a self-described "advocate of rational diet supplementation," said the question of food versus supplements doesn't necessarily have an either-or answer. "No one ever suggested supplements are a substitute for eating whole food. They are what they say they are -- supplements to a diet," he said. It is easier to absorb lycopene when tomatoes are pureed or sauteed, he said. As part of Erdman's 14-month study, researchers treated 194 rats with a carcinogen to induce prostate cancer, and then assigned them to a diet of either whole tomato powder, pure lycopene or a control group. The rats that consumed the tomato powder had a 26 percent lower risk of prostate cancer death than the control rats, researchers found. While 80 percent of the control group died of prostate cancer, 72 percent of those on lycopene died, and only 62 percent of rats on tomato powder died. Half of each group had a diet of 80 percent of the average daily food intake, which also was found to lower the risk of developing prostate cancer.

  231. Good thread. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    The sun simply defying every known law of physics and continuing to burn after it has expended all its fuel is impossible.

    Like sailing around the flat world is impossible, or warping time is impossible?

    For that matter, you have no idea whether the Sun has expended all its fuel. You have a suspicion -- there's a lot of energy hitting us, and people theorize that the Sun has N units of energy left and that it will stop at some point, but we certainly don't know. There are a lot of people wondering how quasars keep blasting out energy after they really shouldn't based on our assumptions. Maybe you're right about the Sun, and maybe not.

    In an infinite universe, anything that can happen will happen, somewhere. Does this mean that my chair could possibly convert all of its thermal energy into kinetic energy and go flying around my apartment? No. That's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

    The second law of thermodynamics is a purely statistical law. We have a model of particle motion that says it's pretty unlikely, but certainly possible for the second law of thermodynamics to not occur for a given situation. This is *exactly* the sort of thing that we would predict would fail given an infinite set of attempts at breaking it.

    Bullshit. Intelligent design has very specific implications, meaning that we should hold the human body accountable to the same (or higher, if the designer is omniscient) standards that we hold any modern piece of technology to.

    I've already said that I'm not arguing in favor of intelligent design or creationism. I *do* like arguing against claims that I feel are definitely too strong. As for your ID claim, that's clearly false -- here's a counterexample. Bob makes an AI (I'll assume that you don't have any problem with him doing that, and that we can treat this as a reasonable working assumption). The AI grows and designs and builds a new computer system beyond Bob's ability to (directly) produce. The AI would be incorrect to believe that it is therefore not the product of intelligent design.

    We generally consider a lack of robustness and the possibility of complete destruction when performing a routine task (humans can die from eating because we use the same pipe for breathing as ingesting solid food) to be indicative of total incompetence.

    That is one interpretation. However, people rarely simply up and choke to death -- we have pretty hardwired systems to avoid choking to death, including the gag and choke reflexes. There is the problem that growing an extra eating aparatus produces another system that must be cared for, carried around, fed and maintained, and is vulnerable to damage. Who's to say that it's a good decision to avoid using the same orifice to eat and breathe?

    Why is this "intelligent designer" held to lower standards than modern-day mechanical and electrical engineers, even though the "intelligent designer" is supposed to be a code-word for God?

    When a mechanical or electrical engineer churns out a specimen of homo sapiens, you can then use this argument with justification.

    That's thanks almost 100% in part to modern medication, which a good chunk of the world does not have. Without it, we'd be fucked. Without modern medicine, we can die from a common cold.

    Yes, and it's also damned unlikely to happen. By avoiding having to attempt to attack the common cold, we retain an extremely effective level of generic ability to fight disease, can reproduce when transferring a smaller set of undamaged DNA (you don't need this "anti-cold code"), and for that matter, are equipped with a brain capable of *producing* said medicines. I mean, I have a good friend that makes robots that explore mines autonomously. It maps them out. The robot's reasonably robust (well, for a modern day robot), since it goes through some pretty unpleasant environments and has some pretty expensive hardware...and if it gets stuck, you can

    1. Re:Good thread. by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      Like sailing around the flat world is impossible, or warping time is impossible?

      Warping time is possible and happens routinely. What's your point? That just because we don't know for absolute certain that something is impossible must make it possible by default? Please. Take a physics course sometime.

      For that matter, you have no idea whether the Sun has expended all its fuel. You have a suspicion -- there's a lot of energy hitting us, and people theorize that the Sun has N units of energy left and that it will stop at some point, but we certainly don't know. There are a lot of people wondering how quasars keep blasting out energy after they really shouldn't based on our assumptions. Maybe you're right about the Sun, and maybe not.

      No, we do know. We were able to show that the sun uses nuclear fusion to produce its energy, and we understand how this process works. You're equating scientific theories with educated guesses, which tells me that you know precisely dick about how science works.

      The second law of thermodynamics is a purely statistical law. We have a model of particle motion that says it's pretty unlikely, but certainly possible for the second law of thermodynamics to not occur for a given situation. This is *exactly* the sort of thing that we would predict would fail given an infinite set of attempts at breaking it.

      Whether or not a law is statistical in nature does not have any bearing on whether it is statistical in application. The second law has been shown time and time again to be a very accurate description of what we observe in nature.

      lready said that I'm not arguing in favor of intelligent design or creationism. I *do* like arguing against claims that I feel are definitely too strong. As for your ID claim, that's clearly false -- here's a counterexample. Bob makes an AI (I'll assume that you don't have any problem with him doing that, and that we can treat this as a reasonable working assumption). The AI grows and designs and builds a new computer system beyond Bob's ability to (directly) produce. The AI would be incorrect to believe that it is therefore not the product of intelligent design.

      The AI can also observe an interact with Bob. We cannot observe or interact with God. Your analogy is flawed.

      That is one interpretation. However, people rarely simply up and choke to death -- we have pretty hardwired systems to avoid choking to death, including the gag and choke reflexes. There is the problem that growing an extra eating aparatus produces another system that must be cared for, carried around, fed and maintained, and is vulnerable to damage. Who's to say that it's a good decision to avoid using the same orifice to eat and breathe?

      Having another tube for eating eliminates a fatal flaw and adds robustness. If a piece of food doesn't go down all the way, it constricts airflow, leading to a fatality. That's a stupid design. Having workarounds for a stupid design is not equivalent to an intelligent design.

      When a mechanical or electrical engineer churns out a specimen of homo sapiens, you can then use this argument with justification.

      Oh please. Engineers follow universal principles of design robustness and stability. Did you know that we would be much faster and more efficient with our movement if we had treads, or more than two legs? So why don't we have 4 legs? Because our evolutionary ancestors did not. Now I'll patiently wait for you to trip all over yourself trying to reconcile this simple oversight with intelligent design.

      Yes, and it's also damned unlikely to happen. By avoiding having to attempt to attack the common cold, we retain an extremely effective level of generic ability to fight disease, can reproduce when transferring a smaller set of undamaged DNA (you don't need this "anti-cold code"), and for that matter, are equipped with a brain

    2. Re:Good thread. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      What's your point? That just because we don't know for absolute certain that something is impossible must make it possible by default?

      No, of course not. That just because we think something will happen doesn't make it impossible for something else to happen.

      No, we do know. We were able to show that the sun uses nuclear fusion to produce its energy, and we understand how this process works. You're equating scientific theories with educated guesses, which tells me that you know precisely dick about how science works.

      Except for the fact that our theory of star lifecycle falls apart for known cases, which is why I mentioned quasars. You're taking the currently best-accepted model and asserting that we understand completely how it works and that it's true, which we clearly don't and it isn't.

      Whether or not a law is statistical in nature does not have any bearing on whether it is statistical in application.

      This is ridiculous. We predict that most of the time that a given thing will happen...and it does. We also predict that very rarely, that given thing will not happen. You said that it was *impossible* for it to happen.

      The AI can also observe an interact with Bob. We cannot observe or interact with God. Your analogy is flawed.

      That certainly isn't necessarily the case. Bob finishes his AI and dies, the AI grows up, and can find no traces of Bob other than his magnum opus -- it.

      Having another tube for eating eliminates a fatal flaw and adds robustness.

      You ignored my counterargument -- that you have no grounds for claiming that the drawbacks of such a design change do not outweigh the benefits.

      Oh please. Engineers follow universal principles of design robustness and stability. Did you know that we would be much faster and more efficient with our movement if we had treads, or more than two legs? So why don't we have 4 legs? Because our evolutionary ancestors did not. Now I'll patiently wait for you to trip all over yourself trying to reconcile this simple oversight with intelligent design.

      If we had treads, we'd be pretty poor at clambering over rocks, and if we had four legs, we'd lack the fine dexterity that allows us to work with tools.

      Furthermore, evolution is not mutually exclusive with intelligent design -- evolution is a mechanism, intelligent design a source. If I write an AI and use some datafiles, and the AI discovers those datafiles and thinks to itself "Ah, clearly I come from datafiles, rather than from some form of intelligent design", it would be making an incorrect assumption.

      Speaking of reproduction, it takes millions of sperm to fertilize one egg. That's an unacceptable level of efficiency.

      Why? I have plenty of sperm. To make an egg more easily be reached by foreign material would more easily expose the reproductive mechanism to parasites or viruses.

      Aside from that, without modern medicine, most infants wouldn't live past 2 years old. This is not an intelligent or robust design by any standard.

      Again, I ask -- why do you consider it necessary to consider the human being without his brain?

      And yet you can easily replace a CPU. That's called modularity. You cannot do this with a brain because the human body is not very modular.

      Well, I guess it all depends on what you consider "good", but I'm not sure that I'd *want* to have someone else's brain transplanted into my head. So far, you've generally been using a God concept that a traditional Christian would buy into -- one who seems to be interested in improving the lot of each individual (where "individual" is considered in the classic sense -- the mind is a more important portion of "self" than the body). Your concept is going to undergo a drastic mutation if you now move to a mechanism where brain transplant is considered a good thing.

      Another strike against intelligent design, unless you want to arg

    3. Re:Good thread. by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      No, of course not. That just because we think something will happen doesn't make it impossible for something else to happen.

      In your case, that "something else" defies conservation of energy.

      Except for the fact that our theory of star lifecycle falls apart for known cases, which is why I mentioned quasars. You're taking the currently best-accepted model and asserting that we understand completely how it works and that it's true, which we clearly don't and it isn't.

      When applied to stars as mundane as our sun, it holds up very well.

      This is ridiculous. We predict that most of the time that a given thing will happen...and it does. We also predict that very rarely, that given thing will not happen. You said that it was *impossible* for it to happen.

      Yes, it is impossible for my chair to convert its thermal energy into kinetic energy and go flying around. You're taking the fact that entropy is related to statistics and then assuming that the law itself must only apply on a statistical basis. That's utterly and completely incorrect.

      That certainly isn't necessarily the case. Bob finishes his AI and dies, the AI grows up, and can find no traces of Bob other than his magnum opus-- it.

      The AI also has no other means of explaining its creation, i.e. it could not have simply popped into existence as a result of a natural process. CPU's don't grow on trees. Unfortunately for intelligent design advocates, this is not the case for biological organisms. Abiogenesis, evolution and the laws of physics all provide natural mechanisms which would lead to the existence of humans. Your analogy simply does not work.

      You ignored my counterargument -- that you have no grounds for claiming that the drawbacks of such a design change do not outweigh the benefits.

      It doesn't. A good possibility of choking to death while performing a routine operation like eating is a stupid design because it combines two unrelated functions and in this case, two functions which would readily interfere with each other.

      If we had treads, we'd be pretty poor at clambering over rocks, and if we had four legs, we'd lack the fine dexterity that allows us to work with tools.

      On what do you base this? Are you seriously suggesting that having an extra pair of legs would impair our ability to work with tools, which relies very extensively on our hands? On that note, why don't we have more arms? We could work with more tools more efficiently.

      Furthermore, evolution is not mutually exclusive with intelligent design -- evolution is a mechanism, intelligent design a source. If I write an AI and use some datafiles, and the AI discovers those datafiles and thinks to itself "Ah, clearly I come from datafiles, rather than from some form of intelligent design", it would be making an incorrect assumption.

      Intelligent design is a useless addition to the theory. Yet again, it does not improve the theory's predictive accuracy in any way, and it's a redundant term.

      Why? I have plenty of sperm. To make an egg more easily be reached by foreign material would more easily expose the reproductive mechanism to parasites or viruses.

      Why are sperm not stronger then?

      Again, I ask -- why do you consider it necessary to consider the human being without his brain?

      I'm not arguing that the inability to function without a brain is a sign of unintelligent design; I'm arguing that the inability to easily replace the brain is a sign of unintelligent design.

      Well, I guess it all depends on what you consider "good", but I'm not sure that I'd *want* to have someone else's brain transplanted into my head. So far, you've generally been using a God concept that a traditional Christian would buy into -- one who seems to be interested in improvin

  232. ooooooooooh... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    Kindly leave the stage. Now. ;-)

  233. Re:nicotine itself is good, not the cigarettes tho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chewing tobacco is often prepared with smoke for a few weeks to enhance the taste. That process loads the tobacco with e.g. (carcinogenic) nitrosamines, which would be one source of problems.

  234. Worst...Patent...Ever (nt) by Kneht · · Score: 1

    Worst...Patent...Ever

    --
    "Are you on some kind of medication?"
    "No"
    "Well, you should be."

    --Bean

  235. Re:Why can't we make hybrids of plants that matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    No joke.
    This was actually done at Texas A&M by a genetics major.

    He was legendary for the best spaghetti in the world.

  236. Re:A few points in REALITY by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    I'd wager it's much easier to kill oneself from paracetamol or aspirine overdose than with a nicotine overdose.

    Think about it, everything in "too much" doses is basically toxic. Even water -- ever heard of "drowning"?