Toyota Develops New Plant Species

oznigot writes "Yes, that's Toyota, the car company. In what appears to be a publicity stunt to promote their hybrid vehicle technology Toyota has developed a new species of plant. Of the Cherry Sage shrub family, the new plant absorbs nitrogen oxide and other substances from the air better than the original Cherry Sage." Update: 10/16 00:01 GMT by Z : Original link removed.

Comments

How long before...

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before we have giant hydroponic farms full of these plants just cleaning the air?

Re:How long before...

[Tanktalus]

Much, much too long, I suspect.

Who could ask for anything more?

[Anonymous Coward]

Toyota!

Re:Who could ask for anything more?

[aapold]

Oh, what a feeling!

Dude!

[Black Parrot]

> the new plant absorbs nitrogen oxide and other substances from the air better than the original Cherry Sage.

But unfortunately releases them again when you smoke it.

Re:Dude!

[DrEldarion]

Thought it should be noted near the top that the article now redirects to Goatse.

Re:Dude!

[dragon_imp]

Then, we should see a revival of their old slogan
"Oh, what a feeling...Toyota"

Re:Dude!

[sc00p18]

Well I guess it's a good thing nobody actually reads TFA.

Hmmn, this brings to mind if other car makers ...

[nihilistcanada]

start to develope plants as well. Can you recall a tree for safety problems?

Yeah!

[brilinux]

We should plant a bunch of these near a city to absorb the pollution and so that we can cut them all down to build new developments! Fun!

Re:Yeah!

[dabigpaybackski]

Cute. Actually, plants contribute tremendously to mitigating urban pollution and elevating O2 levels; the closer to the source (cars,) the better. Planting sturdy varieties along urban boulevards makes the air more breatheable and enhances the whole "feng shui" thing. If you're indoors, the ubiquitous spider plant is the best air cleaner. Ferns are prolific emitters of negative ions, which improve our oxygen uptake and elevate our moods. What a pity it is that we treat these organisms upon which our lives depend as inert commodities. And let us not forget that we can make recreational drugs from them.

Re:Yeah!

[mink]

"And let us not forget that we can make recreational drugs from them."

From ferns and spider plants?

wait

[42Penguins]

Of the Cherry Sage shrub family, the new plant absorbs nitrogen oxide and other substances from the air better than the original Cherry Sage.

Does this mean that the famed "intelligent designer" is really Toyota?
I welcome our new Cherry Sage developing Japanese overlords.

Re:wait

[Jesus_666]

Toyota says that they developed it, but for some reason the patent was filed by a certain "H. Noodly Appendage".

It should be noted..

[linux_warp]

It should be noted that the car division of Toyota did not create this plant, but rather a company they own: "Toyota Roof Garden Co". Not sure why it is such great news that a gardening company made a plant..

Re:It should be noted..

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

Toyota Motor Corp said Thursday it has developed a new species of the Cherry Sage shrub family

and

will be sold for 380 yen per pot through Toyota Roof Garden Co, a Toyota Motor subsidiary.

So it looks like Toyota Motor Copr did create the plant and will be selling it through a subsidiary.

Re:It should be noted..

[icepick72]

Not sure why it is such great news that a gardening company made a plant..

Uh ... maybe because the second sentence says "The new Kirsch Pink plant is reportedly 1.3 times more effective at absorbing NOx, SO2 and other air pollutants".

BTW, how far into the article did you get before posting ... ;)

Re:when will toyata release a monster truck?

[aklix]

And I thought I had a bad habbit of killing kittens...

The conversation in PR...

[kosmicki]

"We need a way to promote our new hybrid."

"Recycling campaign?"

"Nah, we need something different..."

"How about a tree..."

"What? Plant a tree?"

"No... We make a new one!"

"But we make automobiles..."

"Exactly, no one will see it coming!"

"How many botanists do we have on staff again? Oh, that's right, NONE!"

"Relax, I'm sure a few guys on the line do it as a hobby."

Re:The conversation in PR...

[descil]

Apparently they've been working on it since 1998. A similar discussion may have been had at the Toyota PR section 7 years ago, but at least they committed to it.

Anyway if they're all about making money, and they found a way to make money AND do something good for the environment, good for them! (and us)

Re:The conversation in PR...

[krunk4ever]

Toyota may be just a car company here in the states, but in Japan, they're into many different industries, like Toyota Home: http://www.toyotahome.co.jp/

Where does it go?

[CRC'99]

ok, so this new GE plant absorbs more stuff from the air.... where does this go? What does the plant do with it? Does it release the same amount of stuff that it absorbed when it dies? Does it turn it into something else?

Re:Where does it go?

[silverkniveshotmail.]

ok, so this new GE plant absorbs more stuff from the air.... where does this go? What does the plant do with it? Does it release the same amount of stuff that it absorbed when it dies? Does it turn it into something else?

It probably stores it and converts it into energy.

Re:Where does it go?

[dapyx]

It absorbs those substances and uses them to grow. When the plant dies, they remains in the soil as part of humus.

Re:Where does it go?

[utnow]

it probably goes into the soil... it should be noted that nitrogren in soil is a good thing.

Re:Where does it go?

[Smauler]

It probably stores it and converts it into energy.

Great, they've devoloped a nuclear plant. Perhaps that's what GWB was looking for?

Re:Where does it go?

[silverkniveshotmail.]

Great, they've devoloped a nuclear plant. Perhaps that's what GWB was looking for?

I guess i'm a nuclear person then. And I drive a nuclear car.

In the other news..

[CSHARP123]

Friday, October 7, 2005 at 05:00 JST NAGOYA -- Toyota Motor Corp said Thursday it has developed a new species of the Cherry Sage shrub family that effectively absorbs harmful substances in the air. The new species, called Kirsch Pink, will be sold for 380 yen per pot through Toyota Roof Garden Co, a Toyota Motor subsidiary, from March next year. While Cherry Sage plants are known to absorb nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and other harmful substances in the air, the new species does so 1.3 times more effectively, the automaker said.

In the other news GM said it has developed a new species of "Chevy" Sage Shrub family. The new "Chevy" will be sold for $350 per "pot". People can smoke this "Pot" and absorb all the oxides like nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide that are good for the health.

In Other News

[schwaang]

2005 models of the Toyota Cherry Sage are being recalled because of a software glitch that causes them to stall or shut down.

Toyota will notify [Cherry Sage] owners by mail that they can take the [shrub] to a dealership for free repairs, said Allison Takahashi, a spokeswoman at Toyota's Torrance-based U.S. operation.

Re:when will toyata release a monster truck?

[EtherealStrife]

/. is peta's worst nightmare

Hybrids shifting attention

[Y-Crate]

This is somewhat on topic, so if you disagree with me posting it, just leave it un-modded in +2 semi-obscurity

With the rise of larger and larger vehicles, and the questions that have arisen regarding their impact, most of the attention has been focused squarely on the fuel economy issues. Now, I will be the first one to admit that the matter of gas consumption needs to be taken seriously and many vehicles out there are a simply irresponsible purchase with gas prices being what they are, even if the people buying them can afford to fill them. The rise in demand is increasing prices for everyone.

So, hybrids are being rushed onto the scene as fast as possible. Great, eh?

Not quite.

By addressing the fuel economy problem and thinking that it is the end of the concerns with the larger vechicles on the road, we are ignoring the most important of them all, which is the danger they pose on the road to other drivers.

Link

Federal information shows that although light trucks account for one-third of all registered vehicles, traffic crashes between a light truck and any other vehicle now account for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions. Of the 5,259 fatalities caused when light trucks struck cars in 1996, 81 percent of the fatally injured were occupants of the car.(9) In multiple-vehicle crashes, the occupants of the car are four times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the SUV.(10) In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die.(11)

This study was very important because it examined how many car occupants killed in accidents with SUVs might have survived had the accidents involved passenger cars weighing the same as SUVs. This is in important finding, because auto manufacturers have maintained that the weight of SUVs make them dangerous to smaller cars, not the design. The NHTSA study concludes that 2,000 people would have survived if their vehicles had been hit by a heavy car instead of a heavy SUV. Two thousand is five percent of the nation's annual traffic fatalities. The study declares that light trucks and SUVs are twice as likely to cause a fatality in the struck car than a passenger car of comparable weight.(13)

In response to studies like this, automakers have begun saying they will make changes to make SUVs more compatible with other cars. When Ford Motor Company introduced it's new monster, the Excursion (19 feet long, 6 1/2 feet wide, and weighing in at 8,500 pounds), Ford added a front beam and a rear tow hitch to prevent other vehicles from sliding under the Excursion during an accident. The Excursion will be the largest SUV on the market and could be extremely dangerous in an accident with a smaller vehicle since almost every vehicle on the road is smaller. Ford has not added the safety beam to its other SUVs.

The compatibility issue is not confined to crashes. The size and design of SUVs raises other safety issues. For instance, placement of headlights is a serious nuisance and a potential safety problem. On large SUVs, the headlights are mounted higher than on cars. Large SUVs have headlights mounted 36 to 39 inches above the ground - the same height as the side mirror on a small car. The glare from SUVs' headlights can appear to other drivers as bright as high beams. Glare can be 10 to 20 times worse than recommended levels when headlights are at the height of a driver's eyes or side mirror, according to a study by the Society of Automotive Engineers. (14)

Yes, the site is biased, but their sources are another matter.

It's ironic to think that with the introduction of more hybrids, we will see more SUVs on the road, which will increase the death rate for drivers all across the U.S.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[KylePflug]

While it's true that large SUVs increase fatalities with smaller cars, it seems that as adoption increases we'll eventually have mostly SUVs and be back to ground zero.

And for the headlights bit... well, it's worth noting that cars are beginning to plan their revenge. I drive a Suburban, and I always get the worst glare from either tractor-trailers or small cars. Tractor-trailers are just closer to eye level, but small cars are starting to put in those ridiculous halogeon neon zeon opteron laser beams, so NOBODY in the opposite lane within a hundred miles can see until the car is past. SUVs are higher, but also tend to have their beams pointed downward more sharply. I've never really noticed it as a problem when I drive smaller cars.

What is a problem is the fact that they obstruct lanes, but in my experience SUVs are far from the worst offender in that regard. I'd rather drive behind an Excursion or a Suburban than a tractor-trailer or a full-sized windowless van. And again, as cars tend to gravitate toward the SUV model, the issue of sight obstruction will be less of an issue. What carmakers really need to focus on is tapering the front right so you can see short things in front of the car, and designing the interior and mirrors right so SUVs can navigate traffic safely. I personally am very uncomfortable in an SUV on freeways unless it has convex mirrors installed -- the the point where I will gladly add half an hour to my commute each way if I can avoid freeways. With a convex mirror though, I feel and drive much more safely.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[MBCook]

This is something to think about. Things would have been different 10+ years ago, but the situation is clear for me now. I'm 22, and I drive a mini-van. I'd hate to drive a compact or something because of all the headlights in my eyes (as mentioned, by the trucks, mini-vans, and SUVs). I'd be terrified if I was in a crash (honda civic + hummer + 70 mph = dented hummer + hunk of scrap). I wouldn't feel safe buying a small car (even a volvo or something like that) because of this fact.

Now thanks to the laws of physics, smaller cars will always get better mileage. As the price of gas continues to climb (that's what I expect, and I assume most others too), that will be a bigger and bigger factor pushing people back to smaller cars (as well as things like ease of parking, etc).

I'd like to add that for Excursion was just taken off the market. With its 44 gallon fuel tank that takes over $100 to fill up and it's gargantuan size (harder to find parking spots, fit in garages, etc) and it's amazing 12 MPG (if you're lucky), no one was buying them.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[Desert Raven]

Y;know, this makes it sound like light trucks are the evildoers here, but let's point out a few facts.

Fact: Light trucks haven't really gotten any bigger, and in fact may be slightly lighter in weight than previously. A 2005 1/2 ton pickup is pretty much the same size as a 1970 1/2 ton pickup.

Fact: Passenger cars have gotten a lot smaller over the past few decades. Even on the "large" end of the scale, a current model Cadillac is nowhere near the size of a 1972 Chrysler New Yorker. In fact, that '72 New Yorker probably outweighs a number of modern light trucks. Modern Impalas give me a fit of the giggles every time I see one.

When you look at it this way, it's not so much that the light trucks are at fault as it is that the current passenger cars are much more dangerous than their previous counterparts. Were those cars gas-guzzling behemoths? Yup, they sure were. But the tradoff for efficiency is less mass around the passengers, which equates to less safety when colliding with a larger vehicle.

Point is, in the '70s, larger passenger cars were pretty much on even footing with the light trucks. To point out that modern, smaller cars are more vulnerable against light trucks is pretty much like pointing out that getting hit in the head with a baseball is going to hurt more if you are wearing a cap vs. a batting helmet.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[procon]

Your point about light trucks remaining the same weight is a good one, but it ignores the current elephant in the living room, SUVs. Light trucks served a different purpose 35 years ago; chiefly they were trucks. They were driven by experienced drivers, mostly for work, and nationwide they were far less common then cars.

High & Mighty, a great book on the subject, painstakingly shows how American car companies shoe horned SUVs into the light truck category to avoid safety and environmental requirements. Free of these requirements, SUVs evolved to become as dangerous to fellow drivers as possible. They were built high, with bumpers that rode over other cars, and stiff under bodies that did impaled its victims. The government looked the other way, protecting American Motors, and then Chrysler, until it was too late.

And your other point about the physics of big cars being fundamentally safer ignores all the improvements in car design that has occurred over the past 35 years. Cars are now built with air bags, crumple zones, and unibody construction. I'll let others who are more knowledgeable than me weigh in, but I think a modern Camry is actually safer for its occupants than a 1972 mid-sized car.

In closing, nobody's evil here, I have close family who drive SUVs, and calling them names doesn't go over well at reunions. That being said, Randy Cohen, the New York Times' Ethicist eloquently concluded that it is selfish to drive a vehicle that puts others at mortal risk for style or comfort. Food for thought when deciding what our next vehicle should be.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[nutshell42]

The government should make a law that every car has to have an impact zone more or less the size and position of the bumper on current cars (perhaps a bit higher) but all around the car. Now all crash tests are made with a steel bar that represents this impact zone and not only does your car have to resist being hit by it, hitting it also has to completely absorb the impact of all new cars without them running over it or parts of the chassis sticking past it.

That way everyone could drive whatever they want to because a well-defined "crash interface" would mean that you don't have to take into account the vehicles the rest of the country is driving.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[dbIII]

So, hybrids are being rushed onto the scene as fast as possible.

I saw a hybrid in 1987 at a small unversity in Australia - so much for a rush.

It's ironic to think that with the introduction of more hybrids, we will see more SUVs on the road

I don't really understand the logic - if someone is buying for fuel economy wouldn't they go for a light car instead of a light truck? For those few individuals who could use a light truck one that uses less fuel also makes sense. The idiot who uses a truck for nothing but city commuting is a victim of advertising and would have had a red sports car in a different time, so it is a social problem that can be partly dealt with by government regulation. In my country there was a problem with purely decorative bullbars on the front of large 4WD vehicles killing pedestrians in low speed impacts, doing lots of damage to other vehicles and often wiping out the usefulness of carefully designed crumple zones and allowing a lot of energy to get to the vehicles occupants - thus making it a lot worse to have one of these things on your vehicle in a collision than if it wasn't there. These things were restricted, and it was found that a similar thing make of plastic worked in collisions with large animals.

The high ground clearance that makes a light truck the sports car of this decade in some places does make the bonnet/hood of the vehicle the right height to kill pedestrians or the drivers of other vehicles even without a big heavy mass of bars bolted to the front.

I really don't userstand the SUV thing in the USA - probably because fuel here reached US$4.25 per gallon a while ago. How much would it cost to fill a Hummer at that price and how far could you drive it?

Back to the plants - we've had success with salt clean up by clever planting programs, clever use of planting could also help with air pollution in cites with a lot of idling traffic. Even a conventional hedge traps a lot of soot just by having a lot of surface area. Unless you subscribe to the idea of intelligent design all of that carbon we are putting in the air was once plant material - the only problem is that we are burning millions of years worth of storage in decades.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[Osty]

While it's true that large SUVs increase fatalities with smaller cars, it seems that as adoption increases we'll eventually have mostly SUVs and be back to ground zero.

The problem is that "building a better tank" only gets you so far. That's why cars have designed crumple areas, side impact protection, and airbags. Your car is more likely to be totalled in an accident, but you're much more likely to survive because your car absorbed most of the energy. A body-on-frame style truck/SUV (like your Suburban) is pretty rigid, and isn't going to crumple much. While you may be safer in that than an old (pre-80s) sedan, you'd be much safer in a modern car design (without even getting into the fact that you've probably killed whatever you've hit). This arms race has to stop, because there will always be something bigger than you. And that's not even getting into rollover problems with larger vehicles (hint: side-curtain aribags are not a solution).

small cars are starting to put in those ridiculous halogeon neon zeon opteron laser beams, so NOBODY in the opposite lane within a hundred miles can see until the car is past.

The word you're looking for is "xenon", and I seriously doubt you're getting glare from that. Xenon lights have a much sharper cut-off, so that you're very unlikely to get glare from above he light, and manufacturers are required to adjust the lights such that they are pointing more towards the passenger side (the right in the US) to avoid blinding oncoming cars. Many cars, like mine, have a leveling system built in, so that even if I'm going over a speed bump I'm not going to blind you. Self-installed lights may not be adjusted properly, but that's a problem with any light as you can certainly be blinded by a maladjusted halogen light just as well as a Xenon.

More likely, you're just reaping the bad will towards SUVs that many car drivers harbor. Because your lights shine directly in their eyes, once you pass them many people will turn on their high beams to give you a taste of your own medicine. Serves you right, IMHO.

What is a problem is the fact that they obstruct lanes, but in my experience SUVs are far from the worst offender in that regard. I'd rather drive behind an Excursion or a Suburban than a tractor-trailer or a full-sized windowless van.

You keep bitching about semis, but you don't mention the fact that tractor trailers are relatively rare in daily traffic. Maybe you live in a major shipping hub, but for the rest of us the biggest vehicles we will encounter on our daily commutes are Suburban-sized SUVs. You're also ignoring the fact that truckers are specially trained and licensed, and in general are some of the best drivers on the road. Don't believe me? Watch all of those semis that you seem to see while driving. See how they try to keep a very large distance between themselves and the traffic in front of them? See how they always use their turn signals, and wait for a good clear patch of traffic before merging? See how they generally don't drive much beyond the speed limit? If all large SUV drivers were required to carry a CDL, our roads would be much safer (and there'd be many less SUVs, too). If you think that's too draconian, consider that you do need a special license to drive a motorcycle.

And again, as cars tend to gravitate toward the SUV model, the issue of sight obstruction will be less of an issue

Sadly, that's going the wrong direction. Sight obstruction would be better if fewer people drove SUVs, not more.

I personally am very uncomfortable in an SUV on freeways unless it has convex mirrors installed -- the the point where I will gladly add half an hour to my commute each way if I can avoid freeways. With a convex mirror though, I feel and drive much more safely.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[Osty]

Yeah, you're a selfish to drive something that protects your kids? I wonder which is more expensive, the 6 mpg you loose by driving a civic, or the 10 years of productive life you loose to back problems when you get hit in a micro-car.

Maybe not selfish, but certainly "vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, [...] frequently nervous about their marriages, and [...] [lacking] confidence in [your] driving skills." That last part is the kicker. If you had confidence in your driving skills, you wouldn't need a tank to "protect your kids". Active protection (driving skills, braking and maneuverability, handling) is much better than passive protection (large chunks of metal), but if you must go for passive protection I'd much rather have the crumple zones of a unibody car or crossover SUV than the unyielding chassis of a frame-on-body light truck or SUV. Oh, yeah, and it's "losing", not "loosing". But then, what would you expect from an SUV driver?

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[KylePflug]

More likely, you're just reaping the bad will towards SUVs that many car drivers harbor. Because your lights shine directly in their eyes, once you pass them many people will turn on their high beams to give you a taste of your own medicine. Serves you right, IMHO.

Serves me right? Sorry, I think either I've miscommunicated myself or you're just overly zealous against all SUVs anywhere ever. I'm not contesting that a no-SUV utopia wouldn't be in a lot of ways better, especially for car drivers. However, it's also very unlikely. I think you're right that an "arms race" isn't the solution, and unfortunately that's the way we're heading. But deliberately blinding any SUV you meet makes you a dipshit and you deserve it if he hits you.

Some of us need SUVs. We own a suburban because we have a large family, frequently need to move lots of cargo/ladders, and need the ability to tow trailers of various sizes. The left has a tendency to assume that any and all who drive SUVs are merely participating in escalation, are power-hungry, or are too rich for their own good. I've driven both cars and SUVs since I got my license and consider myself a very safe driver. The only reason I have an SUV now is that a narcoleptic attack left us without a car and with a higher insurance rate, so the family can only afford to keep me insured in the SUV. I don't drive it because I'm power-hungry or just to feel big -- although it is certainly a much more pleasant drive than, say, our ancient Volvo with holes in the floor -- I drive it out of necessity. Becuase it's what we have and what we need. If all we had was a Prius, we'd never be able to move the family or cargoes, never be able to tow any of the various and sundry loads we have to tow, couldn't transport animals, and would never be able to leave our home during the winter. Not all SUV drivers have a justification, but we most certainly do. Assuming that I'm just a rich jerk and so hitting the high beams is just a moronic thing to do.

And for the record, I've driven at night both in front of, behind, and in traffic heading the opposite direction to our Suburban. The headlights aren't that bad. Other SUVs are far worse, yes, but I don't think the bright lights I'm getting are of the high-beam screw-you variety.

You keep bitching about semis, but you don't mention the fact that tractor trailers are relatively rare in daily traffic. Maybe you live in a major shipping hub, but for the rest of us the biggest vehicles we will encounter on our daily commutes are Suburban-sized SUVs. You're also ignoring the fact that truckers are specially trained and licensed, and in general are some of the best drivers on the road.

I do live in a relatively major shipping area. My daily commute (before I moved on-campus for school; I travel by bike now) took me along Highway 18, a popular logging destination, onto I90 between North Bend and Seattle, where there are lots of trucks at first and then lots of busses, and often to 405N. Especially in the first two segments, there are many semis. I am aware that that isn't true for all commuters, but still, it's important to note that if size is your only consideration in judging other vehicles, you're declaring all mass transit and shipping anathema.

Like you say, skill of the driver is important too. I'm well aware that semi drivers are some of, if not the best drivers on the road. I love them to death, honestly. Nothing makes me madder than seing some kid in a sports car treating semis like they are static objects and somehow have the magical power to extricate themselves from the trouble the kid causes. It's only because truck drivers are so good at what they do that there aren't a ton more accidents because of idiots swerving in and out in front of and between those things.

As one who drives a large vehicle, I've always made it my goal to drive as well as they do. I know I don't, but by most people's standards I'm a very defensive driver. I only l

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[Osty]

Utter nonsense. It's not just about one's own driving skills, it's also about the skills of those around you; and you know that. It doesn't matter how good a driver you are if some fuckwad in a Prius runs a red and sideswipes you.

I'm sorry. I assumed you realized that "driving skills" includes "powers of observation". If some fuckwad in a Prius runs a red and sideswipes you (which is physically impossible -- a sideswipe happens by a car travelling parallel to you, while a T-bone happens when a car is travelling perpendicular, like a car running a red light), I'd say you're as much at fault (not in an insurance or legal sort of way) for putting yourself in that situation to begin with. But then I guess your 3500 pounds of metal (which, BTW, is about the size of a small car, as my little roadster sports car weighs just a hair under 3000 pounds and a Prius weights just under 2900 pounds. I'll assume you meant 5500 pounds, like a 4wd Suburban) just doesn't move that well. That's what I meant by active protection vs. passive. You see the Prius speeding down the road to the intersection, and you act to put yourself out of harm's way. And don't give me any crap about traffic not allowing you to move, because in that case you are at legal fault -- it's illegal to block an intersection, even one governed by a stoplight where you have the green. If you can't pass all the way through the interesection without stopping, you're legally required to wait until you can.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[CastrTroy]

Are roll bars and proper 4 point safety harnesses the answer to problems with cars rolling over. I know it helps in NASCAR. I've seen cars roll over multiple times, and drivers walk away. The question is, if they can mandate 4 point safety harnesses, and special seating for babies, why can't they mandate safer seat belts for adults? If they put as much technology into the seating for the driver as they did for those babies, then i'm sure deaths would be reduced, as would the seriousness of most of the injuries.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[Amouth]

personaly i drive a 79 midget.. you don't get much smaller than that.. hell some of the SUV's my head is lower than the top of their tires.. i just try and make sure i am not in their path.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[amliebsch]

I'd say you're as much at fault (not in an insurance or legal sort of way) for putting yourself in that situation to begin with.

What situation? Going through a green light without clairvoyantly knowing that the other car is not going to stop? You make it sound like the only way to get hit in a controlled intersection is to be stopped in the middle of it. Most collisions, however, occur when two people going in perpendicular directions enter the intersection simultaneously, one properly and one improperly.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[Osty]

Serves me right? Sorry, I think either I've miscommunicated myself or you're just overly zealous against all SUVs anywhere ever. I'm not contesting that a no-SUV utopia wouldn't be in a lot of ways better, especially for car drivers. However, it's also very unlikely. I think you're right that an "arms race" isn't the solution, and unfortunately that's the way we're heading. But deliberately blinding any SUV you meet makes you a dipshit and you deserve it if he hits you.

I was being extreme. I don't do that myself, but I've been on the receiving end of it from jealous people (I don't drive an SUV, but a bright and flashy sports car that has drawn ire from many folks). I'll just flip my mirror and go on with life. My point was that normal, properly installed, properly adjusted Xenon lights are not a glare problem, and if you constantly run into that it's probably for other reasons (like idiots that run with their high beams on).

Some of us need SUVs. We own a suburban because we have a large family, frequently need to move lots of cargo/ladders, and need the ability to tow trailers of various sizes

Becuase it's what we have and what we need. If all we had was a Prius, we'd never be able to move the family or cargoes, never be able to tow any of the various and sundry loads we have to tow, couldn't transport animals, and would never be able to leave our home during the winter.

I'm going to have to call BS on this. Minivans are safer and more economical for hauling a family than a body-on-frame SUV (and generally have more space even than SUVs with third-row seating). Minivans are also capable of carrying cargo like ladders, and are more efficient at doing so than most SUVs as the entire interior can be removed (some SUVs can do this, but not most). Minivans tow just as well as an SUV, for relatively light towing duties. For heavy towing requirements I'll grant that you need a truck (I'd rather have a truck than an SUV), but unless you're towing 5 days a week you're better off with an older truck that serves just as towing (and is cheap on the insurance) and using something smaller/more efficient for a daily driver. Maybe you just don't like minivans, and that's valid, but it's also one of the main reasons for the rise in SUV usage -- guys felt emasculated driving minivans to haul their kids around, so they bought big, manly SUVs. Get over yourself and get a minivan if that's the appropriate tool for the job. (Intentionally ignoring your specific plight so that I can speak generally.)

Finally, addressing your bad weather argument separately, I have to call complete and utter BS on that. The Pacific Northwest area where you live is very mild (I know, I live there as well). There's absolutely no reason why you should need a four-wheel drive vehicle in this area (maybe if you go up to the mountains for skiing, but even then you're better off with proper tires and the ability to drive in snow). I grew up in the Midwest, where winters are exponentially worse than they are here. Living on a farm, we certainly did have big 4wd trucks and tractors, but we never needed them for daily driving. We'd use a tractor to plow out our road, and then drive our normal FWD cars everywhere we needed to be. As well, during the last snow storm we had here in the Pacific Northwest two winters ago, my little mid-engine RWD sports car outdrove all of the big ol' SUVs (and the AWD Audis and Subarus) with nothing more than a set of snow tires and my Midwest-trained snow driving ability. So you need an SUV to leave the house in the winter? BS. Complete and total BS.

As one who drives a large vehicle, I've always made it my goal to drive as well as they do. I know I don't, but by most people's standards I'm a very defensive driver. I only lane-change or merge, unless forced (by, say, what must have been a half-drunk bus driver who mashe

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[Osty]

Are roll bars and proper 4 point safety harnesses the answer to problems with cars rolling over. I know it helps in NASCAR. I've seen cars roll over multiple times, and drivers walk away. The question is, if they can mandate 4 point safety harnesses, and special seating for babies, why can't they mandate safer seat belts for adults? If they put as much technology into the seating for the driver as they did for those babies, then i'm sure deaths would be reduced, as would the seriousness of most of the injuries.

Nope. The answer is to build vehicles with a lower center of gravity, such that they will only roll over in extreme circumstances (NASCAR is definitely an extreme circumstance, as you're not going to be driven into a wall at 180mph by a competitor in normal daily driving). As well, 4 (5, 6) point safety harnesses are used in conjunction with other (arm, head) restraints in racing usage, which is not available in your daily driver. That's one of the many reasons why racing harnesses are not DOT approved (and thus not legal for you to use when driving on public roads). I guess cars could put a full harness system in place (high seat bolsters, 4-6 point harness, arm restraints, head restraints, helmet), but it's just not necessary for daily driving. Nevermind all of the extra hardware needed to install such a system (anchoring points and such).

Roll bars are good, though I'd rather see full roll cages. And most cars with roll bars (convertibles) are woefully inadequate, such that your head is going to hit the ground before the rollbar does (look at the S2000's roll bar, or the new MX5's bar, to see what I mean). Enthusiast racing bodies like the SCCA will not allow you to race with those stock roll bars. You're going to fail the "broomstick test", which is laying a broomstick across the windshield and roll bar and seeing whether or not your helmetted head gets in the way. If it does, too bad for you. No racey.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[Thu25245]

There have, of course, been substantial enhancements in safety technology since the 1970s--tire design, computer-simulated crash structures, airbags, seatbelt pretensioners and force limiters, softer, non-protruding dashboard surfaces, more airbags, electronic stability control systems, and yet more airbags--and you have a much safer package than thirty years ago.

Of course, these could be applied to any vehicle, small or huge, and it would improve safety.

However, all other factors being equal, a lighter-weight vehicle will accelerate and brake faster than a larger one. Smaller cars almost universally handle better than larger ones, with less body lean and a more natural-feeling steering weight.

If you intend to get into an accident, then without a doubt the bigger vehicle is the safer one.

However, the fallacy lies in the presumption that accidents are inevitable. SUVs are involved in more accidents, vehicle for vehicle. On top of the natural difficulties in avoiding accidents in a larger, heavier vehicle, SUVs add an increased ride height--hence, a higher rollover rate.

The best way to survive an accident is to avoid one, and the best way to avoid one would be to drive a small car. (But not a sports car, necessarily--despite better performance characteristics, they tend to inspire drivers to behave badly.)

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[KylePflug]

I'm going to response specifically to the northwest-related bits, as I think you make very good points about mirror adjustmnet. My mirrors are adjusted slightly more inward (can just catch the car at the edge), because I prefer the frame of reference and can still use the convex mirrors the grant additional lateral visibility. I will grant that if I were to adjust them outward I could probably give up the convex mirror, but I'm not comfortable with a setup that puts a lot of weight on the rearview mirror as things like a spare tire, lots of passengers, or a lot of cargo (say, furniture or a boat) can impede that. Still, you're basically right.

I'm going to have to call BS on this. Minivans are safer and more economical for hauling a family than a body-on-frame SUV (and generally have more space even than SUVs with third-row seating). Minivans are also capable of carrying cargo like ladders, and are more efficient at doing so than most SUVs as the entire interior can be removed (some SUVs can do this, but not most). Minivans tow just as well as an SUV, for relatively light towing duties. For heavy towing requirements I'll grant that you need a truck (I'd rather have a truck than an SUV), but unless you're towing 5 days a week you're better off with an older truck that serves just as towing (and is cheap on the insurance) and using something smaller/more efficient for a daily driver. Maybe you just don't like minivans, and that's valid, but it's also one of the main reasons for the rise in SUV usage -- guys felt emasculated driving minivans to haul their kids around, so they bought big, manly SUVs. Get over yourself and get a minivan if that's the appropriate tool for the job. (Intentionally ignoring your specific plight so that I can speak generally.)

Yes, minivans are safer and more economical for hauling a family in most circumstances, but it's a combination of circumstances and the fact that we can't afford to own and insure a vehicle for eacht hat leads to the Suburban. For example, a minivan is not safer and more ecnonomical for hauling nine people skiing. A minivan is not safer and more ecnomical for hauling lots (LOTS) of painting gear and very long ladders (at least in my experience; I don't know the quality cargo racks of all the minivans out there.) A minivan is DEFINATELY not safer and more economical for towing a 24-foot boat, a horse trailer. Even a small trailer with something like motorcycles, yard waste, etc., would be less safe in a minivan. (by way of disclaimer, I don't tow a horse trailer, but it's happened in the past. Our neighbors have a full-size horse truck that we use for most of our U-Haul - scale needs. But I am quite familiar with the boat and small trailer circumstances).

In summary, you're right -- a minivan makes a lot more sense for a lot of circumstances, such as moving teh family, carrying small loads (although you're wrong about large loads; you can remove or collapse everything but the front seats in a Suburban and carry a whole lot in there, plus roof cargo room and a quite robust towing capacity). However, in a case where you need one vehicle that can function as a family transport, towing vehicle capable of handing weights in the range of 10,000 lbs, winter vehicle for skiing, and last-ditch commute vehicle, a Suburban makes more sense than a minivan. Yes, it really sucks and is a bad idea in general to drive a Suburban alone with no cargo or a trailer. You'd be better off in a car. Even if you're just transporting a family, a minivan makes more sense. But if you need the other functions and can't afford both a truck and a minivan, a large SUV makes a lot of sense. The only reason it also served as a commute vehicle for me for about 9 months is, like I said, becuase of an unfortunate accident that left us with fewer cars than drivers. We did our best to split it up with public transit, carpooling, and sharing cars with neighbors and family, but ultimately I had to drive the suburban several times a week by virtue

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[bungo]

What situation? Going through a green light without clairvoyantly knowing that the other car is not going to stop?

I have to agree with the parent. Looking at what other drivers are doing and being able to anticiapte is part of skillful driving.

The route I take to work every day has a large number of foreign drivers, who are less aware of the traffic rules, flow and general conditions. On one short streach of road I've witnessed many accidents, near misses, and multiple times car driving down the wrong side of the road (and the road is divided with trees in the middle).

You know what I do? Every time I go through a green traffic light, I look to make sure that the cars on the crossing road are either stopped or slowing. I generally lower my speed a little and shift into a lower gear. This way, there's very little chance that I will not be able to avoid someone running a red.

I might get hit one day, but it's not much effort to reduce the risk.

Really, it's not magic. You don't need to have pretend magically abilities to try.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[shawb]

Your situation would call more for a station wagon than an SUV. I personally drive a '92 Caprice wagon which I picked up for $200, so price really isn't an issue. When I was a kid my family went on a trip to california in a Caprice wagon. 4 adults, 2 teenagers, 3 young children and a 120 pound dog, with camper in tow and still plenty of room. The roof rack on my Caprice is at least as sturdy as that of any SUV and it's a whole lot easier to put stuff (ladders, etc) onto that than onto an SUV. The lower center of gravity also makes a station wagon far less prone to rolling over than an SUV could ever hope. Besides style, I have not heard of one good reason to have an SUV over a station wagon for family use (And familys generally don't need to go offroad any more than a station wagon can handle.) And new station wagons are far more off-road capable than mine could ever hope to be.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[bhtooefr]

Very possible to sideswipe someone when running a light/sign/etc.

See, I was a passenger in a sideswipe due to running a stop sign.

It's simply realizing too late that you ran the sign, and you're about to wreck, so you swerve, but not quick enough. Bam, instant sideswipe.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[bluGill]

A Chevy S10, 2wd, with the 4 cylinder engine can get as much as 33 mpg on the highway. That is as good as many tiny cars. (Sure the Geo Metro got 45, but that is a rare exception) reference (Yes I know the reference lists 28mpg - I used to have a 1988 model that got 33, emission controls are tighter now accounting to the difference)

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[Desert Raven]

Your point about light trucks remaining the same weight is a good one, but it ignores the current elephant in the living room, SUVs. Light trucks served a different purpose 35 years ago; chiefly they were trucks. They were driven by experienced drivers, mostly for work, and nationwide they were far less common then cars.

You say you get the point, and yet you missed the point.

The point is, the same folks who are driving SUVs today, were driving Impalas, New Yorkers, Fairlanes, etc 30 years ago. Same weight, just a different form-factor. My dad had a big Ford station wagon we rode around in when I was a kid, it has to have out-weighed my wife's '93 Jeep Cherokee by at least 2,000 lbs. After that, we had a full-sized Ford van. You think SUV's are common now, but in the 70's and 80's, full-sized vans were quite common. Those vans were at *least* as big/heavy as today's SUV's.

Re:Hybrids shifting attention

[StikyPad]

SUVs and pickups are both included in the "light truck" category.

Re:alleviating ass

[CyricZ]

Maybe this will minimize the "smells like ass in here" comments i always get in my car...

Maybe you should stop shitting all over your passenger seat.

Re:Hmmn, this brings to mind if other car makers .

[arlosuave]

Can you recall a tree for safety problems?

No, but you can recall corn.

I see how it works...

[evil agent]

So they're trying to genetically engineer some plants that will better absorb the toxins that are emitted by their cars. How about eliminating the emission of toxins in the first place. Imagine if a company sold you some software that damages your computer, only to then sell you some more software to repair those damages. Oh, wait...

Re:I see how it works...

[bariswheel]

evil agent, because people don't want to give up chocolate. they don't want to give up their suv's. because life doesn't work that way. you can't tell someone who commutes for 2 hours a day (of which the reasons to this can be discussed for hours don't get into that) to go to work to not drive. it's a very simple answer.

Genomic Pollution

[Doc Ruby]

"the new species does so 1.3 times more effectively"

Why doesn't Toyota just spend the time and money cultivating the natural species, increasing its biomass by 30%? Maybe by planting it all around their car factories, to compensate for the vast pollution their machines spew into the sky every day. Without tinkering with yet another complex global ecosystem they don't understand?

Re:Genomic Pollution

[DrEldarion]

Because now if they plant the new ones instead of the old ones, they'll still have the 30% more biomass, but 39% more air-cleaning capability?

Unless this is just an "OMG ALL GENETIC ENGINEERING IS EVIL" post, in which case you just get an eyeroll.

Re:Genomic Pollution

[Darius Jedburgh]

How moronic can you get? They tell us to stop GMOs and use plants that are a result of 'natural' breeding methods. We do that. And now they tell us we shouldn't even do that. It's a frickin' plant for God's sake. How is this (1) not natural? and (2) tinkering with the ecosystem? Maybe you'd like us all to go back to eating wild rabbits (hunted of course), nuts and berries.

Re:Genomic Pollution

[Doc Ruby]

That 30% more biomass is made of CO2 which the plants clean from the air. Which is good, unless this is "POLLUTION SEQUESTRATION IS COOL ONLY WHEN ITS NOT GREENHOUSE", in which case we're all dead.

Re:Genomic Pollution

[Doc Ruby]

The article doesn't specify Toyota's "development" technique for their plant - nor do the hundreds of uncritical quotes of their PR across the Web. I suppose that it is possible that Toyota might have created a new species in a few years with intensive breeding, changing only its NOx absorbtion processes. But it's a safe bet that they engineered its genes with recombinant DNA, or they'd have announced that they didn't use much more common genegineering techniques. And they'd have announced much more interesting results: fast industrial plant evolution without gengineering, which is even better PR for the market they're targeting with this 1.3x pollution efficiency.

So, moron, you obviously don't "get that". What you'll get is your own species going back to eating wild rabbits, nuts and berries, after our blind environment hacks finally take their toll with the "blue screen of extinction". Without morons like you surviving to participate, of course. Why couldn't you just politely reveal your stupidity as mere ignorance in a question, or even a polite challenge, instead of shooting off your mouth and showing us all that you're obnoxious, too? If I didn't know that behavior was learned, and therefore your own fault, I'd have to say our own genome is already irrevocably polluted.

Re:Genomic Pollution

[CastrTroy]

I really don't get the whole scare with GMO. We have been genetically modifiying all of our farm stuff for thousands of years. Mind you, we didn't know about DNA, but through selective breeding, we managed to change a lot of stuff to the point where it's completely unrecognizable from the original species that we planted. One good example is Maize, aka corn. Originally, too small to even bother cultivating, now through domestication has reach a size quite good for eating. We are now able to modify things much faster, through genetic engineering, but that doesn't all of a sudden make genetically modified things bad. Basically anything that comes from a farm is genetically modified. Wild animals and plants for the most part have not be genetically guided by humans, but most stuff on a farm has been.

Surprise!

[Kawahee]

Yes, that's Toyota, the car company

...will be sold for 380 yen per pot through Toyota Roof Garden Co, a Toyota Motor subsidiary, from March next year...

Amazing! Toyota, the car company (not Toyota Roof Garden Co, or Toyota Research) devised this plant. I don't see what's so amazing about this, companies have been making stuff through subsidaries for a long time now. Mitsubishi make pens and other office equipment. Yes, that's Mitsubishi, the car company.

It's nothing new to have subsidaries, get over it.

Re:Surprise!

[Osty]

Mitsubishi make pens and other office equipment. Yes, that's Mitsubishi, the car company.

Mitsubishi makes much more than cars, pens, and office equipment. They are a huge conglomerate consisting of many companies in many industries. You're most likely to run into the Mitsubishi name on cars and home audio/video equipment in the US, but they do way more than just that even if you don't see the name (like Kirin beer). Mitsubishi has been around for quite a long time as well, having been a major supplier of airplanes during World War II.

Re:Surprise!

[NEOGEOman]

Surprisingly, Mitsubishi the pen company is completely unrelated to the car company, despite having the same logo. They both claim to have devised the logo at the same time and they have an agreement not to cross into each other's turf.

The pen company's small but successful, the other company's not small and is a little bit more successful.

Re:That's not a tree...

[DKRobin]

So... I suppose that means that soon Ender will drop by soon to speak after the death of GM then?

Re:when will toyata release a monster truck?

[Hogwash McFly]

It is at first, until they realise they are torn between the kittens and the whales...

Re:Hmmn, this brings to mind if other car makers .

[Surt]

You can't have a recall, but you could use a RoundUp.

Improve mileage

[Belseth]

They'd accompish more simply improving mileage. The fact that an electrical engineer on his own with a few grand worth of batteries and adding a recharging feature improved gas mileage to 200mpg just proves that there is resistence to improving mileage. Not to sound star chamber but the only thing that makes sense is the car and gas companies are working together on this one. The hybrides all originally came out of Japan because american oil companies have less influence there. With the amount of driving I do a 200 mpg hybride would mean I could get by on filling up about 3X a year. Considering most of my driving is less than 5 or 10 miles a trip I might actually do much better. Would I pay an extra $5,000 for a 200mpg car, absolutely. In case of emergency, gas shortages, I could run a long time on a five gallon can of gas.

Re:Improve mileage

[Superfarstucker]

Either you're completely brain-dead or your tinfoil hat is a few sizes to small. Consider this, how much do you suppose the manufature of 5000 US worth of batteries harms the environment. How detrimental do you think they are in the environment after disposal. How many 'miles' do you suppose you will get out of them. Where do you think the electricity they store comes from? Saving energy that would have been radiated during braking as heat makes sense , buffering your vehicles fuel mileage with 5000 dollars worth of batteries, doesn't.

Re:Improve mileage

[alan.briolat]

Not to mention, where the hell does the energy to recharge these batteries come from? Yeah, solar power if you live in the desert with a few square miles of land, but what do you do in a smog-filled city, in a 2nd-floor apartment? It still comes back to burning fossil fuels to get the energy.

Plus of course, once it has gone through all the transfers from fossil fuel to battery charge, its more efficient to burn the damn stuff yourself!

Re:Improve mileage

[minorproblem]

The hybrids come from japan because japanese rode rules require replacing of cars after a small number of kilometers(i belive 60,000) so they buy more new cars more often so a good market to sell a concept car to.

Goatse link

[shird]

Nice.... the main article now links to the goatse man. Some guy playing with his redirecting no doubt. Mind you, it does kinda look like some flesh eating virus/plant thing. Great for work.

Re:Goatse link

[ergo98]

Wow. Someone managed to get a goatse link in a submission (I can't imagine that they worked that quickly on the hacking the destination or XSS to get it in there). Amazing.

This confirms it - Slashdot really is dead.

Re:Goatse link

[Unordained]

Looks to be javascript in the article itself somewhere. Disabling javascript prevents redirection, and it seems to only happen on -that- article on japantoday, not all of their articles. I didn't look further, but perhaps their discussion forum stuff got hijacked?

Re:Goatse link

[deathazre]

I didn't look further, but perhaps their discussion forum stuff got hijacked?

nope, it's a javascript redirect in the headline in the page title.

Re:Goatse link

[evilviper]

This is just one of the reasons you should TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT. It is so very, very rarely used productively, in ways that HTML/CSS can't be used instead. And it is so very, very commonly used destructively, against users.

But will people turn off javascript? No, they'll add just one more work-around to prevent this specific form of attack, and then another one when the next attack comes along.

Just shut the damn scripting OFF, and the internet is a much nicer place.

Re:Goatse link

[evilviper]

You can't put an HTML redirect in the TITLE. Javascript, however...

Re:Goatse link

[heinousjay]

Yeah, and what's with all these colors? Everything is perfectly servicable in grayscale. And don't get me started on images.

Re:Goatse link

[evilviper]

Colors and Images have their uses, although the latter is abused plenty thanks to advertising. Javascript, however, has practically no productive uses. It is highly insecure, and it takes control of browsing the web away from you. Nothing else is so insidious as Javascript.

Enabling javascript so a couple poorly designed sites will work is like removing your firewall so a couple poorly designed programs will work.

Wrong URL

[zmarty]

The link redirects to http://goatse.ca/

Re:Wrong URL

[seaQuest_AMD]

It took a minute for my brain to register what I was seeing....thats no flower!

Re:link problem

[StrawberryFrog]

no, me too. Sombody set slashdot up the bomb!

Bad Redirect

[WigginX]

If there's anyone left on slashdot who hasn't seen goatse, they've just had their innocence shattered.

Re:Bad Redirect

[Xyrus]

My freaking' brain has just been orafucked by that link. Oh where is the number to my therapist. :P

~X~

Re:Bad Redirect

[glsunder]

actually, I heard a screech from my pregnant wife while I was going into the kitchen. I thought some sort of animal got inside the house. She'd never seen the pic before. She was expecting to see a cherry sage plant, not a cherry ass pic plant.

Re:Bad Redirect

[poopdeville]

Dude, Goatse Man's cherry was popped long ago.

How about we have the magic fairy

[Ogemaniac]

come and wave her wand, and solve all of our problems with her magic?

Do you not know that thousands of people are working on the very thing you suggest, including numerous people at Toyota?

Re:How about we have the magic fairy

[evil agent]

Do you not know that thousands of people are working on the very thing you suggest, including numerous people at Toyota?

Really? I didn't know. For I have been living on Mars for the past 10 years, in a cave, with my eyes shut, and my fingers in my ears.

Since you actually took the time to ask me that question, I'll clarify: my point was not that they should start working on lowering toxic emissions, but that they should focus on lowering toxic emissions and not on removing the toxins after the fact.

Re:How about we have the magic fairy

[bfizzle]

The funny thing is they know how to clean all those emissions. The problem is the cost to clean it up is much greater than the cost of dealing with the consequences.

NOTE: ARTICLE LINK IS GOATSE REDIRECT

[ergo98]

Either someone is very a quick hacker, or this was a pre-planned exploit, but the article redirects to goatse. Now lets watch Slashdot's finest (the so-called editors) take a couple of hours to correct this.

Re:NOTE: ARTICLE LINK IS GOATSE REDIRECT

[ergo98]

Errr...is a very quick hacker. Sorta rushed in the hopes of trying to save people from becoming sexual assault victims at the hands of the evil goatse believers.

Re:NOTE: ARTICLE LINK IS GOATSE REDIRECT

[CyricZ]

Thanks for letting us know, Dennis. You just saved us all a facefull of anus. May we remember your sacrifice for years to come.

Re:NOTE: ARTICLE LINK IS GOATSE REDIRECT

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like the server was hacked
$ http.pl -h www.japantoday.com
Connected....
grabbing www.japantoday.com's banner...
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0

Re:NOTE: ARTICLE LINK IS GOATSE REDIRECT

[Anonymous Coward]

And n00bs wonder why we prefer to read the comments before teh article.

Re:NOTE: ARTICLE LINK IS GOATSE REDIRECT

[VagaStorm]

goatse+genetical enginering.... the images!!! Thats it, I'm never gona slep agen... ever...

Bad javascript

[garvon]

WATCH OUT there is a goatse.ca redirect on that page

Goatse Linked

[crypto55]

The page died before I could continue loading; my WiFi is bad in my room. But FF told me that the link to goatse.ca died...
Look at the source of the page.
" Japan Today - News - Toyota devises shrub to purify, cool airwindow.location="http://goatse.ca/""
Someone hacked the page to redirect to the Goatse.

Nitrogen Oxide?

[DiamondGeezer]

Of the Cherry Sage shrub family, the new plant absorbs nitrogen oxide and other substances from the air better than the original Cherry Sage.

Nitrogen oxide? Just say NO!

Re:Nitrogen Oxide?

[Sephiriz]

Oh, come on, SOMEBODY mod parent as funny. Seriously, this is good stuff.

goatse

[osoroco]

someone managed to put this in title

<title>Japan Today - News - Toyota devises shrub to purify, cool air<script>window.location="http://goatse.ca/"</sc ript> - Japan's Leading International News Network</title>

Re:donnie

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans have been "altering" genetic make up of plants and animals to suit our needs for centuries. We are not playing god now anymore now than they were 2000 years ago.

Goodbye Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that anyone really cares but that stunt ends my ever looking at /. again. Not only has this made the entire site no longer work friendly but I would not dare think of ever clicking a link around my children. So long and thanks for all the fish.

Re:Goodbye Slashdot

[Brad1138]

Mod Parent up. This issue will need to be addressed, but at the same time it could have happened to any website with a link in it.

pwned!

[__aaahtg7394]

Awesome, some jackass got into their db and changed the title slightly:

$ wget 'http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&id=3513 99' -O - | grep title

<title>Japan Today - News - Toyota devises shrub to purify, cool air<script>window.location="http://goatse.ca/" </script> - Japan's Leading International News Network</title>

Some more pictures are here...

[mikael]

Vans

Family cars

Classic cars

Re:Some more pictures are here...

[Kingrames]

can anyone please confirm or deny the presence of offensive links in the above topic?

With all the mentioning of goatse, I'm afraid to click those links.

Re:Some more pictures are here...

[mikael]

There is no goatse anywhere - they are just vehicles covered with green grass.
Do a google search for "car green grass" and you will find the same pictures.

Re:Some more pictures are here...

[BitchKapoor]

It's just some cars with neat beds of grass growing on them.

Is this the predecessor of

[Travoltus]

Greenpeace Crolis?

(This ain't offtopic or a troll... old school Anime fans might know why I say that, lol!)

Re:Is this the predecessor of

[mink]

I wish the Manga was longer. The anime was weak in comparison. Still good, and had some funny stuff, but they dropped so much story.

Re:link problem

[Tanktalus]

It only does that if you have Javascript on. Turn it off, then it works fine. Not much to see, but works.

There is a <script> tag inside the title ... somebody's idea of a sick joke - you'd think they'd like the attention and hits...

article text (got it with lynx -- no goatse.ca)

[putko]

Toyota devises shrub to purify, cool air

      Friday, October 7, 2005 at 05:00 JST
      NAGOYA -- Toyota Motor Corp said Thursday it has developed a new
      species of the Cherry Sage shrub family that effectively absorbs
      harmful substances in the air.

      The new species, called Kirsch Pink, will be sold for 380 yen per pot
      through Toyota Roof Garden Co, a Toyota Motor subsidiary, from March
      next year. While Cherry Sage plants are known to absorb nitrogen
      oxide, sulfur dioxide and other harmful substances in the air, the new
      species does so 1.3 times more effectively, the automaker said.

Re:alleviating ass

[Your Pal Dave]

Looks like you didn't RTFA (or you did so before the goatse redirect got installed)

But it's good news that a plant company made it

[Doug Coulter]

Hey, most plant companies make plants -- but not ones that reduce pollution. As an organic gardener amongst other things, I like it that I can get pretty much what I want in certain areas -- and I only mildly complain that some of it is hybrid and won't breed true so I can save seeds. That's a lot of bother that's rarely worth it. But this is a new thing, and a good direction, assuming it's truly an improvement. As a sometimes "farmer" I never thought oxides of nitrogen raining down on my garden were a bad thing, since otherwise I'd have to pay for them as fertilizer in some form, whether compost or chemical. But I live in the sticks, too, where pollution isn't yet a problem. We are in fact already paying to reduce nitrogen oxides, as our auto engines are mandated to be low compression, which means lower thermodynamic efficiency (poorer gas milage) to reduce nitrogen oxides in the first place. Although I'm dreaming here, it would seem a good thing for the planet to solve this in some way that didn't mandate greater use of fossil fuel. Hope this is the first of many. After all, plants can make more plants without our help, they have a lot of gain in effort over machines that don't self replicate.

And of course...

[Junta]

Today would be the day I actually try to RTFA.... *shudder*

top work!

[smash]

Slipping goatse onto the front page of slashdot... impressive :D

(yes, I realise it wasn't necessarily the article submitter who did it, but whoever hacked the remote site deserves troll of the year :D)

smash.

Mod parent up!

[alan.briolat]

Very good point - compact cars have become very compact, and the safest cars on the road are still the heavier ones.

However, grandparent is a good example of putting blame on the companies. At the end of the day, there is no substitute for just watching what the fuck you are doing when driving. Lets face it, the majority of road accidents are due to people not paying attention, or misjudging the conditions ("What you mean I won't stop in time doing 80mph in the rain?").

anus

[darkparrot]

Damnit, my kid just saw that. *ALL CAPS*

Re:anus

[pclminion]

What did he/she say?

Re:anus

[darkparrot]

It was aweful, she said nothing just ran out of the room to her mother.

Re:alleviating ass

[Johnso]

Maybe this will minimize the "smells like ass in here" comments i always get in my car...

No, I would guess that what's currently linked to smells a lot like ass.

Article text, for those that don't want Goatse

[Masami Eiri]

NAGOYA; Toyota Motor Corp said Thursday it has developed a new species of the Cherry Sage shrub family that effectively absorbs harmful substances in the air. The new species, called Kirsch Pink, will be sold for 380 yen per pot through Toyota Roof Garden Co, a Toyota Motor subsidiary, from March next year. While Cherry Sage plants are known to absorb nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and other harmful substances in the air, the new species does so 1.3 times more effectively, the automaker said.

Google Cache

[TubeSteak]

Google Cache of Teh Article

Friday, October 7, 2005 at 05:00 JST
NAGOYA -- Toyota Motor Corp said Thursday it has developed a new species of the Cherry Sage shrub family that effectively absorbs harmful substances in the air.

The new species, called Kirsch Pink, will be sold for 380 yen per pot through Toyota Roof Garden Co, a Toyota Motor subsidiary, from March next year. While Cherry Sage plants are known to absorb nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and other harmful substances in the air, the new species does so 1.3 times more effectively, the automaker said.

@$!@# goatse.ca
 

<script>window.location="http://goatse.ca/"</scrip t>

Is the offending code that did the redirect

NOX

[dj245]

Nitrogen Oxides are created by industrial power generation plants (read: power plants) as a product of incomplete combustion. You can have scrubbers, and filters, and electrostatic precipitators, but some inevitably gets out (1-2% of stack gasses). I believe it is a greenhouse gas. 1-2% does not seem like much, but a tremendous amount of gas is created by the combustion processes. It adds up fast when you have a few LM2500 gas turbines that drain an 18-wheeler of natural gas in around 20 minutes.... at idle.

Getting the NOX out of the air is a good thing. Hopefully the plants can be used for some other purpose (shade? power production? General catalytic conversion?) but unfortunately the article is now the goatse guy.

Re:NOX

[dannobookem]

Nitrogen Oxides are created by industrial power generation plants (read: power plants) as a product of incomplete combustion.
NOx is generally created as a result two processes. Thermal NOx occurs when combustion occurs at too high of temperatures causing the nitrogen in air to react with the oxygen in air. The other process occurs when the fuel itself contains nitrogen. This generally occurs in higher hydrocarbons, such as gas, diesel, coal, etc.

some inevitably gets out (1-2% of stack gasses).
Actually, it's generally more in the neighborhood of 500-1000 ppm (0.05-0.1%) for bad processes.

I believe it is a greenhouse gas.
This may be true to some extent, but what is more important is that NOx creates smog. It's that acrid smell that you might recognize from bus exhaust, or the like. It combines with water to make nitric acid.

Species or variety?

[andrewagill]

Is this a new species or a new variety?

Different species cannot interbreed, but different varieties can.

If this is a new species, then this is much more than a publicity stunt. Toyota may have done what few others have, and in doing so, has shown that macroevolution does indeed occur, protestations from worshippers of His Noodly Appendage notwithstanding.

Just nitpicking..

[nietsch]

But how has this been achieved? A new species, not just a new variety?
Evolutionary biologists will be jumping with joy as actual speciation has not been observed very often in the wild. Doing it in the lab/greenhouse is a very big feat, if this is not just a journalist with intelligence on par with their html injection security?

One definition of 'species' is that it can not reproduce with another species. If it is still able to reproduce with the parent species, it is not a separate species but a variety. Seedgrowers create new varieties (with desirable traits) but never create new species.

As for the OP's [stupid] question: Never, it will prove to be much more economic just to produce cars that pollute less. If this really true it is nothing more than a token gesture. 'Buy one of these silly plants and you can drive a SUV to get your groceries with a clear conscience'.

It would be much more environmentally friendly if the car came with a folding bike in the boot and occasionally refused to start to force the Fat American Mom to do some physical exercise. (except that healthy american moms live longer, which is actually worse for the environment. In that vein, A SUV with a pinto-quality fueltank and a boot full of 'killing you softly' cigarettes would be much more beneficial for the environment :-)

Re:Just nitpicking..

[missing000]

I was right there with you until the end:
A SUV with a pinto-quality fueltank and a boot full of 'killing you softly' cigarettes would be much more beneficial for the environment :-)

Bill Bennett:
if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.

Just saying...

Re:Just nitpicking..

[mink]

The problem isn't blacks, the problem is poverty and other issues that lead people to choose crime over any other solution.

Shit we could virtually eliminate serial killers by killing all whites.

Why stop there. If you kill all humans, the crime rate will drop to nothing. Think of all the benefits self extermination can offer. An end to wars, resource disputes, famine, poverty, disease, pollution, overpopulation, the list goes on.

All we need to do is invite a friendly Berserker into our solar system.

Re:Hmmn, this brings to mind if other car makers .

[Mistshadow2k4]

Better still, if crash your car into one of their trees, can you sue Toyota? Sounds stupid, but with the lawsuits that have been won in the US....

Big red shiny asshole notwithstanding...

[planetoid]

Big red shiny asshole notwithstanding, was anyone else reminded of Creative Labs, with their patent on that dynamic shadowing algorithm they used to extort id Software into getting EAX tech in Doom 3, despite the fact that Creative Labs is not really a company that specializes in, nor has really historically contributed much to, computer graphics?

It just seems a bit of a waste of time and money for Toyota to do this, especially if it was merely a publicity stunt. I don't think marketers of any company understand that just because an idea sounds fun and catchy, doesn't mean it's necessarily pragmatic.

Re:Big red shiny asshole notwithstanding...

[planetoid]

Well Formula One racing is automobile-related, so that would make a bit more sense for Toyota to participate in than botany.

Specifically, a script window.location call

[_KiTA_]

Here's what the source code shows, with s transposed to brackets to allow posting:

[title]Japan Today - News - Toyota devises shrub to purify, cool air[script]window.location="http://goatse.ca/"[/sc ript] - Japan's Leading International News Network[/title] [link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/includes/jt.css"] [SCRIPT src="/includes/scripts.js" type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript"][/script]

This is the second time a Slashdot story has linked to JapanToday and been redirected to Goatsecx. Either there are some interesting trolls out there or the Japan Today admins think they're clever.

Re:Specifically, a script window.location call

[thesnarky1]

Let them think they're clever, we have Bush and nukes... *cough*points out "terrorism"*cough*

Re:Specifically, a script window.location call

[Cheapy]

Hell, if linking to goatse isn't terrorism, I don't know what is!

It obviously turns into...

[BalorTFL]

...goatse! Of course, the real question is, for the love of god, WHY???

New species my ass!

[deadb0lt]

Bloody hell. Here I thought I was going to see a picture of some "new species" of plant, and all I get is a picture of a plain old tulip. Nothing new to see here. Move along...

Everybody Wants to Know

[kurosawdust]

That's all well and good, but does it have a hemi?

Did you say you could supply me with......

[Brad1138]

A SHUBBERY!!!!!

One that looks nice and is not too expensive. Ideally, there'd be a second one as well, slightly higher than the first, creating a two-tier effect. With a path in the middle.

Re:Did you say you could supply me with......

[Rhinobird]

Well...there was a path down the middle. I don't know about that other stuff.

Not a publicity stunt

[Fredrik Roos]

Here is a non-goatsed version of the article.

The main reason Toyota Roof Garden was founded was to mitigate the urban heat island effect, which is becoming a real problem in densely populated areas in Japan. By using green roofs the amount of vegetation in cities can be increased, which reduces the UHI effect.

They have simply taken an existing Toyota product and increased it's efficiency by 30%. It has nothing at all to do with hybrids.

Probably NOT a new SPECIES

[raddan]

I couldn't find any mention in the article or other linked articles that explained how Totoya created this new plant, but I suspect that this is the result of regular ol' breeding. The article doesn't even use the word species at all. I suppose it is possible for them to have created a new species, if they were tinkering down at the DNA level, but that seems like a lot of work for a publicity stunt. I think what we have here is just a new breed.

The article also doesn't mention how this shrub stacks up against, oh... trees in absorbing pollutants, although I suppose it would be less hazardous to grow shrubs than trees in rooftop gardens.

Re:Probably NOT a new SPECIES

[Red Flayer]

It's possible to create new species through selective breeding. I suspect that you are correct, and that this cherry sage varietal can be interbred with the original cherry sage, but speciation is possible to force. Also, if the offspring are sterile, then speciation has occurred. This is why we consider the horse and donkey to be different species -- the mule is sterile.

Really?

[Ogemaniac]

I'd love to know what your solution is. We cannot produce a viable (by which I mean big enough, safe enough, and powerful enough to attract significant customers) that does not produce NOx, at any price.

My point concerns the low-hanging fruit

[Ogemaniac]

In many cases, it is easier to pollute and clean than not pollute.

Case in point. It is much cheaper to plant a tree to soak up the CO2 you breathe out than it is to waste society's investment in you by putting a bullet in your brain.

Re:Hmmn, this brings to mind if other car makers .

[prell]

It absorbs it, but where does it go?

It's all good but

[kahrytan]

It is nice to have a genetically engineered plant but what about it's natural predators? Every form of life on Earth has one or more of them. You can't just go around growing this plant all around the world without first doing research on how it effects the environment. Many places around the world are suffering because some idiot introduced a plant or animal to the area. An example is Hawaii. Hawaii has to deal with early developments of mudslides because a foreign plant is over shadowing a plant that used to keep the soil in place. Just something to think about.

Re:donnie

[mnemonic_]

Centuries? My friend, I have been doing it for over a million years.

Boo cloning

[Kagura]

We all know that these cloned trees will not have souls, quite unlike real trees which do, umm... I guess those don't have souls, either. Well. If you eat these trees you will get cancer, only natural food is, umm, who'd want to eat this tree anyway? Damn, back to drawing boards. Boo cloning!

I for one...

[Phattypants]

welcome our Protoculture-Growing, giant robot overlords.

I remember the first time I saw that picture

[Rhinobird]

I was surfing the net at a place that had no firewall and out manager didn't care.
So there were lke 7 of us surfing some site, (steakandcheese.com i think) and we're all going through the funny pics and videos. Then the guy next to goes "OH GOD!" and he closes his window and clears his cache. We all looked at him and were like "WTF?". He's like, "that was a the WORST thing I've ever seen". He doesn't remember the name of the picture, and he cleared his history also, so we can't look at hi list of visited links.

Then I hit it, and i'm like "OH MY GOD!" and i freak out and clear my temp files too. Over the next half hour, there were 5 other screams of "OH MY GOD!"

We all felt violated. Until someone pointed out that he's wearing a wedding ring. And he's not the one holding the camera. Then we all felt violated again.

Sorry to see you go.

[Rhinobird]

You were one of the most prolific users on this site, Anonymous Coward. It will really be a different place without you. Best of luck.

Where would you put one?

[Rhinobird]

Where would you put a hemi on a plant? I know, we could shove it up its ass.

got r00t?

[Sigg3.net]

Toyota has root access.
No doubt about it.

Re:Hmmn, this brings to mind if other car makers .

[drsquare]

"A new tree built by my company grows somewhere at 60cm per year. The rear bark breaks up. The tree falls over and burns, killing everyone underneath. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of trees in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

"Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?"

"You wouldn't believe."

"Which tree company do you work for?"

"A major one."

AJAX?

[tepples]

This is just one of the reasons you should TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT. It is so very, very rarely used productively, in ways that HTML/CSS can't be used instead.

So do you think all web applications that use AJAX (script + DOM + XMLHttpRequest) techniques could be better implemented with pure HTML and CSS? Would you rather sit through loading a whole new page instead of rewriting the current page? Or do you still think AJAX apps are "very, very rare"?

Sounds like a plot...

[Chewbacon]

Think of all the confused environmentalists. You can't get rid of pollution with this thing around. It's a crime against nature maaaaaan!

"blue screen of extinction"

[Darius Jedburgh]

Sheesh! Step out your door for a second. The sky isn't falling down. Meanwhile trillions are viruses are busy snipping bits of DNA and transferring them from host to host across species like they've been doing for billions of years. Just like the doomsayers have been preaching the end of the world since 30AD and before. You ever heard the story about the boy who cried "Wolf!"?

Re:"blue screen of extinction"

[Doc Ruby]

Of course you're right. Since we can't see the problems in our atmosphere caused by invisible gas accumulation, and the catastrophe can still be averted by stopping the pollution, it must all be our imagination. Thank you for pointing out the fallacy of the boiled frog, and setting me and all of the nervous climatologists straight. And since it's so clear and sunny today, of course it won't rain tomorrow.

In all seriousness (though you really deserve much more ridicule), your denial shows most obviously in your typical rightwing rhetorical frame. Since, as you put it, "the sky isn't falling down", the extreme distortion of my still scary caution, your denial frame leaves only "nothing is wrong" as the only available extreme. You rightwing denial people have really become pure extremists, casting any decision only in terms of the most extreme opposite possibilities. While excluding the middle range, where there's still more room for disaster. Well, to take you up on the formula I expect you must live by yourself, since you couldn't even formulate "meanwhile trillions of viruses" correctly, you therefore are incapable of getting anything even slightly right. So keep it to yourself while the grownups try to work out how we're going to survive the mess we've put ourselves into. We promise to save you, too, but only because there's no other way to do it.