Say cheese!
November 27, 2005 6:50 PM Subscribe
This just in! First photo of Flying Spaghetti Monster taken using bacteria!
Looks like it was focused with His Noodly Appendage as well.
posted by eriko at 7:03 PM on November 27, 2005
posted by eriko at 7:03 PM on November 27, 2005
I'm picturing a spray can of the stuff which which you can hose down surfaces, then hit with a light rigged with a gel. Biodegradable stealth graffiti?
posted by JeremyT at 7:15 PM on November 27, 2005
posted by JeremyT at 7:15 PM on November 27, 2005
*wishes we could have lasagna or baked ziti for once*
posted by loquacious at 7:36 PM on November 27, 2005
posted by loquacious at 7:36 PM on November 27, 2005
A Flying Lasagna Monster? Don't be absurd.
posted by brundlefly at 7:45 PM on November 27, 2005
posted by brundlefly at 7:45 PM on November 27, 2005
Hey, at least lasagna noodles have planar surfaces suitable for airfoils. Zitis, too.
posted by loquacious at 7:53 PM on November 27, 2005
posted by loquacious at 7:53 PM on November 27, 2005
What is this "science" you speak of?
posted by brundlefly at 7:56 PM on November 27, 2005
posted by brundlefly at 7:56 PM on November 27, 2005
Completely ignoring the FSM stuff, the science side of this is pretty cool.
posted by Wingy at 7:59 PM on November 27, 2005
posted by Wingy at 7:59 PM on November 27, 2005
What is this "science" you speak of?
Fool! I speak of none other than the science of DELICIOUS, to which all other sciences humbly bow and scrape to in their utter unworthiness.
posted by loquacious at 8:06 PM on November 27, 2005
Fool! I speak of none other than the science of DELICIOUS, to which all other sciences humbly bow and scrape to in their utter unworthiness.
posted by loquacious at 8:06 PM on November 27, 2005
JeremyT - have you seen the moss graffiti (was posted here i think. similar idea, probably googleable)?
posted by andrew cooke at 8:07 PM on November 27, 2005
posted by andrew cooke at 8:07 PM on November 27, 2005
Yes! One of my favorite metafilter posts ever. Thanks for reminding me, Andrew.
posted by JeremyT at 8:31 PM on November 27, 2005
posted by JeremyT at 8:31 PM on November 27, 2005
i have seen the light! amen!
now, where do i go to convert? ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:47 PM on November 27, 2005
now, where do i go to convert? ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:47 PM on November 27, 2005
This reminds me of that part in Mostly Harmless where the scientists programmed a robot to think it liked herring sandwiches. And they would put a herring sandwich in front of it, and the robot would go, "Ah! A herring sandwich. I like herring sandwiches," and pick up the sandwich but accidentally drop it and pick it up again, ad infinitum. And the scientists published a paper stating that they had discovered the driving force behind all change, development and innovation in life: herring sandwiches. But when they re-checked their figures, they realized that what they had actually discovered was "boredom."
posted by Gator at 9:02 PM on November 27, 2005
posted by Gator at 9:02 PM on November 27, 2005
I hope the irony is not lost that they used E. Coli bacteria for his noodly likeness.
posted by Balisong at 9:34 PM on November 27, 2005
posted by Balisong at 9:34 PM on November 27, 2005
SCIENCE IS DELICIOUS
posted by loquacious at 10:28 PM on November 27, 2005
posted by loquacious at 10:28 PM on November 27, 2005
I'm with docgonzo, this FSM shit's really gotta stop.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 11:36 PM on November 27, 2005
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 11:36 PM on November 27, 2005
Really, really tired of this.
I see your "disaffected pose" and raise you one "too-cool-to-even-post-how-played-out-this-is."
You gonna call or what?
posted by joe lisboa at 11:42 PM on November 27, 2005 [1 favorite]
I see your "disaffected pose" and raise you one "too-cool-to-even-post-how-played-out-this-is."
You gonna call or what?
posted by joe lisboa at 11:42 PM on November 27, 2005 [1 favorite]
I'm with docgonzo, this FSM shit's really gotta stop.
Yeah, well, this God/Allah/Scientology/religion shit's really gotta stop, too. A lot of us are really fucking sick of people being killed for the sake of mythology.
That said, this is an interesting article, and something I wouldn't have heard about from google news.
posted by interrobang at 11:51 PM on November 27, 2005
Yeah, well, this God/Allah/Scientology/religion shit's really gotta stop, too. A lot of us are really fucking sick of people being killed for the sake of mythology.
That said, this is an interesting article, and something I wouldn't have heard about from google news.
posted by interrobang at 11:51 PM on November 27, 2005
I'm pretty sure I read in a magazine too obscure for any of you to know about that Naive Sincerity was the New Jaded Irony, so I'll step up and admit I'd never seen the original open letter that got this FSM shit started until this post inspired me to seek it out.
That's some funny shit. Sincerely.
posted by gompa at 11:55 PM on November 27, 2005
That's some funny shit. Sincerely.
posted by gompa at 11:55 PM on November 27, 2005
The original paper was in Nature, and I was previously a member of one of the collaborating labs. Never worked with such a fun (and hard-working) group of people in my life.
posted by grouse at 12:00 AM on November 28, 2005
posted by grouse at 12:00 AM on November 28, 2005
Well, this has to be the most puerile thing ever published by the so-called "New Scientist." Well done!
posted by kjh at 12:45 AM on November 28, 2005
posted by kjh at 12:45 AM on November 28, 2005
A lot of us are really fucking sick of people being killed for the sake of mythology.
You do realize that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a slam at religion per se, but very specifically at the teaching of religion in the place of science?
this FSM shit's really gotta stop
When Kansas drops its backward policies, there will be no more need to parody them.
posted by dhartung at 12:52 AM on November 28, 2005
You do realize that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a slam at religion per se, but very specifically at the teaching of religion in the place of science?
this FSM shit's really gotta stop
When Kansas drops its backward policies, there will be no more need to parody them.
posted by dhartung at 12:52 AM on November 28, 2005
kjh: Beyond what you may think about the FSM gag, what's so puerile? Seems like a really cool concept to me.
posted by brundlefly at 2:31 AM on November 28, 2005
posted by brundlefly at 2:31 AM on November 28, 2005
still hasn't hit boingboing. maybe they're waiting for a sony rootkit angle to the story.
posted by andrew cooke at 2:38 AM on November 28, 2005
posted by andrew cooke at 2:38 AM on November 28, 2005
andrew cooke writes "still hasn't hit boingboing. maybe they're waiting for a sony rootkit angle to the story."
Or maybe if the E. coli were being used to make FSM-shaped iPod cases.
posted by brundlefly at 2:46 AM on November 28, 2005
Or maybe if the E. coli were being used to make FSM-shaped iPod cases.
posted by brundlefly at 2:46 AM on November 28, 2005
Beyond the FSM stuff, any thoughts on how this tech can be applied practicaly? I mean, yeah the potential for detail is impressive, but is this a viable technology? Photographic plates covered in bacteria?
posted by brundlefly at 3:07 AM on November 28, 2005
posted by brundlefly at 3:07 AM on November 28, 2005
I'm with docgonzo, this FSM shit's really gotta stop.
oh, yeah. it's really just gotta stop. my, oh, my.
tough shit.
posted by 3.2.3 at 3:39 AM on November 28, 2005
oh, yeah. it's really just gotta stop. my, oh, my.
tough shit.
posted by 3.2.3 at 3:39 AM on November 28, 2005
Evolutionism and Intelligent Design are two sides of the same origins coin. Evolutionism asserts that a designer is not required for complex functional systems. Intelligent Design asserts that a designer is required for complex systems. If one is science, both are. If one is not science, neither is the other one.
posted by bevets at 5:49 AM on November 28, 2005
posted by bevets at 5:49 AM on November 28, 2005
I see your "disaffected pose" and raise you one "too-cool-to-even-post-how-played-out-this-is."
hahaha
posted by brittney at 5:57 AM on November 28, 2005
hahaha
posted by brittney at 5:57 AM on November 28, 2005
Evolutionism and Flying Spaghetti Monster are two sides of the same origins coin. Evolutionism asserts that a designer is not required for complex functional systems. Flying Spaghetti Monster asserts that a designer is required for complex systems. If one is science, both are. If one is not science, neither is the other one.
posted by googly at 6:06 AM on November 28, 2005
posted by googly at 6:06 AM on November 28, 2005
Wow, almost 12 hours later and boingboing still hasn't picked this up. This is extremely unprofessional on their part.
I know where I'm going for all my dead horse pummeling needs from now on.
posted by wigu at 7:04 AM on November 28, 2005
I know where I'm going for all my dead horse pummeling needs from now on.
posted by wigu at 7:04 AM on November 28, 2005
Flying Spaghetti Monster asserts that a designer is required for complex systems.
Actually, FSM asserts that a gravity-defying, omnipotent, omniscient creature made of pasta is required for complex systems.
Now, that's a sciency meatball!
posted by bashos_frog at 7:54 AM on November 28, 2005
Actually, FSM asserts that a gravity-defying, omnipotent, omniscient creature made of pasta is required for complex systems.
Now, that's a sciency meatball!
posted by bashos_frog at 7:54 AM on November 28, 2005
Evolutionism and Intelligent Design are two sides of the same origins coin. Evolutionism asserts that a designer is not required for complex functional systems. Intelligent Design asserts that a designer is required for complex systems. If one is science, both are. If one is not science, neither is the other one.
[Takes bait]
No. Evolutionism and Intelligent Design are both ideas. Science is a practice, a method of gathering evidence to determine whether an idea is likely to be true. Evolutionism has an enormous and highly developed body of evidence, gleaned through science, that shows it is likely to be an accurate conception of the development of life in the natural world. Intelligent design does not, and has in fact failed to use evidence from the practice of science to demonstrate its likelihood. If you think they are both science, you aren't sure what 'science' is.
posted by Miko at 8:32 AM on November 28, 2005 [1 favorite]
[Takes bait]
No. Evolutionism and Intelligent Design are both ideas. Science is a practice, a method of gathering evidence to determine whether an idea is likely to be true. Evolutionism has an enormous and highly developed body of evidence, gleaned through science, that shows it is likely to be an accurate conception of the development of life in the natural world. Intelligent design does not, and has in fact failed to use evidence from the practice of science to demonstrate its likelihood. If you think they are both science, you aren't sure what 'science' is.
posted by Miko at 8:32 AM on November 28, 2005 [1 favorite]
Our failure to teach FSM in public school is leading to a moral decline.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:34 AM on November 28, 2005
posted by jeffburdges at 8:34 AM on November 28, 2005
No. Evolutionism and Intelligent Design are both ideas. Science is a practice, a method of gathering evidence to determine whether an idea is likely to be true. Evolutionism has an enormous and highly developed body of evidence, gleaned through science, that shows it is likely to be an accurate conception of the development of life in the natural world. Intelligent design does not, and has in fact failed to use evidence from the practice of science to demonstrate its likelihood. If you think they are both science, you aren't sure what 'science' is.
I just wanted to repeat that. Thanks, Miko, for putting so concisely what I've been trying to articulate in my head since I started reading about this ID foolishness.
posted by dersins at 10:00 AM on November 28, 2005 [1 favorite]
I just wanted to repeat that. Thanks, Miko, for putting so concisely what I've been trying to articulate in my head since I started reading about this ID foolishness.
posted by dersins at 10:00 AM on November 28, 2005 [1 favorite]
I wouldn't take the bait. Bevets hasn't even changed a word from his last post on ID, Evolution. On MeFi, or Fark, it's always the same.
posted by Tikirific at 10:17 AM on November 28, 2005
posted by Tikirific at 10:17 AM on November 28, 2005
brundlefly;
From the abstract -
This spatial control of bacterial gene expression could be used to 'print' complex biological materials, for example, and to investigate signalling pathways through precise spatial and temporal control of their phosphorylation steps.
...and the discussion -
Our creation of a novel genetic circuit with an image-processing function demonstrates the power and accessibility of the tool sets and methods available in the nascent field of synthetic biology. The principle of programmed light regulation should enable gene expression to be spatially and temporally controlled in individual cells and in populations, leading to potential application in bacterial microlithography, manufacture of biological material composites and the study of multicellular signalling networks.
(from the original Nature Brief Communications)
So, essentially, this is a really neat tool that can help us learn more about basic science, and may be a useful and practical technology somewhere down the line.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 12:12 PM on November 28, 2005
From the abstract -
This spatial control of bacterial gene expression could be used to 'print' complex biological materials, for example, and to investigate signalling pathways through precise spatial and temporal control of their phosphorylation steps.
...and the discussion -
Our creation of a novel genetic circuit with an image-processing function demonstrates the power and accessibility of the tool sets and methods available in the nascent field of synthetic biology. The principle of programmed light regulation should enable gene expression to be spatially and temporally controlled in individual cells and in populations, leading to potential application in bacterial microlithography, manufacture of biological material composites and the study of multicellular signalling networks.
(from the original Nature Brief Communications)
So, essentially, this is a really neat tool that can help us learn more about basic science, and may be a useful and practical technology somewhere down the line.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 12:12 PM on November 28, 2005
Docgonzo: the post worth worthwhile n its own merits. Getting bacteria to do intersting things upon the application of light is fundementally funky. As the article says "For instance, the gene switch need not activate a pigment, says Voigt. A different introduced gene could produce polymer-like proteins, or even precipitate a metal. “This way, the bacteria could weave a complex material,” he says.". This is big news for nanotech boffins.
The fact that they used the FSM to demonstrate the proof of concept is really neither here nor there (though it indicates they have a sense of humour). Wearier-than-thou is a rather lame response.
posted by Sparx at 12:44 PM on November 28, 2005
The fact that they used the FSM to demonstrate the proof of concept is really neither here nor there (though it indicates they have a sense of humour). Wearier-than-thou is a rather lame response.
posted by Sparx at 12:44 PM on November 28, 2005
Evolutionism and Intelligent Design are both ideas. Science is a practice, a method of gathering evidence to determine whether an idea is likely to be true. Evolutionism has an enormous and highly developed body of evidence, gleaned through science, that shows it is likely to be an accurate conception of the development of life in the natural world. Intelligent design does not, and has in fact failed to use evidence from the practice of science to demonstrate its likelihood. If you think they are both science, you aren't sure what 'science' is.
Well said. I thought bevets was making some obscure joke, until I realized it was bevets. That site is pretty stupid, d00d.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:19 PM on November 28, 2005
Well said. I thought bevets was making some obscure joke, until I realized it was bevets. That site is pretty stupid, d00d.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:19 PM on November 28, 2005
Materialism is the view that at bottom reality consists of nothing but particles in fields of force, and that all events are caused solely by the operation of mindless physical laws. Several things should be noted about this belief. First, believing in materialism is an act of faith like any other. The ultimate nature of reality isn't a scientific question, and anyone who expects science to provide answers regarding such matters doesn't understand either science or religion.
Second, the debate about whether the world is ultimately a meaningless flux or something more has been going on for thousands of years. The belief that materialism is a product of post-Enlightenment thought in general and modern science in particular is itself a product of historical ignorance. ~ Paul Campos
posted by bevets at 6:08 AM on November 29, 2005
Second, the debate about whether the world is ultimately a meaningless flux or something more has been going on for thousands of years. The belief that materialism is a product of post-Enlightenment thought in general and modern science in particular is itself a product of historical ignorance. ~ Paul Campos
posted by bevets at 6:08 AM on November 29, 2005
bevets, if you think that quote suggests science should take into account unobservable forces/phenomena, you should probably reread it. Where you trying to get across something specific in posting it, or are you just a random quote-pulling bot?
posted by brundlefly at 1:43 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by brundlefly at 1:43 PM on November 29, 2005
« Older Restoring the old order | Olaf Stapledon: The Star Maker Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ab'd al'Hazred at 6:54 PM on November 27, 2005