×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Smart Camera Tells Tobacco From Marijuana

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the shinola-detection-much-trickier dept.

Technology 167

An anonymous reader writes "A new smart camera technology not only takes a picture but also assays chemical composition, allowing photographers to tell whether that hand-rolled cigarette contains tobacco or marijuana. Designed to speed industrial inspection systems — such as detecting whether food is spoiled — the new smart camera includes spectral filters that make images of corn fields appear differently from hemp. Spectral cameras have been available for decades, but this microchip version should be cheap enough for almost any application."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

167 comments

Technology Stoners (2, Informative)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001023)

At least in the short term. Once it catches on, there will be a way to circumvent it.

Re:Technology Stoners (4, Interesting)

nashv (1479253) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001651)

Such as for example, spectral camouflage. Any method that depends on identifying spectra of compounds in a complex mixture depends on spectral deconvolution. Spectral deconvolution is easy to fool, but adding a compound that provides a "difference spectrum" , compensating for the differences in tobacco versus marijuana smoke.

Re:Technology Stoners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001897)

Yeah... the summary & headline are pretty much the only thing that mention marijuana & tobacco. As others have pointed out, the paper on that hand-rolled cigarette will probably prevent one from doing meaningful spectrum analysis from afar. Now... once it's lit, you might see some difference -- but then, you can anyway, since joints turn brown whereas tobacco cigarettes don't. Bottom line: this technology is shit for the application proposed in the summary.

Re:Technology Stoners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39002319)

you mean i flushed all that for no reason?

Wonderful (5, Insightful)

vinehair (1937606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001027)

I'm sure we can all get behind this fantastic use of technology that will further the demonisation of a plant.

Re:Wonderful (4, Insightful)

r1348 (2567295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001073)

Sure, and how else are they supposed to keep us distracted from real problems?

Re:Wonderful (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39002555)

Real problems? What, you haven't gotten your purple unicorn yet today?
Here, have one. There you go. And please stick your head back in the sand, you look suspicious.

Re:Wonderful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001099)

The cannabis examples are just to grab attention (and maybe funding; I don't RTFA).
Put down the bong for a second and try to imagine some cooler applications.

Re:Wonderful (5, Funny)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001265)

I would like to see this tech developed further to determine the quality of the weed. Then the results could be given in a classic Tommy Chong slacker voice like: "Oh wow! This is some good shit, man." "That's total crap." "Whoa! That will knock you on your ass. Far out, man!"

Re:Wonderful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001619)

Man, what is in this shit, man?
Mostly Maui Waui man, but it's got some Labrador in it.
What's Labrador?
It's dog shit.
What?
Yeah, my dog ate my stash, man.
Pedro: Yeah?
I had it on the table and the little motherfucker ate it, man. Then I had to follow him around with a little baggie for three days, man, before I got it back. Really blew the dog's mind, ya know?
You mean we're smokin' dog shit, man?
Gets ya high, don't it?
I think it's even better than before, you know?
Uhhh, I wonder what Great Dane tastes like, man.

Re:Wonderful (4, Interesting)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39002517)

Yeah, my dog ate my stash, man.

Back in the days when I was still smoking weed, I was rolling a joint and noticed my dog was looking at me in an investigative way. So I took a small bud of weed and let her smell it. She sniffed, and then she shook her snout against my hand making me drop it. Immediately she took it, and ran away a couple of metres. I tried to get it back, but she turned her body keeping me away from it while she ate it. During the rest of the evening, she kept lying in the sofa, upside down, paws up in the air. Eventually she got up and ate her bowl completely empty, then got back into the sofa. It's the funniest thing I ever saw her do. I don't know if it's normal or not. Do dogs like weed? Mine did for sure.

Re:Wonderful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001119)

I don't even know why they bother making this sensationalized by adding tobacco and marijuana to the headline.
The article is about an old technology that has been given a modern upgrade. Apparently this camera can tell you what anything is made of chemically, on the surface. How it does that isn't mentioned :( I'm guessing it spits out something more like an MRI?

But seriously, wouldn't the ability to detect skin cancer have brought more views than simply tacking tobacco and marijuana on the headline? "Smart Camera Can See Your Cancer" has a great ring to it.

Re:Wonderful (1)

vinehair (1937606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001149)

This is pretty much exactly my point. Old tech undergoing a familiar modernisation path as with most technology, then some bright spark decides this is the most fitting use for it? What a terrible, disagreeable waste.

Re:Wonderful (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001739)

I suppose you missed this part, right there in the fucking summary:

Designed to speed industrial inspection systems — such as detecting whether food is spoiled

(emphasis mine)

Re:Wonderful (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#39002247)

no, I am fairly sure he is talking about the summiter of this article, while the article itself is interesting (yes i know, i should never RTFA, it is slashdot) but it has NOTHING to do with pot or tobacco, and in fact would be much better of the submitter and his most likely THC covered braincells would have pointed out the real uses that could be put into play, such as cancer.

yes, i get the irony of my name and my rant....

Re:Wonderful (1)

ranpel (1255408) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001239)

mis-modded - intent underrated not overrated - in a valiant attempt to correct my wrong.. clearly we need more tools, police, laws and criminals in the ongoing battle against evil green plant life.

Re:Wonderful (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001569)

mis-modded - intent underrated not overrated - in a valiant attempt to correct my wrong.. clearly we need more tools, police, laws and criminals in the ongoing battle against evil green plant life.

so youre too stupid and lazy to click what you intend? when you can read them as long as you want until you fully comprehend it? wow. just, wow.

Re:Wonderful (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001723)

I don't think you understand how serious of a problem marijuana use is. Did you know that marijuana has been linked to such things as sitting around and getting high?

Re:Wonderful (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39002029)

The irony is, if the general population was stoned the government could do pretty much whatever it wanted and people wouldn't care, and if they did care, they'd never get themselves organised enough to do anything about it. They might get less tobacco tax revenue, but that's not going to last forever anyway.

SoC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001035)

All that's new is SoC. The challenge with stopping hemp cultivation isn't a detection problem, it's an enforcement one.

Re:SoC (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001591)

All that's new is SoC. The challenge with stopping hemp cultivation isn't a detection problem, it's an enforcement one.

It's just that crimes with a victim are so much more likely to be reported.

Yeah, right! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001049)

I usually mix!

tobacco or marijuana? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001069)

I couldn't find either of these words in TFA. Whoever wrote the summary needs to put down the bong for a while.

Re:tobacco or marijuana? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001139)

IT'S A TRAP!!!

Re:tobacco or marijuana? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001141)

Wow. That ranks up there with dumbest summaries ever.

Does it? (4, Informative)

phobafiliac (704426) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001087)

Perhaps I missed it in the article, but it mentions nothing about marijuana or hand rolled cigarettes. It talks about real roses and silk roses. I suppose, in theory, it could do this, but I think it would tell what kinda of paper they used to roll the joint before it tells us whats inside the joint.

Police will be ordering this soon (3, Interesting)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001127)

I can see city police departments calling in orders for this right away. Just think of all the tickets and arrests they'll get out of one of these things!

Re:Police will be ordering this soon (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001201)

I am more concerned about them increasing the number of helicopter patrols. Where I live now, the state sends out helicopters to look for cannabis plants, then indiscriminately arrests anyone who has a cannabis plant on their property. We recently had someone in my county arrested and convicted of cultivating marijuana because the patrol spotted feral hemp on his property.

Tickets are one thing, but when you have a paramilitary force prepared to arrest or kill anyone over these plants, you are dealing with tyranny.

Re:Police will be ordering this soon (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001271)

I am more concerned about them increasing the number of helicopter patrols. Where I live now, the state sends out helicopters to look for cannabis plants, then indiscriminately arrests anyone who has a cannabis plant on their property.

What's the ROI on that, you think?

Re:Police will be ordering this soon (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001407)

What's the ROI on that, you think?

Could be pretty good if the forfeiture laws are stilted towards law enforcement.

Re:Police will be ordering this soon (5, Insightful)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001555)

ROI is excellent considering you can confiscate property and money with a low likelihood of it ever being returned. also, agents get to shoot your pets, which they never miss an opportunity to do no matter how small or harmless they are. it's tough enough to find a justified reason to shoot the gun that's been burning a hole in your holster even with the protection of your badge.

Re:Police will be ordering this soon (1)

Miktor (1285622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001515)

They seriously waste money on fuel, pilots, etc. to find cannabis plants? This is getting ridiculous.

Re:Police will be ordering this soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001597)

Where do you live? Mendocino? I knew it was bad; but not that bad. It's a wonder they don't swing some of their pot profits towards rocket launchers, 50-cal, high power lasers and such. Or maybe they do, and the media just doesn't talk about it.

Re:Police will be ordering this soon (2)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#39002267)

this is the norm, I live in NY, upstate and every october hte choppers fly over the fields, we hear about a bust or 2 and from why my police buddies tell me its about 5 million a year just for a tri county area just north of NYC for choppers looking for pot from sept - nov

Re:Police will be ordering this soon (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001663)

I am more concerned about them increasing the number of helicopter patrols. Where I live now, the state sends out helicopters to look for cannabis plants, then indiscriminately arrests anyone who has a cannabis plant on their property. We recently had someone in my county arrested and convicted of cultivating marijuana because the patrol spotted feral hemp on his property. Tickets are one thing, but when you have a paramilitary force prepared to arrest or kill anyone over these plants, you are dealing with tyranny.

I am not advocating that anyone do anything illegal. So, in a strictly hypothetical sense, just imagine if the response to that was an underground campaign to scatter marijuana seeds all over the private properties of the police chief (or sheriff), various local government officials, state government officials, their friends and families, their staff, local judges, important local businessmen, etc.

It could at least change the "indiscriminately arresting with no regard for whether deliberate cultivation is happening" part of their practices. In theory, I mean.

Not only is it tyranny, but when you make crimes of such non-issues it is also institutionalized insanity*. Because it is insane, no amount of evidence that drug policy should be reformed is going to change their minds. They don't care about evidence.


* Although I am convinced that anyone who wants to control the private lives of consenting adults is already insane, for there is no sane or justifiable reason to want to do this.

Re:Police will be ordering this soon (5, Insightful)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001813)

Doesn't work this way. When they find the plants on the property of the official with the government connections, they won't arrest anyone and the local prosecutor will quietly decline to file charges. Nor will they do any civil forfeitures.

And when they find the exact same plants on the property of the hispanic/black guy's property, or that redneck fellow who has already had a few run ins with the law, that's when they slam on the cuffs and knock the suspect around a bit. And charge him with a crime, and take his property.

It will never even occur to the government officials doing this that what they are doing is hippo-critical. After all, they "know" the black/hispanic/white trash guy must be guilty of something, even if not this particular thing. And they "know" that judge or police chief is innocent or a good guy that deserves a break, even if the pot garden looks deliberately cultivated.

Re:Police will be ordering this soon (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#39002275)

thats what the photographs are for, mothers with nothing to do except their pool boys love to get involved when its for teh children!!!!!

Re:Police will be ordering this soon (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 2 years ago | (#39002511)

Only if actual children are involved. Connected government officials aren't immune to being brought down by scandal, just highly resistant to it.

Re:Police will be ordering this soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001777)

If you're growing outdoors, you're doing it wrong. A (legal) grow around here with 12 plants in an indoor hydroponic garden where you rotate 4 mothers, 4 clones in veg, and 4 flowers, gives as much as pound of (legal) medical grade product per week. There is simply nothing sensible about growing outdoors like fields of wheat, or anything that ends up being baled like hay. Every time I hear about an arrest where someone is smuggling "pounds" (let alone "hundreds of pounds") I think "you're doing it wrong!" In a world that includes legally cultivated medical grade cannabis, it's hard to imagine that there is even a value on cannabis that has been treated so brutally and cultivated so carelessly as the stuff we read about in smuggling busts. I suspect that if consumers of that kind of product understood how different it was from the quality that can be had from a small, careful cultivation, they wouldn't bother with it.

If you want to cultivate cannabis, I strongly recommend that you locate yourself where it is at least considered de-facto lawful to do so. If you're doing it someplace where it's still treated as one of the worst crimes there is, I would go as far as to suggest that you are doing the nation a disservice by remaining there.

Re:Police will be ordering this soon (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001839)

Here's a fix for that?

Seed balls. [wikipedia.org] Just start walking around the neighborhood with a bag of these, tossing them into gardens, planters and median strips. Be especially sure to put them in the large planters you find in front of banks and other public buildings. Make sure you wear jeans, boots, hard hat and orange vest, so you look like a worker.

Do this all over the place. Everywhere. Towns, cities, villages, technical parks; anywhere there is a planter or bare soil. Do it at night, and you can see entire media strips along the highway. Imagine 20 miles of flowers!

If you really wanna cause trouble, make a modified fusen bakudan! [wikipedia.org] Take a 2-liter bottle and tie it to a weather balloon. Put a timing switch on top of the bottle. Run a string from the switch, through the bottle, to a stopper. Fill the bottle with seeds. Set the timer for 30 minutes, then release at night. When the trigger releases, the seeds will fall out and scatter over a wide area. If you make adjustments to the mouth of the bottle, it can be made to release them over a longer period, decreasing concentration but increasing dispersal.

If you saturate the product all over the place, everyone will now have plausible deniability.

Tricorders next! (3, Interesting)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001145)

Who would want a tricorder that couldn't do spectral analysis? We're almost there!

Great but where are the thought crime cameras? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001151)

Remember when crimes had victims?

That's because it was 4000 years ago.

Can we say: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001181)

TRICORDER?!?!?!

Seriously, this device would allow you to build a cell phone with 9/10s of the features of the tricorder shown on the shows. The only other things it'd need is a tissue regenerator, a power cell/fusion power supply, and a software accessable broad spectrum reciever (Technically already there, but not user accessable.).

With this set of features, the possibilities would be endless!

Forgive the pedantry, but.... (4, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001207)

Hemp is *NOT* marijuana. They are related in that they are both cannabis, but they are not the same plant. You can't get high by smoking hemp (well, maybe you could... but Hemp's THC content is over an order of magnitude less than that found in marijuana, so you'd have to smoke at least ten times as much).

Re:Forgive the pedantry, but.... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001417)

Cannabis sativa is Cannabis sativa. The fact that they have different THC levels does not make them different plants anymore than a the height of a Chihuahua makes it any less of a dog than a Great Dane.

Re:Forgive the pedantry, but.... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001729)

I guess you've never heard of Ruderalis.

Re:Forgive the pedantry, but.... (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001771)

Cannibus ruderalis is not Cannibus sativa. What was your point?

Autoflowering strains (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001919)

The lines blur with the relatively new autoflower strains which are hybrids of Sativa/Indica and Ruderalis.
They seem to be very popular with guerilla outdoor growers due to their low height and robustness.

Re:Forgive the pedantry, but.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001737)

It makes them different in the same way that a Chihuahua is *NOT* a Great Dane. Both are types of dogs, but one is not the other. Likewise, hemp and marijuana are both types of cannabis, but they are not the same... "breed", if you will.

Re:Forgive the pedantry, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39002231)

Dude, if a Great Dane bit you, you'll know all about it. Chihuahua... not so much.

Same difference. Trust me.

Re:Forgive the pedantry, but.... (2)

sound+vision (884283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39002515)

Indeed there is only one species of cannabis. Well maybe two or three depending on who you ask - some people describe up to three species: sativa, indica, and ruderalis. But regardless of how you choose to classify cannabis plants - all varieties do produce at least some amount of THC and have varying usefulness as hemp fiber (which I think has to do with how tall the woody/fibrous parts of the plant grow).

Now, even if the law doesn't differentiate between different potencies of cannabis, law enforcement should still take it into account. Generally weed that grows wild is "dirt weed", of a very low potency, and of limited usefulness as a drug. Hell, even top quality seeds can bear very weak marijuana, if the plant hasn't been properly and meticulously tended to. One of my friends used to be a grower, and having seen him work at it and sampling each one of his successive crops, I see that growing quality cannabis does take a fair bit of time, effort, and skill.

So, if someone's got a high-potency strain that's obviously been cultivated in some way (whether its irrigation, evidence of fertilizing, footpaths leading out to where the plants grow, growing in pots, growing indoors in any capacity...) then the lawmen can be sure that it was being intentionally cultivated. But if it's a wild strain of low-potency dirt weed growing in a ditch somewhere on a large property, I don't think that should prove that the property's owner was cultivating it "beyond a reasonable doubt." There's a reason it's called weed, it's fairly apt to popping up anywhere, and it would certainly be even more prevalent if we didn't have this 60+ years program of eradicating it.

Even if we've foolishly committed ourselves to a so-called war on marijuana, the least we could do is to make sure that only people who are, in fact, cultivating it get punished. Not innocent landowners who get caught in the crossfire.

smoke at least ten times as much (2)

owenferguson (521762) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001469)

I, sir, accept your challenge.

Re:smoke at least ten times as much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001943)

I'll be the control sample and smoke ten times as much of the good stuff.

Re:Forgive the pedantry, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001493)

Given enough fertile seeds of industrial hemp, and enough time to cross-pollinate enough generations, you can get a good sativa from a sativa strain, a good indica from an indica strain, and a good ruderalis from a ruderalis strain. It will probably take years and years of honest work, but the entire genome is in there.

Re:Forgive the pedantry, but.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001793)

What you are suggesting may be theoretically possible, but as of today, at least, Hemp and Marijuna are still distinct types of cannabis, just as much as poodles are distinct from terriers.

Re:Forgive the pedantry, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39002377)

You can't get high by smoking hemp

You can extract usable amounts of THC from cabbage so I don't see why the same couldn't be done with hemp - what do you think is in hemp oil, exactly?

Re:Forgive the pedantry, but.... (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39002587)

yeah, you can get drunk on angostura bitters from the supermarket too, yet you aren't carded for it.

For a "technology" website (2)

tbird81 (946205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001229)

There's always about 80% of commenters here whining about how new technology is going to ruin our lives.

Re:For a "technology" website (2, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001411)

No. Irrational laws do.

Re:For a "technology" website (1)

n5vb (587569) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001535)

And overzealous enforcement of those irrational laws does even more ..

Pfft! Who needs "smart technology" for that? (1)

Heed00 (1473203) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001249)

Just give me some good old fashioned "dumb" fire and I'll do this for you all day long.

Hyperspectral Imaging (1)

bloobamator (939353) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001251)

From TFA:

The system-on-chip (SoC) solution can accurately distinguish between objects that appear virtually identical using traditional red-green-blue imaging chips.

The sentence immediately preceding that one, claims the product senses outside the visual spectrum ("hyper-spectral") and that it can perform remote spectral analysis, but somehow it uses just a good ol' RGB sensor.

Re:Hyperspectral Imaging (5, Informative)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001379)

From TFA:

The system-on-chip (SoC) solution can accurately distinguish between objects that appear virtually identical using traditional red-green-blue imaging chips.

The sentence immediately preceding that one, claims the product senses outside the visual spectrum ("hyper-spectral") and that it can perform remote spectral analysis, but somehow it uses just a good ol' RGB sensor.

Yes, it says that it can differentiate things that a traditional RGB sensor cannot. That means it's NOT a "good ol' RGB sensor".

Color cameras are just black and white ones with a set of filters over the pixels. Traditional color cameras use red, green and blue filters in a Bayer pattern. You can make a "hyperspectral" camera by using narrower filters of specific wavelengths to detect light at those wavelengths. For example, if you know that corn and someone else differ at a certain wavelength, use a filter at that wavelength.

You can also make a hyperspectral line imager by using a slit instead of a round aperture and putting a grating or prism behind it. That turns the slit image into a two-D "image" where the slit is broken down by color. One dimension is along the line, the second is by color. Move the camera so the slit covers the desired imaging area and record the spectrum at each "pixel" in the resulting image. Google for "CAP" and "Archer".

Re:Hyperspectral Imaging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001505)

Multispectral imaging is really fascinating and all sorts of interesting science questions can be investigated with it. What's with the lame summaries today?

Re:Hyperspectral Imaging (1)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39002265)

Almost ALL cameras sense outside the visual range. Remember the Sony "see-through-clothes" camera? Just a low-light camera used in the daytime with an IR filter.

Well, shit (4, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001301)

There goes my business of selling oregano by the ounce in sandwich baggies...

Re:Well, shit (1)

Superdarion (1286310) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001913)

You can just switch to paper bags. They're good for the environment too!

Re:Well, shit (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39002017)

Yeah..paper bags are just great for the environment~

do people know know what goes into makes and recycling paper? Nastier then plastic.

bwit3h (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001325)

development mode(l is wiped oof and

Better Link (4, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001341)

Here is another article [physicstoday.org] , which is both more informative, and doesn't have an annoying constantly scrolling twitter feed to distract you while you try to read.

I can tell you the difference for free (1)

bragr (1612015) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001391)

Heck, I'll even kick in for the shipping for the, ahem, samples.

I can now find free weed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001455)

Sweet, so that means I can use this device and scour the fields and other open vegetative areas to find marijuana plants. That way I won't have to pay for it anymore.

Re:I can now find free weed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001533)

Perhaps that is the desired effect: Stop people from growing marijuana by creating a strong correlation "growing marijuana" "stoners climbing over your fence".

Uh, what? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001473)

Read the article. This might be able to tell weed from tobacco in the field, but not covered over by paper; it has no penetrative power. (Neither application is mentioned in the article, by the way.)

rubycodez (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001481)

I've always been able to tell a corn field from a hemp one without a camera. Also, I can tell a hemp farm from a marijuana farm, as there there is more than a meter difference in plant height.

Re:rubycodez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39002099)

Actually, that all depends. Corn will typically grow taller than indica plants but shorter than sativa. But that also depends on the type of corn and what the farmers are using and the weather and all that good stuff.

Summary example not in article (3, Interesting)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001585)

What are they talking about? The article says absolutely nothing about differentiating hand-rolled cigarettes, nothing about tobacco, and nothing about marijuana.

Troll summary is troll summary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001657)

The article mentions nothing about tobacco or cannabis.

burned (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001673)

I wish there was a camera to tell oregano from marijuana. That little sophomore shit at the high school in my neighborhood sold me fugazi again.

Re:burned (1)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001949)

If a quick sniff won't tell you the difference between grass and oregano, you are probably way too high already....

Re:burned (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39002391)

If a quick sniff won't tell you the difference between grass and oregano, you are probably way too high already....

I'b cot a code and my nose is stupped up.

Even better: (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001775)

Would be a smart camera that can tell when a summary on slashdot includes information found nowhere within TFA.

"Smart" my ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39001885)

Here [www2.imec.be] is a more decent description from imec.

That Would Have Been Useful 30-odd Years Ago... (1)

JohnnyMindcrime (2487092) | more than 2 years ago | (#39001947)

...to tell the difference between oregano and weed!

Thieving dealers...

Re:That Would Have Been Useful 30-odd Years Ago... (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39002027)

People committing crimes turned out also to be thieves? shocking, simply...shocking.

Spliffs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39002399)

But will it detect my spliff [urbandictionary.com] ?

For those who don't wanna urb dict it (I don't blame you):

Spliff: a quality cigarette rolled with both tobacco and marajuana, initially popular on Europe's Iberian Peninsula

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...