If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bubblews)   Eccentric billionaire gets the go ahead to create a dinosaur theme park in a remote wildlife area. What could possibly go wrong?   (bubblews.com) divider line 39
    More: Spiffy, protected areas, Australians, extinct animals  
•       •       •

5191 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jul 2013 at 9:38 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-25 09:40:14 AM
Life finds a way.
 
2013-07-25 09:41:19 AM
The frog DNA they mix with it causes unexpected side effects and all the dinosaurs are about the size of a baseball?
 
2013-07-25 09:42:32 AM
www.nndb.com

Well FIRST of all welmf mfmmmmf mbmmbmmmf mfmmfmm f DINOSUARS Mmbmmf mfmmf.
 
2013-07-25 09:42:57 AM
Australia's poisonous local fauna kills everything off?
 
2013-07-25 09:43:02 AM
But, will it have a MOTHERF**KIN' T-REX, T-REX? :P
 
2013-07-25 09:43:17 AM
He spared no expense.
 
2013-07-25 09:45:47 AM

picturescrazy: The frog DNA they mix with it causes unexpected side effects and all the dinosaurs are about the size of a baseball? French.


www.craigwilly.info
 
2013-07-25 09:47:04 AM
Yes, well, umm, first there's that, then there's the screaming and the running.
 
2013-07-25 09:47:26 AM
www.bubblews.com

Baby Triceratops: 'Go away, Mr. Nasty T-Rex!'
 
2013-07-25 09:49:05 AM
Hope they have plenty of lawyer-only toilets
 
2013-07-25 09:50:36 AM
I want to go visit that park.  Dressed as jesus.
 
2013-07-25 09:51:20 AM
Hopefully the park won't include replicas of this:

www.n2wzb.net
 
2013-07-25 09:54:27 AM
But will their computers all be Unix systems?
 
2013-07-25 10:00:49 AM
legacy.shadowlordinc.com
 
2013-07-25 10:00:49 AM
Welcome...to Geriatric Park....

images.catholic.org
 
2013-07-25 10:04:41 AM

Arkanaut: Life uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh,

 uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, finds a way.
 
2013-07-25 10:05:08 AM

Well I use Mac/Linux...: But will their computers all be Unix systems?


I hope so.  I know those.

/downloaded that file manager for an Irix workstation at school
//flew around my home directory for a while
 
2013-07-25 10:06:30 AM
If the Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists.
 
2013-07-25 10:11:37 AM

ozebb: Arkanaut: Life uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, finds a way.


i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-07-25 10:16:44 AM
FTA... "no word of illegal cloning".

Well DUH!! You really think they will actually advertise something illegal?
 
2013-07-25 10:18:19 AM
Jurassic Park was not a "failure of science"; it was a failure of zookeeping, complicated by everything from bad programming to deliberate sabotage.

We have plenty of places where we keep animals who want to eat the paying customers. We call them "zoos". Most of the time, they're pretty good at keeping said animals from eating said customers. And when, say, a tiger leaps over a fence and kills one of the group that has been taunting it, we don't claim that tigers are impossible to keep; we build taller fences. If someone turns the tigers loose, we don't think that's a failure of science either; we think that's some would-be murderer turning the tigers loose.

Also, what was with the frog DNA? Frogs aren't very closely related to dinosaurs. Chicken DNA would have been more useful.

And if you're trying to ensure a non-reproducing population, you use all males, not all females. Parthenogenesis has been documented in a lot of different species, including turkeys, and is actually the natural course of events for a number of species of lizards; all frog DNA aside, virgin births are always an option. So you use animals that don't have the plumbing to lay eggs.

So Jurassic Park was designed by idiots, managed by fools, and sabotaged by the greedy ... and this is supposed to be some sort of indictment of the whole idea of keeping dangerous predators in a zoo? If we ran zoos that way, the lions and tigers would eat people on a regular basis.

</rant>
 
2013-07-25 10:24:03 AM
imageshack.us
 
2013-07-25 10:28:08 AM
Worldwalker:n. So you use animals that don't have the plumbing to lay eggs.

</rant>



I think, and I very well could be wrong, that Hammond and Scientists chose females as they were both smaller and less likely to kill everything like predatory males are wont to do. That's not to say that mama t-rex isn't going to get all protective over her nest but since the possibility of laying eggs (according to the book) was near 0 then that maternalistic instinct is gone and you are left with content females who are just there.
 
2013-07-25 10:49:31 AM
Done in 1.
 
2013-07-25 10:52:38 AM

Molavian: Australia's poisonous local fauna kills everything off?


That's why they are animatronic, Aus would kill any real dino's
 
2013-07-25 10:59:09 AM
i.qkme.me
 
2013-07-25 11:06:46 AM
This is just a ripoff of my book, Billy and the Clonasaurus.
 
2013-07-25 11:34:36 AM

not2bright: Hopefully the park won't include replicas of this:

[www.n2wzb.net image 500x281]


"Now that is one big pile of shiat."
 
2013-07-25 12:16:02 PM
I saw this movie, didn't I?
 
2013-07-25 12:36:57 PM
Can we have that here and send them the creation museum?
 
2013-07-25 01:03:05 PM
i.telegraph.co.uk

Oblig.
 
2013-07-25 01:21:40 PM
No clones? Pass.
 
2013-07-25 01:22:05 PM
This could be fun.
 
2013-07-25 01:54:31 PM
I forgot we already have one here!

http://dinosaurland.com/
 
2013-07-25 03:27:51 PM

Churchill92: Worldwalker:n. So you use animals that don't have the plumbing to lay eggs.

</rant>

I think, and I very well could be wrong, that Hammond and Scientists chose females as they were both smaller and less likely to kill everything like predatory males are wont to do.


Except that in a lot of species of reptiles, the females are larger. So that doesn't necessarily apply.

Both sexes are predatory, so that's not an issue.

Same-sex groups are generally not violent, whether it's all males or all females. When you have a female (or at least the scent, etc.) of one present during mating season, that's when the males get all nasty with each other. True, there are exceptions to this (I used to have an iguana who spent two months every summer attacking everything in sight, from his food dish on up, and he probably hadn't seen a female iguana since he was a hatchling ... but considering that the food dish was probably smarter than he was, I'm not sure he's a good example of anything) but by and large, male dominance behavior generally only exists where the possibility of mating exists; it's wasteful of energy (not to mention dangerous) otherwise, and animals that waste energy and risk death for no reward tend not to leave many offspring.

Dinosaurs would not be some kind of magical creatures. The "raptors" (Deinonychus actually) in Jurassic Park were large, agile predators. Well, we keep large, agile predators in zoos all the time. The herbivorous species would be hell on fences, yes. So are bison; ranchers solve that problem by building stronger (and taller) fences. There is nothing new or different or fantastically strange about dinosaurs; they're just big.

Michael Crichton always seemed to want to put sensationalism before science. Of course, sensationalism is what fiction authors do; that's kind of the whole point. But his fiction should not be in any way mistaken for anything even approaching scientific fact.
 
2013-07-25 04:48:10 PM

Worldwalker: Michael Crichton always seemed to want to put sensationalism before science.


He's a fiction writer....
 
2013-07-25 05:45:12 PM

Churchill92: Worldwalker:n. So you use animals that don't have the plumbing to lay eggs.

</rant>


I think, and I very well could be wrong, that Hammond and Scientists chose females as they were both smaller and less likely to kill everything like predatory males are wont to do. That's not to say that mama t-rex isn't going to get all protective over her nest but since the possibility of laying eggs (according to the book) was near 0 then that maternalistic instinct is gone and you are left with content females who are just there.


Just reread the book. They chose females because they were easier to clone. Something about the males was too tricky to do reliably. Can't remember what. Actually I Listened to it so I can't just look up the page. Regardless, they backed it with science.
 
2013-07-25 08:48:24 PM
"remote wildlife area"?  Coolum?  Really?
 
2013-07-25 09:18:01 PM
Probably has something to do with the XX vs XY thing, I would guess.

And I say yes to a Jurassic Park with real dinosaurs.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report