Slashdot Mirror
Cloning Yields Human-Rabbit Hybrid Embryo
ralphb writes "Here is the story of scientists in China who have, for the first time, used cloning techniques to create hybrid embryos that contain a mix of DNA from both humans and rabbits. Hop on over for a look!"
My dear god, didn't any of these "scientists" ever see Night of the Lepus?!
We're all doomed!!
Mike
Finally, babies with a healthy appetite for sex
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
China trying to compete with Hugh and create their own Playboy Bunnies? Not to mention the potential for pleasure, knowing how rabbits multiply....
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Welcome our new fuzzy over...nevermind.
Bah, what a trivial story. Let me know when they can make a monkey with four asses. THEN, I'll be impressed!
$8.95/mo web hosting
mix of DNA from both human and rabbit
Well, not exactly. The cell DNA was human. Only the mitochondrial DNA was from rabbit.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
I for one welcome our new human-rabbit hybrid masters.
I will remind them that I could be useful in rounding up people to toil in their underground carrot mines.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
This is just the sort of thing that will catch the attention of do-gooder congressmen and get things like cloning research completely banned...If they do things like this, they should keep it quiet, not get it out into the mainstream of public opinion where people can jump (or maybe hop-hop-hop) to conclusions and phone their congressman.
"I think because all the nuclear DNA is human," Doerflinger said, "we'd consider this an organism of the human species."
Better pay attention, when you go hunting next time.
Even regular cloning causes most of the subjects to die. I can't imagine interspecies cloning not killing many many more. Most likely, this embryo will die after a few divisions, being so strange. However, even "successful" clones have more problems and a shorter lifespan. Doing this should be unethical by anyone's standards.
...we can breed like rabbits
Whats up doc?
... China had enough people already, without creating humans that breed like rabbits!
Don't they know that adding human DNA to rabbit embryos is a crime against nature? They should abort babies for those stem cells, the way God intended.
How many asses does it have? I suspect it's less than five.
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
Scientists in China have, for the first time, used cloning techniques to create hybrid embryos that contain a mix of DNA from both humans and rabbits
...
I thought China needed to control the exponential growth of their population, do they really need that? They should sell the technology to the state of Florida instead
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
... mixing the frog with the horse was great, until the explosion.
The vast majority of the DNA in the embryos is human, with a small percentage of genetic material -- called mitochondrial DNA -- contributed by the rabbit egg. No one knows if such an embryo could develop into a viable fetus, though some experiments with other species suggest it would not.
The DNA that they put into the human cells is not DNA which determines physical charateristics. It's mitochondrial DNA, which is found in the cells' mitochondria. These little organelles of the cell basically burn sugar to make energy usable for the rest of the cell. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that the mitochondria found in all human cells was actually a seperate organism that became co-dependent with the cells in which they lived. Interstingly enough, mitochondiral is almost totally unaltered with a new generation, and is always passed down through the female of the species because the sperm cells typically have very few or a negligible amount of mitochondria. i.e. You have the same mitochondrial DNA as your mother and all your siblings, and she has all the same as her mother and so on down your family tree.
--
Adobe's anti-counterfeiting softw
mix b g with a cat; he will re-design Windz such that when a blue screen appears, the computer also vomits in your shoes.
What have we created
--
"this is the gloaming"
Radiohead
--
"this is the gloaming"
radiohead
Wizard: It's a horrible beast.
King Arthur: What, you mean behind the bunny rabbit?
Wizard: It IS the bunny rabbit?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Judgeing from the artical they might have found a better way to get stem cells for research. However, now instead of having to deal with just people that are anti-cloning or anti-stem cell research, you would also have to deal with the animal rights activists because of the retrevial of the eggs, and the undertermined status of the cells after they are created.
So in the short run it is posibly a better way to get stem cells, in the long run it will raise alot of ethical concerns, as well as the undermined nature of the cell - in short we don't know if they are "true" stem cells in their ablity to grow into any organ. Also, if they do have the potenital to become any organ, we don't know how the human body would react to the foegin DNA (the rabit mitocadria)
When are they gonna stop fooling around and start engineering Carmen Electra clones that have a thing for network admins...
RTFA and you'll find the cells used for the DNA were a mix of rabbit skin and human foreskin. Imagine explaining that when your long-eared, buck-toothed teenager asks "Daddy, where do babies come from?"
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
every time you bang your head you become a mass murderer?
or would you say it's a multiple suicide?
either way, I'm definitely going to hell, right?
I don't claim to be a DNA expert but I'll bet the people opposing these kinds of exparaments know even less about DNA than I do.
Somewhere I've read that we share most of our DNA with all the other members of the animal kingdom and indeed we share a lot of DNA with every living thing.
Some of these exparaments are "pure research" and others are "applied research." In pure research you do the exparament and then look to see where it took you. In applied research you have a pretty good idea of where you are going and are pretty much conducting the exparament to verify your theory. In either case, there really is a goal to the research and I'll submit that the goal is usually good for humanity.
Without this kind of research we would miss out on opportunities to cure disease, treat birth defects and, all sorts of other good things. But, there is something even better that comes from this research. We gain a greater understanding of the world we live in. We add to humankinds knowlege base. Without doing this we will fail to advance and the next century will look like the last. When that happens there is little doubt that we will have started to slide down the road to extinction becuase we will exhaust vital resources.
You should not bring Chinese morality into this, since US researchers have tried this too. from the WP article:
/., but RTFA!
Although scientists in Massachusetts had previously mixed human cells and cow eggs in a similar attempt to make hybrid embryos as a source of stem cells, those experiments were not successful.
Secondly, this was done to produce stem cells and not out of morbid curiosity. Please, I know this is
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Did anyone notice the advertiser links at the bottom of the page for Latest Stem Cell Therapy and Dwarf Rabbit?
Talk about keyword advertising gone awry!
As for rabbits... couldn't they have picked a cooler species to intermix with? Wolves, cheetahs (fast sprinters for the Olympics!), bears... hmph. Definitely not primates though... anyone seeing 28 Days Later should put the kibosh on that one.
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
So when are they going to cross ninjas with turtles?
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Now we finally know why Anya was so afraid of rabbits... She saw their future as our masters...
This has to be a hoax. Rabbits are mammals and give live birth.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
In other words, this IS important research, that has the potential of providing important material for research projects that might take medical science huge leaps forwards.
The furry crowd must be mighty yiffy over this little development. :)
Of course... they're mostly yiffy all the time.....
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
All this scientific research just to make Bugs Bunny a reality?
Anytime soon?
Don't they realize they've been doing this in Kentucky for a long time?
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
This kind of knee-jerk 'this is bad/immoral/whatever' comment, even though you clearly didn't finish (start?) reading the article is exactly the kind of piss-poor commentary that prevents science doing good.
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Can we splice some donut DNA into something, like a duck or a moose and have donut-shaped, rolly-polly ducks and... mooses? Imagine, a duck with a big round hoop on it back.
Hm.
Informatus Technologicus
For example, if a human embryo with three of a given chromosome is formed, depending on which chromosome it forms on, the embryo may either fail to develop past the 8 cell stage, or develop into a 10 week fetus and die, or develop longer and die, but never become viable outside the womb. Down's syndrome is unique in that it and sex chromosome triploidies are the only triploidies that are compatible with life. Other triploidies result in miscarriage or failure to implant.
Unfortunately, I had to learn about this the hard way.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Wow! The results are impressive!
Chinese scientists announced that now they'll focus research in catgirls.
Prescriptive grammar:linguistics
if the US wasn't strictly trying to control embryonic stem cells for research, then there wouldn't be a demand to make a hybrid source for embryonic stem cells.
america (currently) leads because we (usually) have the foresight to keep barriers out of the way of technological progress. we have slowly overcome nearly every 'religious' boundary by slowly letting people become accustomed to the way this medical technology -improves- life. each time they are accused of wanting to 'play god'. scientists grit and bear the well-intentioned but factually ignorant viewpoint until slowly the advances are accepted.
i'm not saying that we throw our morals to the wind and race to immortality and superhuman hybrids - just that we redirect our skepticism. are we really trying to play god? or are we just trying to preserve and extend life, to ease pain and suffering, and to advance as much of our species as we can, without hurting anyone? instead of just levelling opposition to every potential breakthrough because we're 'playing god' - can't we just look for a second at what the facts are?
embryonic stem cells are being harvested from aborted fetuses. fetuses that were legally terminated and currently, are waste. by banning science from using this unfortunate situation to the best of their ability, people are ensuring that absolutely no good comes from the situation.
if lives can be saved by studying those who have left - then why in the world would we stand in the way of that? religious opposition in the 19th and early 20th century maintained that if we allowed study of cadavers or donation of organs that people would be killed and abducted and harvested by notorious individuals in the name of 'science'. but that did not happen. nor will people go out of their way to abort fetuses just so they can get stem cells. scientists are not growing fetuses to harvest stem cells.
this unfortunately ignites the whole abortion debate, which i doubt will ever be resolved. but legally, if I, as next of kin, have the right to determine whether the body of a loved one is to be donated to science; why shouldn't these mothers who exercised their legal right to terminate their pregnancies, also have that same legal right to donate?
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
A human with the libido of a rabbit. Hmmm...
GET FREE APPLE STUFF!
I've never understood where this idea comes from. When you have sex, the number of sperm released is typically in nine figures {decimal}. Out of all those sperm, most will not fuse with an egg. Perhaps one {single birth or identical twins} or rarely two {non-identical twins}, even rarer more than two. Most likely, none of them will find an egg.
If a man has sex just once and gets his girlfriend pregnant, one sperm has done its job but there are still hundreds of millions of sperm wasted. Now if a man had sex twice a day every day for seventy years and each instance of sex conceives exactly one child, that is just over 50000 babies - and trillions of sperm. Most of which were just never going to make it. So if you had a w**k twice a day for seventy years you might have wasted trillions of sperm, but since most of them were never really going to go anywhere anyway, you have only really wasted one per shot. And there are sufficiently more sperm in a single ejaculation to make that quite insignificant by comparison.
As they say, sperm are tiny, but it only takes one of them to fill a pram!
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I, for one, welcome our new Bunny-Men overlords.
Some wondered aloud what, exactly, such a creature would be if it were transferred to a womb to develop to term.
Some actually turned out ok, others not so well.
I have not RTFA, but you touched on the nature of mitochondria...
It is generally believed that mitochondria used to be the anaerobic bacteria present on primordial Earth. As they discharged oxygen as a waste product, they basically filled the atmosphere full of a chemical they couldn't respirate at all. As aerobic bacteria arose to take advantage of the vast amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere, the anaerobics started dying off, and it is believed that some of them managed to establish symbiotic relationships with the aerobic bacteria, eventually being absorbed into a single organism. The anaerobic bacteria, as I recall, produce energy much more efficiently than aerobic bacteria, while the aerobic bacteria can provide the chemicals necessary for the reaction to the anaerobics within.
I Am Not A Molecular Biologist, so I may not be entirely accurate, but that is the best of my recollection.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
So the resulting cells are human cells, except that tracing the maternal line using the standard techniques would... "Your mother was a hamster!"
Hikaru Usada!!!
(She's an anime character with rabbit ears.)
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
No... you didn't read the article. I just can't believe it. In order for this to happen, the embryo would have to be transferred to a womb. All the samples were destroyed. They don't believe a hybrid could even survive. That's not what this research is for.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Ok, I was almost down to the bottom of the page moderating, and had to back out to respond to this point.
You have come close to hitting on the quintessential question behind all of the debate.
What makes a human a human?
Arguably, the most important criteria for being human is awareness... consciousness.
Here's a rather graphic gedanken:
Shave off all your hair... are you still human? What if you amputate your arms and legs? How about body organs? Artificial heart, kidney dialysis, iron lung, etc... Take this beyond what is possible with modern day science... brain in a vat. Quality of life has certainly decreased dramatically! However, the brain is still thinking, the software of mind is still running. What if it were possible to run the software on other hardware? Sure, cyberpunk has beat this topic to death... but I certainly don't consider my brain to be me! To quote Rene Descartes: "cogito ergo sum". Nothing else is relevant... software is everything (yeah, I'm a programmer ;-) )
Unfortunately, science has not been able to answer the question of when during development the spark of consciousness begins.
Can we agree that awareness requires a brain? Can we agree that this brain needs to be working... ie. the synapses are firing, neural potentials exist?
If so, then consciousness must begin sometime between 4 and 6 months of development.
This experiment was limited to 14 days of development. This is the point when cells begin to differentiate. Clearly this is long before a brain and the potential for consciousness arises.
Really, this is an ideal stop-gap measure. If by mixing mitochondrial DNA of another species with human nuclear DNA you achieve a development term necessary for medicinal purposes, and at the same time insure development self-aborts prior to brain development, then you end up with a self regulating procedure that prevents the accidental creation of a human consciousness.
It appears Ockham lost his razor and grew a beard.
I vote for cheetahs. I want my cat-girl, dammit.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
First off, they had to remove virtually all the rabbit nuclear DNA because if you do not do this and simply fuse two cells (say a human cell and a rabbit cell) with intact DNA, almost invariably, the human DNA is lost. The cells dump extraneous DNA and it just happens that most often, it is the human chromosomes that get dumped.
Second, this is merely a gradation of "chimera" beyond that which is commonly called a "transgenic". The later is a long-used basic tool in molecular biology/developmental research. There are innumerable extant mouse-human "chimeras" out there, just as there are Drosophila-human, yeast-human, yeast-E. coli, E. coli-yeast, etc, etc, etc, transgenic (chimeras). Normally, what is transfered in these cases are individual genes, though short chromosomal segments can be transfered as well. This article refers to a chimera in which it is merely the shell that contains the DNA (the cell) that is changed from native to alien species. You could likely get by with a viable cell with a partial mix of rabbit genes in human cells and vice versa, so long as the proteins encoded by the genes are homologous enough to share the same functions and helper proteins.
What would be cool, in my opinion, would be to do a human-bird hybrid in which the bird cell contains only human genomic DNA but the cells retain avian mitochondria - with a little transgenic work done to replace the human mitochondrial genes in the nuclear chromosomes with their avian counterpart. Why? IF (a relatively big if) the mitochondria can properly function in concert with the rest of the human DNA, you might produce a long-lived cell line or, if you let it go to term, a longer lived human. Why? This is based on the oxidative damage/free radical theory of aging: bird mitochondria are much more efficient than human mitochondria on the level of producing energy (ATP) vs production of damaging oxygen radicals. Birds have a high metabolism and their lifespan, relative to metabolic rate (one of the supporting observations for the free radical theory of aging), is unusually long. In general, a higher metabolic rate equates to a correspondingly shorter lifespan. The predominant source of damaging radicals is mitochondria by far. So, if you replace the human mitochondria with super-efficient, low radical producing bird mitochondria, you could end up with a human with an extended lifespan (to unknown extent) if the free radical theory of aging is largely correct.
Such a person would be no less human than anyone else, their mitochondria would simply be that of a bird rather than a human. Big deal. Mitochondria are alien themselves, afterall. They are the remnant of the fusion, hundreds of millions of years ago, between an anaerobic-type cell and a cyanobacteria-like aerobic bacteria. Once upon a time, then, a chimera was formed based on a semi-parasitic melding of two separate species. Each gains benefit from the other and ultimately, you end up with aerobic eukaryotic cells that makes humans, dogs, birds, insects, reptiles, etc.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
It's not a mutant. They inserted human chromosomes into a rabbit *egg* cell. Only the mitochondrial DNA (the one that is provided by the egg, comes from the mother, and has little to do with heredity as a whole) came from the rabbit.
Why is this important ? Well, because the ability to make valid human stem-cells from animal egg cells would remove one of the most troubling objections to human stem cell research : right now, the only valid egg cells for human cloning are human eggs - aka ovules. These must be obtained from real women, which leads to technical and ethical problems (I know that in the US selling ovules is already common practice but in Europe things are quite different). At any rate, a woman can only produce one egg per month, so this is a poorly productive method.
(The other solution for obtaining stem cells is to suppress the cloning phase and to directly take existing human stem cells out of embryos - there again, moral problems arise if commercial forces are ever allowed in this game).
Making human stem cells with animal eggs suppress most of these problems. The only big problem that remains is simply that so far, it didn't work. Now these people claim that they have made "mostly human" stem cells with rabbit eggs, but will they have the same capacitie as purely human stem cells ? Could the mitochondrial (rabbit) DNA interfere with the functioning of the cell ? These are the important questions now. According to this article, the paper seems to address none of them.
Thomas Miconi
=============
These probably would not survive gestation. There are factors spread out in a specific manner in an egg which tell the various parts of the embryo what to become, and when. Imagine the egg as a bag of concentration gradients, going along at least three axes, several gradients per axis. As the cell divides, these become compartmentalized into individual cells. You now have scores of little bags with codes to each one, the code being the concentration of several factors (factors ABCDE having respective concentrations of 4,3,1,2,6 or 5,4,0,8,9). At certain times, these factors come together and give signals that tell that cell or group of cells to become a certain progenitor tissue type. Differentiation goes further after that, with cells "deciding" what to become based on what kind of cell is nearby.
Many of the signals would be similar between human and rabbit, but probably not enough to make a viable human, or viable anything else for that matter. The rabbit DNA control sequences targeted by the factors that are in the egg would probably be too different from the sequences with similar function in human DNA. This would permit the embryos to survive through several divisions, and probably form simple embryos (mammals are very similar until the fetus stage....even then, it's hard to tell sometimes). But it would probably never make it through gestation. Probably.
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
Does this mean in near the near future, these rabbitmen will lead to a whiteman who could jump?
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
"I think because all the nuclear DNA is human," Doerflinger said, "we'd consider this an organism of the human species."
I think because all the ROM code is extracted from a Macintosh, we'd consider a PC running this emulator a system of the Macintosh platform.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
all because we are so stupid as to let the taboo-loving reactionaries such as Joe Sixpack and Dubya do our thinking for us.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Jebus H Christ, man! Have you seen my parents?!? I don't want to think of my conception AT ALL! I like to think that I was unceremoniously dropped down the chimney by a big, hairy pterodactyl.
A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
Its a Chinese Plot to undermine intellegent thought in the free world.How many people will have to stand in que,waiting to make a purchase while their minds are numbed stupid with front page stories in the Enquirer,Sun,World News,People,Time,Washington Post and other enemies of intellegent life on this planet?
"The Amazing Rabbit Boy!"
"Rabbit Boy Sets World Record In Sports"
"Rabbit Boy Talks To Animals"
"Rabbit Boy Abducted By Aliens"
"Rabbit Boy Cures Poison Ivy With Saliva"
"Rabbit Boy Democratic Hopeful For California"
(its enough to make you chew your own foot off,isn't it?)
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
To this question from the article: Some wondered aloud what, exactly, such a creature would be if it were transferred to a womb to develop to term.
Out of curiosity I went to the NCBI webpage to check both the rabbit and human Mitochondrial DNA. As you can see, the same genes are present in both organisms. This is not always the case, as different species have the mitochondrial genes split between the mitochondrion and the nucleus in different shares.
If you then bother to run blastn with both sequences (or even better, tblastx) you can see the similarities between coding regions are around 75% or more.
The more important a gene is in an organism, the less likely it will mutate over generations (and thus the less different it'll be between different species). Mitochondrial genes are quite important, so the rabbit mitochondria might work very well with a human nucleus.
Bottom line? If those cells can actually grow to become a fetus, chances are that fetus won't really be much different from any other human fetus. It's more likely to fail its development because of how crude our clonin technology is at this point than because of the genetic differences.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
Not really - mitochondria, as I understand it, work at a pretty basic level, generating ATP from fairly basic biological material (fatty acids, glucose, etc.). They're sort of the 'last step' in the long and complex chain of conversions called 'metabolism'.
Also as I understand it, mitochondria across all procaryotes (anything with cell nuclei, i.e. 'not bacteria') are all derived from the same ancestral bacterium that first formed a cooperative partnership with another cell, and are still fairly similar. The amount of energy they produce as individual cells shouldn't vary all that much - the total energy production from them will be much more influenced by how MANY there are.
If a fetus described in the article developed to term, it'd be human. If it were male, the chances are very slim any of the rabbit DNA would be passed on to his children as well (very nearly all mitochondrial DNA comes from the mother - it used to be thought that it was literally all, but evidently there are rare exceptions). Within a generation or two all of the rabbit DNA would be diluted completely out of the gene pool again...
Unless you believe in homeopathy, in which case the magic vibrations of the rabbit DNA molecules would be maginified thousands of times in the process of being diluted away and you'd end up with an unstoppable army of giant humanoid rabbits....
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
If the mitochondrial DNA (ie, the building blocks of the mitochondria) are from a rabbit, then would not, theoretically, the person in question have the metabolism of a rabbit?
Most mitochondrial protein genes are actually in the nucleus. There are only a few "house keeping" genes and the DNA for tRNAs in the mitochondrion, and chances are these would probably work to some extent with the human proteins.
is a human shaped / sized organism with a metabolism designed for a rabbit sized organism.
At the mitochondria level the metabolism is pretty much the same (mitochondria do one thing that is important, creating ATP from NADH and FADH2 via the electron transport, which is pretty much the same in every organism, as well as most of their metabolism), it's the whole interaction of the organism (via hormones, nervous system and cell-cell interactions) what differentiates the metabolism of different organisms, and for that the genes present in the nucleus far outweight the importance of mitochondrial genes.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
Yes I read the article.
Perhaps I was thinking about one of the possible consequences of this line of research.
It does pose other ethical questions just on its on. From the very bottom of the article
_
Richard Doerflinger, of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said he felt certain that the human-rabbit embryos were human enough to deserve protections.
"I think because all the nuclear DNA is human," Doerflinger said, "we'd consider this an organism of the human species."
_
It begs one of the most basic questions of human existence: are we ghosts in the machine or are we purely material beings?
If we are ghosts in the machine then the bodies we inhabit are a temporary form of existence that will be transcended. So the risk for the future can not be in complete jeopardy regardless of what we do to the bodies of future generations.
From a materialist point of view I should think that this is more frightening. The very definition of self for future generations is potentially at stake. Genetic manipulation brought about the prospect of designer babies but that was generally limited to human DNA or even limited the potential to selecting which genetic traits a baby will have from it's parents (as in Gataca). But raises the specter of animal DNA getting in to the mix.
Perhaps it is too far off for you and I specifically to worry about but they day will come when these are real concerns. Perhaps sooner than later.
This is only the begining! Bun-Bun is coming!
The way that (real) stem cells are collected (or used to be collected) is in such a way that no moral dilemma exists anyway. When a woman goes in for artificial insemination, several eggs are removed from her body. These eggs are all impregnated a once, and then cryogenically frozen (-500 C). These eggs are defrosted one at a time and put back inside the womans uterus. This process continues until a child is born. Then all of the embryos that could have become humans are (get this) thrown away. Those embryos are the stem cells that can really become _anything_ that they are exposed to. Cells from things like placenta (and very possibly rabbits) are already biased and not truely stem cells.
What, I ask you, moral dillema exists when given a choice between studying these embryos and throwing them away. It is not as if these embyos are going to ever become viable fetuses either way.
But where are all the 21st century equivalents of pitchforks and torches? Can't we storm the castles with some kind of laser thingy or something? Wifi? RC helicopters? Man-made diamond pitchforks?
This is supposed to be about nerd stuff. Not some 'armless little bunny-rabbit.
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
Oh great, now Bugs Bunny will also be able to run for Governor of Califorina.
Table-ized A.I.