Velociraptor Bad At Disemboweling

illtron writes "British scientists at the University of Manchester were apparently bored and decided to find out, once and for all, if the Velociraptor was as mean as Jurassic Park would like everyone to think. They created a robotic Velociraptor leg to simulate the effect that leg would have on pig and crocodile skin. It turns out that disemboweling a dino probably would have been out of the question, since the best that big claw could do was usually just to leave a deep puncture." From the article: "I realized that the sick-claw was not a knife, but was rather more like the claw of a cat. Cats use their claws to pierce and hold prey, not to disembowel. Whereas my work was mostly theoretical, Phil took one step farther as he was given the opportunity to mechanically test the disemboweling hypothesis. His work is very important,"

Comments

Obligatory Jurrasic Park (the Movie) refference.

[Anonymous Coward]

KSHAAAAAAAAAW!

Aaaaaaaaaaugh!

GNARFGNARF!

Kssssssssssssss!

SPLURT

That's when the attack comes...

[Cruithne]

... from the other two raptors you didnt even know were there. And they DO have disembowling claws, unlike this obvious decoy.

Re:That's when the attack comes...

[slashname3]

.. from the other two raptors you didnt even know were there. And they DO have disembowling claws, unlike this obvious decoy.

Actually the other two carried AK-47s. At least until the anti-gun lobby got laws passed to ban those weapons. That was shortly before they all went extinct. No way to protect themselves from the mammals who still carried automatic weapons.

I nominate this...

[DrEldarion]

... for next year's IgNobel prize.

Re:I nominate this...

[phasm42]

"His work is very important"
Hmmm...

Re:I nominate this...

[Seumas]

What a waste of scientific effort. This was so obvious in the first place. Of course they suck at disemboweling. Even if they had the strength and accuracy to hurl the ball down the lane and knock all the pins over, how the hell would those tiny little arms hold the ball?

Re:I nominate this...

[ratnerstar]

He's also the best paleontologist ever -- deserving of great respect.

Re:I nominate this...

[Skater]

What? A velociraptor carrying a bowling ball?

It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios!

Re:I nominate this...

[robertjw]

What I want to know is how do I get a job making replica mechanical limbs for 'science'?

Darn you scientists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Always challenging our deeply cherished beliefs.

Who needs them scientists any how, eh guys? EH?!?

Re:Darn you scientists.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's scientifically very important to scientifically demonstrate that a non-scientific Hollywood screenwriter isn't as smart as a scientificist.

Re:Darn you scientists.

[schtum]

What's worse, they refuse to acknowledge my theory of Intelligent Disemboweling.

Re:Darn you scientists.

[MarkRose]

Respect the Flying Bowel Monster!

kudos

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing they originally called them "velociraptors" and not "disembowelraptors".

65 Million Years Later ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Taco Bell Burrito deemed best at disemboweling.

PHEAR THE CLAW

[Placebo Messiah]

Needs more laserbeam

Re:PHEAR THE CLAW

[killobillo]

I'm tellin ya, you're gonna want that laserbeam!

Re:PHEAR THE CLAW

[Dark_Lord_Prime]

Is it SO much to ask that I get some frickin' Velociraptors with frickin' laser-beams on their frickin' heads??

I ask you...

Raptors suck at disemboweling...

[Anonymous Coward]

Netcraft confirms it.

very important work

[aeoo]

Yes, without this work the humanity will take two steps backward.

What I do is very important too. I am an important person, because I am my favorite person.

Re:very important work

[Daniel Dvorkin]

[shrug] You either get why pure knowledge is important, or you don't. If you don't, no explanation anyone can give is going to help.

Re:very important work

[Anonymous Coward]

it's something to talk about at parties and allows you to rack up lots of points at trivial pursuit.

Re:very important work

[aeoo]

How can you tell pure knowledge from impure?

Re:very important work

[ikkonoishi]

Give it one of these.

Re:very important work

[Beardydog]

Pure knowledge comes from the scientific method. Impure knowledge is derived from the Missionary method.

Re:very important work

[aeoo]

So what makes scientific method pure? Is it pure a priori?

Re:very important work

[billsoxs]

So what makes scientific method pure? Is it pure a priori?

I was thinking of a smart a$$ remark as reply when your statement really took hold and made me think. (OK I do think on occasion,)

The real answer is not the that the scientific method is pure or perfect, it is neither. I would proposes that this is clearly true a priori. However, by the nature of science, the 'truth' proposed by science comes closer to perfect/pure each day. This is because of the nature of science to always test that 'truth' against new information. Think of it as repeated washing of a dirty shirt. Sometimes dirt just gets moved from place to place but in general each time the shirt gets run thru the washer it comes out on average cleaner. (I am now thinking of shampoo - lather, rinse, repeat... oh well.)

Re:very important work

[aeoo]

All the things washed, get dirty anew. Dirtiness is a natural state of things, and cleanliness is something people invent. Dirt is closer to reality than cleanliness (but I wouldn't say that reality is dirty...I'm just saying, it's not a very flattering to science comparison that you've used).

Ambiguity is a natural state of things, is it not? If it is, then science is useless. If it is not, then science is redundant. If it is neither, then there should be a way to fundamentally remove even the possibility of ambiguity. While scientists present us with findings that seem more and more precise, there is no finding that the human capacity for error has been fundamentally decreased. If human capacity for error can be decreased to zero, such that, at some point human beings become incapable of error, then the scientific method will produce the truth. However, as long as the capacity for error is not eliminated, there is never a guarantee of truth. Having a group of people cross-check each other merely guarantees a socially safe convention.

To accurately say that we get closer and closer to truth, you must know precisely where the truth is. For this you must be incapable of error. If you don't know the truth, how do you know you're getting closer via a scientific method? Is it just a sentimental feeling?

Re:very important work

[billsoxs]

First read my post. Dirt = 'knowledge' that is wrong... not a way to describe science. That said, I don't think humans will ever understand everything but we do know a lot nore then 600 years ago. For example do you know that the world is NOT FLAT and that the universe does not orbit the earth.... Now for your other comments

Ambiguity is a natural state of things, is it not?

This is only true to a point. (Think Quantum Mechanics) However, in classical systems there is not that much ambiguity,

While scientists present us with findings that seem more and more precise, there is no finding that the human capacity for error has been fundamentally decreased.

You are wrong again, ok wrong in what you have implied. Yes humans still have the same capacity for error and by this I mean that we can fool ourselves. BUT our tools are more presice - offering better and better data. At some point the data is such that we can no longer fool ourselves and that bit of the truth is found. Happens all of the time.

To accurately say that we get closer and closer to truth, you must know precisely where the truth is.

This is simply not true. Try going thru a maze with hints along the way. It is relatively easy to do. Science is more of a long maze with lots of hints .

Re:very important work

[tedrlord]

You're arguing a completely different definition of truth here. Whatever philosophical arguments you have against it, science is just guessing at how things work, then trying them out. We do this to gain information. Sometimes that information leads to useful innovations, sometimes it just settles questions scientists have. It also lets me play video games and go out to the movies, so I like it.

Anyway, quit generalizing so much. You can rationalize the point out of any activity that way. Very little ends up getting done based on that train of thought.

Wait, I just noticed the "Please do not feed the trolls" sign posted at the gate. I guess I should leave you alone now.

Re:very important work

[Beardydog]

You try to make a simple dirty pun, and what do you get...

Re:very important work

[aeoo]

I like science because it gives us cool toys to play with. But science is not that important. It doesn't in and of itself make life better. I can define virtue as something that is intrinsically and unconditionally good. Scientific method is not a virtue under such definition. It can be useful and beneficial, but it can easily be as harmful and detrimental as it is helpful.

Now, outside of its purely fun and utilitary functions, science is utterly useless. For example, it is utterly useless for a deep exploration of life. In particular, there is no tool that can tell me how I feel, by definition. You can connect something to my brain and it may tell me I am happy, but if I don't feel happy, I don't care what the tool says. Tools cannot disclose certain things about life, such as how I feel and what I think. And those are the things that are most important, because they are the most immediate things, my feelings, my views, my thoughts -- these guide my decisions, shape my actions, inform my attitude, and bring a certain unique and indescribable flavor to life.

Hey, I'm a programmer and a I love a good computer as much as any other geek. I love a fast net connection and I like "moving pictures" and all that. But I don't fool myself about science. I contemplate, because this gives real results that I can feel right here and right now. Don't take my word for it though.

Re:very important work

[aeoo]

First read my post. Dirt = 'knowledge' that is wrong... not a way to describe science. That said, I don't think humans will ever understand everything but we do know a lot nore then 600 years ago. For example do you know that the world is NOT FLAT and that the universe does not orbit the earth.... Now for your other comments

In order to say that we know more, you have to be able to quantify information. While you can count the words, you cannot quantify information. For example, blah ttooo sdfsd isdfsd sdoifsdofiu sdfsdf, are some words that have no informational load. Further, some information can be lies, and can take you further away from truth. A presence of information tells us nothing about its quality.

If you can quantify information, you have to be able to come up with a unit of information. But before you can do that, you must know what misinformation is. What is information and what is misinformation? If you want to go to New York and I tell you how to board a plane that really does go to New York, that's information. If you want to go to a village and I tell you how to board a plane to New York, then I am misinforming you. I say the same thing, but whether it is considered information or misinformation depends on your intent -- if you intend to visit a quiet rustic village and I send you to New York instead, clearly you have been deceived. So whether information is true or not depends on the intent of its user.

You can measure how many bytes this post takes, but bits and bytes do not measure the usefulness of this post, therefore they do not quantify the capacity to inform.

Ambiguity is a natural state of things, is it not?

This is only true to a point. (Think Quantum Mechanics) However, in classical systems there is not that much ambiguity,

You're using science as an axiomatic authority whereas it is the point of debate. That's not allowed. If I am questioning the validity of the scientific method, you cannot use the products and findings of the scientific method to validate it. If you could, it would then be self-validating. If science is allowed to be self-validating, then why not grant the same privilege to religion and others methods?

While scientists present us with findings that seem more and more precise, there is no finding that the human capacity for error has been fundamentally decreased.

You are wrong again, ok wrong in what you have implied. Yes humans still have the same capacity for error and by this I mean that we can fool ourselves. BUT our tools are more presice - offering better and better data. At some point the data is such that we can no longer fool ourselves and that bit of the truth is found. Happens all of the time.

You still need a human to interpret the results. Where the phenomena originate makes no differense as long as the agent interpreting the results has not reduced its capacity for error down to zero.

To accurately say that we get closer and closer to truth, you must know precisely where the truth is.

This is simply not true. Try going thru a maze with hints along the way. It is relatively easy to do. Science is more of a long maze with lots of hints .

What if you follow all the hints, but can never exit the maze? Are we assuming that you will exit the maze? What if the maze has no exit? Are we assuming it has an exit? See, if I enter the maze, it means initially I was outside the maze. If the exit out of the maze represents truth, then your example is useless because it is an example of self-validation -- initially I am outside the maze, abiding in truth, and then I enter the maze by volunterily departing from truth, and then I can find the truth again by following the hints inside the maze.

Re:very important work

[billsoxs]

Let me guess, you're a philosophy major. You're argument is that we don't know if we are learning any thing so we can't learn. You might as well ask if we are real. However your case has holes in it.. as example:

If you want to go to New York and I tell you how to board a plane that really does go to New York, that's information. If you want to go to a village and I tell you how to board a plane to New York, then I am misinforming you.

So I take the plane that you suggest. If you told me the truth, I now know the way to NYC. If you lied to me I have learned that you are a liar. Either way I have more knowledge. This is true in general and is the way the scientific method works and it does work. It is not perfect and it is messy. (and the maze probably goes on forever.) but it does work.

Re:very important work

[aeoo]

I agree that it works, because if you think about it, the goals of the orthodox scientific method are very modest. The issue I have is when scientists forget about the modesty of their goals and start to imagine how important they are. Actually, it's fun and no big deal to imagine that you're important, as long as you know it's just imagination. Should a person forget, even for a second, that self-importance is just a self-flattering imagination, a zealot is born. A science zealot is not preferrable to any other zealot, as far as I can see.

Now, regarding the hole, yes, I take your point. If NYC was THE END, all would be well, but life goes on after you reach NYC. So the fact that you know I'm a liar doesn't help you. In fact, it can even hinder you because you may become prejudiced against me, and at some point I may change my mind and decide to tell you some truth that would be very important and beneficial for you, but due to your previous prejudice against me, you may not want to hear it. So knowing that someone is a liar is not necessarily a gain in information, because the person who has lied in the past is not necessarily committed to being a liar forever. :)

Re:very important work

[billsoxs]

The issue I have is when scientists forget about the modesty of their goals and start to imagine how important they are.

So you know some of the other faculty in my university... ;-). Some are real BHs.

So knowing that someone is a liar is not necessarily a gain in information

yes and no. If I know that you are a liar then I will not trust infomation from you in the future but instead look for other sources of information. This in itself is a gain in information. (It is known as 'game theory') Yes, you can argue that there are a limited sources of info and that I will eventually run out of sources. However if you have a set of sources with which you know are at best unreliable results from each source, you'd test as many sources as possible and look at the average result. In fact this is what is commonly done. (OK what I do.) Does it make you always right - no. But your batting average will be above 0.500 (Sorry, I don't know if you are from the US - that is 50%.) It is the 'on average 'that works in science's favor. This is the same thing that gambling place do to make money. Just tilt the odds slightly in your favor and you win over time.

By the way - this was a nice conversation and you make interesting points. Have fun

Unconvincing

[geordieboy]

It seems possible their methodology and conclusions are flawed. If you saw away at a large chunk of meat with a small but sharp knife you can make a deep wound. Why do they assume the raptor attacks in a short stabbing motion? What about other modes of attack their "robotic arm" doesn't simulate?

Re:Unconvincing

[Helios1182]

It would be my assumption that when attacking another animal the raptor would not slash and make a deep puncture wound, then saw back and forth to gut the animal. Most animals would run away or fight back.

Re:Unconvincing

[geordieboy]

You're probably right that a sawing motion is not practical in an attack. But more generally, I'm not sure exactly why it is useful to build a robot arm to do their demonstration. Wouldn't a few minutes experimentation with a sharp piece of bone and a lump of meat achieve the same, and probably give you more insight about the specific types of movement you can use to cause damage than just manipulating this simplistic arm? I suspect they used the arm to lend some extra perceived scientific flavor to their observations. It's an experiment with a *robot*, so it must be right.

Re:Unconvincing

[kfg]

If you saw away at a large chunk of meat with a small but sharp knife you can make a deep wound.

Try "sawing away" at something, anything, with an awl. The whole point here is that a velociraptor claw is not a sharp knife, but a pointy stick.

You can make a wound as deep as the "hilt", but no "longer" than the diameter of the claw.

KFG

Re:Unconvincing

[Scratch-O-Matic]

I suspect this is related to a show I saw recently...I don't specifically remember if it was the Discovery Channel but it probably was. The show featured simulations of various "animal vs. animal" fights, to see who would win. It was mildly amusing, in a Mythbusters sort of way, but I remember thinking at the time that the methodology and assumptions seemed bogus. Science-wise, it seemed about as valid as a middle school science fair project. For example, the one I saw had two animals facing off with each other, but standing more or less stationary. In other words, it was a test of penetration, cutting, and crushing, without taking into account mobility, intelligence, and will. To top it off, they would just examine the damage after each trial, and declare, "Yup, that would have killed him," or, "Nope, that wouldn't have killed him."

Furthermore, if this experiment was conducted in the course of making a show for Discovery, I find it questionable that they didn't mention that in the article in Discovery News.

Re:Unconvincing

[ikkonoishi]

I remember the one they did trying to find out why sabertooth tigers had their fangs.

Eventually they discovered that it used them to sever the jugular of its prey in one bite.

Re:Unconvincing

[Scratch-O-Matic]

Yeah, I t hink that's the one I saw. They were looking at death by severed jugular or death by crushed trachea. But so much of the contraption was built from non-sabretooth materials, using motions designed by the builders of the model, with a lot of subjectivity over what was fatal and what was not, that I didn't have much confidence in the results. It was fun to watch, though.

Re:Unconvincing

[AndroidCat]

Yeah, what if the velociraptor knows some Rap-Fu martial arts moves? Gojira (aka Godzilla) did, so it's possible, especially with a montage. Robot Godzilla never quite had the moves, so their experiment is nonsense!

Re:Unconvincing

[Kaboom13]

The point of the robot arm is to get the same range of motion as the actual Dinosaur would have had. They can then give each joint a strength proportional to the size of the muscle that would have been attached to it (some guess work here I would assume). Then they can play around with it and see what different movements and would kind of attacks would have been possible and how much damage they would do. Animals use their claws in different ways, and the appendage the claw is attached to gives you just as much information as the size and shape of the claw itself. The expirement isn't what damage can WE do with a velociraptor claw it's what damage the velociraptor could have done.

Re:Unconvincing

[billsoxs]

t seems possible their methodology and conclusions are flawed.

I would agree. I don't think they have ever owned a cat. (or been owned by a cat.) I have gotten long nasty scratches from house cats. Not enough to kill me but if the size difference where not as great - maybe.

Re:Unconvincing

[Anonymous Coward]

Did your cat disembowel you?

Take a nail, for example. Plain, longish nail used for sticking pieces of wood together. Can I scratch someone with one? Yes. Can a stab someone with it and make a deep wound? Yes. Can I make a deep *slice* in thick, leathery skin (ie, disembowel) with it? No.

Just because your cat can scratch, doesn't mean it can disembowel.

Re:Unconvincing

[billsoxs]

I know that you AC'd so you won't look again but how thick is your skin, ~1/4 inch ~1/2 inch.... someplace in between. A big cat (my size) could rip thru that with no problem.

Re:Unconvincing

[Gordonjcp]

Well, if you look at the wounds a cat leaves on animals of equivalent size to itself, then yes it *can* disembowel something. Cats don't seem to like eating guts.

That said, a cat catching prey will tend to just jump on it and bite it on the back of the neck, breaking all the vertebrae. You'd be amazed how powerful a cat's jaws are, for their size. If you watch a cat attacking something in a fight, particularly something larger than it, the cat will grab hold with its front paws and kick with its powerful back legs. The claws on their back paws are much thicker and only a little bit blunter than the ones on their front paws.

Re:Unconvincing

[Conanymous Award]

Not to mention that Velociraptor is actually just a small fry - think of a dinosaurian jackal. (We all know the raptors of Jurassic Park were too big.) That thing would only disembowel small lizards and mammals.

Now, Deinonychus or Utahraptor on the other hand...

Re:Unconvincing

[Anonymous Coward]

They can then give each joint a strength proportional to the size of the muscle that would have been attached to it (some guess work here I would assume).

Ther's too much guesswork involved here, since one can see how strong the tendons were that connected to the fossilized bones. The strength of the tendons is a very good indicator of the strength of the muscle.

Re:Unconvincing

[Sigg3.net]

This work is flawed.
There were no pigs when the velociraptors lived, and I - for one - welcome our prehistoric disembowelling overlords.

Re:Unconvincing

[jafiwam]

Yeah, I was going to say anybody that thinks cats only make small puncture wounds has never owned one.

Here's an experiment;

- borrow cat
- fill tub while cat watches
- grab cat
- put cat in water

You will note that a) cats can somehow reverse gravity and automatically apply force upward with nothing to work against and b) 6 inches by .5 inch deep wounds are a trivial matter for a cat to produce

This guy (in the article) doesn't know what he's talking about.

It's cool they are using engineering to solve some of these issues instead of stupid speculation though.

Re:Unconvincing

[Anonymous Coward]

YOu forgot to mention the hidden disemboweling claw that cats have.
Whilst trying to give mine an injection, with the cats paws and head all firmly held, it suddenly flicked out its secret diesmbowel-o-matic and now I have a nice scar on my stomach to prove it!

Who care about TFA

[zappepcs]

Just how cool is it to be paid to test "stuff" like that?

Fsck! I need a job like that!

Re:Who care about TFA

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Did you see the National Geographic Channel thing about sabre-tooth tigers? They had a (metal) simulated hydraulic sabre-tooth jaw (on the end of a small backhoe) chomping into a cow carcass jugular. They're jabbering about foor-pounds per square centimeter, depths of arteries, length of teeth, and flow rates from buffalo hearts, and I'm screaming "What a cool job!!!". Amazing 3-D compu-cartoons based on skeletal dimensions, etc. - highly recommended.

Re:Who care about TFA

[Spy der Mann]

Just how cool is it to be paid to test "stuff" like that?

Fsck! I need a job like that!

You can contact www.discovery.com and search for the Animal Faceoff show. Requirements: Very good knowledge of hydraulics, zoology, physics, materials dynamics, physical simulations on computers, etc. etc.

So *AHEM* you were saying?

Re:Who care about TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I can get you a QA job at my company...

Re:Who care about TFA

[billsoxs]

Requirements: Very good knowledge of hydraulics, zoology, physics, materials dynamics, physical simulations on computers, etc. etc.

Is there a problem with this list?

Re:Who care about TFA

[clem]

He forgot to list 10 years of professional Java experience.

Re:Who care about TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

...you just need to be a professor and work at a university...
...just remember that you then also need a lot of time for your students...

Re:Who care about TFA

[JoshWurzel]

Welcome to mechanical design/engineering. I started a year ago and I love my job. One recent ME graduate I know actually interviewed at FUCKINGMACHINES.com (NSFW, duh). He didn't get the job, but it shows what endless possibilities their are for people who actually want to build things rather than just punch keys all day.

So they were worse than in Jussasic Park

[Anonymous Coward]

They joyfully toy with their prey before killing it and proudly bringing it back to the master's front door.

Remember, in 2008!

[Seumas]

Robo-Raptor for President!

Re:Remember, in 2008!

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new raptor overlords!

Re:Remember, in 2008!

[bersl2]

You need ask yourself only one question:

What Would Raptor Jesus Do?

Re:Remember, in 2008!

[bladesjester]

Eat all of the unbelievers (and anyone else close/slow/stupid enough to get caught by him)?

Re:Remember, in 2008!

[Anonymous Coward]

RJWRTF[AM]

Re:Remember, in 2008!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or rather,

What would Jesus do during a Raptor?

Re:Remember, in 2008!

[Seumas]

Japtor?

Re:Remember, in 2008!

[PakProtector]

What Would Raptor Jesus Do?

Jesus Haploid Christ, why are you asking me?! I'm a Marine Biologist!

Re:Remember, in 2008!

[KDR_11k]

Can't be worse than Hillary.

Re:Remember, in 2008!

[VJ42]

You don't need to outrun him, just the short-fat guy who's with you.

Cats don't disembowel?

[Matey-O]

"I realized that the sick-claw was not a knife, but was rather more like the claw of a cat. Cats use their claws to pierce and hold prey, not to disembowel.

He's obviously never had a catnipped-up cat grab a hold of his forearm with the front claws and use it's back legs to scrape the everlovincrap out of him.

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[Anonymous Coward]

A cat immobilized your forearm? Man up, Nancy :P

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[discordja]

Ya, I was always of the impression (I have no formal knowledge of the feline species beyond the one actively declaring ownership of the recliner atm) that cats latch with their fronts and drive with their back legs slicing. Now in fairness, considering raptor frontals would (likely) not have the same kind of usage as a cats forepaws, we may just be derailing this topic for the sake of talking about cats! :D

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[MadAhab]

Nor had the heart and feet of a velociraptor's prey left at the foot-end of his bed after every other part of the victim was eaten )emboweled or disemboweled).

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[commodoresloat]

I recall a long time ago seeing one of those "animals attack" shows and it showed some sort of big cat attacking a much larger prey by running alongside it and pouncing on its belly from underneath and using its legs in a manner similar to what is described above. That sucker was disemboweled, that's for sure.

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[DwarfGoanna]

You got modded Funny, but this is actually pretty Insightful (or at least Interesting) =p. I'm going to assume you are talking about a regular domestic cat. I have a Bengal cat, and let me assure you, its serious shit when he does this. I also keep reptiles, which leads me to wonder why pig skin is supposed to be analogous to dino skin.

Hang on...I'm going to try something...=p

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[DwarfGoanna]

...and yes, I also caught the thing about croc skin as well. Again, why? Not only are crocodiles and herbivorous dinos entirely different lineages, but they also occupied entirely different niches. Skin type varies dramatically from one species of reptile to the next. A scale is not always just a scale.

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[dmaxwell]

I have a Bengal cat, and let me assure you, its serious shit when he does this.

I've had cats that do that and it was indeed serious shit...for the cat.

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[prockcore]

He's obviously never had a catnipped-up cat grab a hold of his forearm with the front claws and use it's back legs to scrape the everlovincrap out of him.

Everyone knows a cat's claw is Piercing+1, Slashing-5 sheesh

Seriously though. Look at the cat scratch, it's not a clean cut, it's similar to if you got scratched by a pointy stick, not a razor. If the claw went deeper it wouldn't move because only the point is sharp, not the edge.

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[KylePflug]

But if you're a six-foot-tall dinosaur with very strong legs, it doesn't need to have a sharp edge to be able to rip. A deep puncture wound accompanied by a kicking/ripping motion could pretty easily take an awful lot with it on the way out.

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[CylanR77]

Seriously indeed. The scratches a cat's claws make are very rough and uneven, not straight lines at all; the cuts are riddled with small gashy spots. And since the cuts are rough they tend to hurt a bit more than a cut of similar depth with a much cleaner cutting edge such as a knife. The front paw claws are definitely sharper than the claws on the hind legs, and they'll use their back legs to kick at you if they want to really hurt you, seeing as the hind legs are more powerful and the claws are more dull. A swipe with the front paw is more a sign of [high] annoyance than anything else. Given the right positioning though, the hind legs could possibly disembowel the cat's adversary.

However, with prey, cats don't disembowel with their claws, they disembowel with their mouths. After catching, they usually crush its neck, and it's all downhill for their dinner/new toy from there.

[As an aside, when one of my cats caught a mouse, she would eat most of it, leaving only the head and a single, specific organ each time. Sometimes it was the liver, sometimes it was the kidneys, sometimes it was the stomach. You had to watch your step in my garage at times...]

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should also take into consideration the relative strength of each animal. In fights, male lions have been known to decapitate hyenas with a swipe of their paw.

I reckon a velociraptor is a tad bit stronger than a housecat.

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[cab15625]

OK, so we're talking about the difference between surgically slicing the abdomen open with a scalpel vs. ripping the abdomen open. In the end, what's the difference? Either way, you still end up with guts on the floor.

Someone else pointed out that this isn't generally how cats kill, and I'd have to say they're right, generally. I have, however, witnessed my cat slaughter a teddy-bear in this manner (she'd had a hard day, she'd gotten herself trapped in the closet and then had a bit too much catnip and the bear just looked at her kinda funny that one time too many and something in her just snapped). Doesn't matter how dull those hind claws are, the legs they're attached to are pretty f**king powerful and that kicking is pretty damned effective.

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[RollingThunder]

With weak skins like ours, not a lot of difference.

With tougher skins like you find on cows and reptiles, a lot of difference.

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[ernunnos]

Watch two kittens play fighting. They'll "hug" and start punching each other in the stomach with their hind feet. They're practicing disemboweling prey. Every time I see them do it it makes me glad I outweigh them by an order of magnitude.

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[Weedlekin]

Indeed. Most cats that hunt large prey (in relation to them) tend to suffocate it. This leaves very distinctive wounds on the necks of animals that look more or less like movie vampire bites, i.e. deep punctures caused by long canines that are designed to hold the cat's jaws in position until death occurs. It is for this reason that members of the cat family are very protective of their canines, as losing one can severely impair their ability to hunt effectively (damaged claws on the other hand tend to grow back after a while).

NB: leopards in particular have on several occasions disembowelled humans. This is however probably not the leopard's initial intention, but is the result of it trying to climb up a biped's body (much as it would a tree) so that it can use its normal suffocating bite.

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[AhtirTano]

Seriously though. Look at the cat scratch, it's not a clean cut, it's similar to if you got scratched by a pointy stick, not a razor. If the claw went deeper it wouldn't move because only the point is sharp, not the edge.

Apparently you've never had to clean rat guts off your living room wall. Believe me, cats can disembowel quite well.

Re:Cats don't disembowel?

[pornking]

Try this: Take an uninflated latex balloon and stick a pin in it. What happens? Now, take a fresh balloon and blow it up. Now stick a pin in it. What happens? Why? Now, take another fresh balloon and stretch it out. While it is stretched, stick a pin in it. What happens? Grab a handful of your own skin and pull really hard. What happens? Now, while you are pulling really hard, find a spot where the skin is very tightly stretched. Stick a pin in it.

Sucker.

Umm kay

[OverlordQ]

They used a reconstructed claw, let me see a test with a real claw and then get back to me. As much as they'd like to say it couldn't happen, unless they use the real deal, take the results with a grain of salt :)

Re:Umm kay

[StupidStan]

are you serious...? By a real claw do you mean a live raptor? Otherwise I dont think your argument has any basis... Because I am sure we have enough technology to RECONSTRUCT A CLAW ACCURATELY... I mean we have flown to the moon and made ill-tempered sharks! ...Wait, your argument still doesnt have any basis...

I for one,

[ElNerdoJorge]

Welcome our puncturing clawed velociraptor overlords.

Re:I for one,

[HoneyBunchesOfGoats]

Puncturing-clawed robot velociraptor overlords.

Next experiment...

[Anonymous Coward]

make a robotic "Dino" from the Flintstones, and see if it really just licks Fred Flintstone when he comes home, or really tears out a big chunk of his jugular vein.

Re:Next experiment...

[some guy I know]

make a robotic "Dino" from the Flintstones, and see if it really just licks Fred Flintstone when he comes home, or really tears out a big chunk of his jugular vein.

Dino is obviously a vegetarian (a Brontosaurus-type dinosaur), so I doubt that he would attack Fred or anyone else.
His lack of claws and sharp teeth support this hypothesis.

Re:Next experiment...

[fuzzix]

Dino is obviously a vegetarian (a Brontosaurus-type dinosaur)...

Brontosaurus? There's no such thing. Although since you are referring to a cartoon brontosaurus-type thing from before the time they knew it didn't exist you'll probably be forgiven any way and I'll be forever tainted as some sort of pedantic troll...

I can't believe it, you've ruined my life!

Re:Next experiment...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Science? Religion? I'm listening to the guy with the lens in a tube rather >than the guy with the corpse on a stick

See, when you don't listen to guys with corpses on sticks, lose out on a lot of biology there. This is an article about putting part of a velociraptor corpse on a stick.

A Prayer to My God

[Seumas]

Dear God,

Today, I read a story about scientists creating a robotic velociraptor leg to see how well it could gut certain animals. What I don't understand is, why do we not know more about dinosaurs without having to go through such extensive research? My pastor told us that the Bible teaches that the world is only a few thousand years old, which must mean that men and dinosaurs lived alongside one another (perhaps Jesus even rode a triceritops?). If that is the case, then why isn't dinosaur behavior and activity a matter of written record?

Yours Truly,

Johnny Christian.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Mod up. Insightful.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[aeoo]

Haha.. very funny. Of course, while I have no hatred for a theistic viewpoint, I am not, strictly speaking, a theist. What I was trying to say there, has nothing to do with religion, but oh well. If some Christians happen to agree with my off-hand remark, that's wonderful. :)

I have no hostility toward any group and no sentimental love either. What drove me to make that comment is my feeling on how self-serving and self-obsessed we are (and I include myself into this mess too). Scientists are just as "impure" and self-serving, greedy, and ignorant as even the most hardened superstitious religious zealot. I only see a differense in appearance between the scientific zealots and the religious ones, and not a differense in substance.

Who is zealot? A zealot is someone who refuses to be critised in good spirit. A zealot is someone who cannot laugh at themselves. Guess what? Scientists take themselves so freaking seriously and are SOOO unable to laugh at their pursuits, as a group. They are very offended when criticised and they look down on anyone who doesn't worship science as the "ignorant masses". Too bad, because they fit under the zealot definition in my book. Of course, I have the same thing to say about religious zealots and any other kinds of zealots.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[Scratch-O-Matic]

I haven't studied the issue, but I feel like your generalization of scientists is wrong. Most good scientists welcome the chance to be proven wrong...that's what peer review is all about, and why scientists have such confidence in properly derived conclusions. If they look down on anyone who doesn't "worship science," it's most likely because the conclusions drawn by those people are NOT replicable and have NOT been subjected to real peer review--which is why such conclusions fail to convince those who understand (not "worship") the scientific process.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't paint scientists with such a broad brush. In my book, experts have every right to look down on the dullards who criticize them without having any knowledge in the field. Being scientific doesn't mean wringing your hands and liberally accepting every wishy-washy superstition or crackpot notion as valid.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[aeoo]

Ah, yes, but they only welcome the type of criticism that doesn't undermine the scientific process. :) Should someone offer a critique that is cogent and yet lies outside their beloved process, they will not so good humored about it.

Yes, I know it's a generalization. I'm just discussing. I don't base any important decisions on generalizations.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[Scratch-O-Matic]

The key to the process is that anyone should be able to replicate the results obtained by another person, and that if one claims that something is true, then one should be able to demonstrate it. Anything that doesn't fit that framework--that "lies outside their beloved process"--falls into another process that can best be described as "believe it because I say so." How can anyone offer a cogent counter-argument that cannot be replicated and cannot be demonstrated?

Re:A Prayer to My God

[aeoo]

Interesting. You use a lot of flavorful feeling adjectives to tell me what science is.

Check out all the negative mods I'm getting in this thread. It kind of proves the point I was trying to make. People are upset, so they downmod. But really there is nothing worth being upset about. I just poked some lighthearted fun at whoever wrote the part of the article that said it was an important work. :)

Re:A Prayer to My God

[Anonymous Coward]

On most subjects, but try to bring up a subject like the THEORY of eveolution and they get real defensive.

BTW What proof is there for evolution, I've done some research and haven't found any proof yet, lots of theories but no proof.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[Seumas]

BTW What proof is there for evolution, I've done some research and haven't found any proof yet, lots of theories but no proof.

I can't tell if you're trolling or not. I mean, you do realize that there is enormous evidence supporting evolution, right? It is ABSOLUTELY a theory (not just a hypothesis). On the other hand, the only evidence for theological origins are . . . well . . . books written by man. TommyKnockers is a book written by man, but that doesn't make it evidence for anything.

Reasonable people are open to all reasonable options. I'm open to all reasonable options. However, there is evidence supporting the widely-agreed abome theory of evolution. "Because I feel it in my bones" is not evidence of God or creation.

Now, when theologists stop going around trying to cloth their religion and creation myths in the robes of "science" and actually try coming up with true scientific evidence, more of us will listen. I've never heard a logical or reasonable presentation on creationism as a scientific possibility that was anything more than double-speak and the attempt to sway the ignorant (or at least, the uninformed).

So in the mean time, people would do best to keep their creation mythologies out of science.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[aeoo]

Everything I discuss can be demonstrated and replicated. I never say something that a person cannot test for themselves. I always talk about things that make life better. Do they really make life better? It is easy to test.

On the other hand, much of the modern science CANNOT be tested by another person. Why not? Because it often requires immense resources, and not just that, but it can even require a certain social standing to replicate. For example, in order to replicate certain physics experiments, I have to either own or have access to a particle collider. Those things are expensive to build. Either I must have TONS AND TONS of money and I must have a certain social standing in order to have the power to validate or invalidate it. That's a big disadvantage. Even if I had an infinite supply of money, should I make an experiment that invalidates the findings, if my social standing paints me as an idiot, then no matter how good my experiment is, it won't be considered seriously simply due to my poor social standing. As such, I would then be cut out of the scientific process on the basis of my personality.

What it means, in real world, is that scientific knowledge is often tied to such narrow groups of experts, that often times all the experts within the group actually know each other. In that case, the testability is narrowed vastly to a very narrow group of people. It means that in a very real way, science actually LACKS the very benefit that you tout -- open access for each man and woman to have the power to independently validate or invalidate the findings in question.

On the other hand, everything I am saying can be tested without any specific social standing and without any income. It can be tested by a person who is starving and is about to die.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[aeoo]

you do realize that there is enormous evidence supporting evolution, right?

I don't care to get into a religious debate, but evidence has no capacity to support or deny. Whether something supports something else is a decision made by a human being.

It is ABSOLUTELY a theory (not just a hypothesis). On the other hand, the only evidence for theological origins are . . . well . . . books written by man. TommyKnockers is a book written by man, but that doesn't make it evidence for anything.

Ah yes, books written by men. So, are you saying that science books are written by God or something? Science books are written by men too. Evidence is judged by men to be either supporting or not of whatever idea these men have. So what?

This kind of attitude of arrogant self-importance really does not make science attractive, you know? :) From where I sit I see no substantial differense between scientists and priests.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[Neop2Lemus]

I'm Christian and believe that evolution happened. There are a few of us about, more than you'd think. But I do agree, the vocal minority, the nutcases in the far south have got it coming. They will go when the democrats get in (I hope).

Re:A Prayer to My God

[Scratch-O-Matic]

It can be tested by a person who is starving and is about to die.

I'd be interested to hear exactly what it is that you are talking about. If, as I suspect, you are referring to some religion-based method to save a starving person, I would like to hear of any controlled experiments that showed such a method would work at a success rate greater than any other method (rolling dice, doing a special dance, etc.) One common mistake made by people who don't understand the scientific process is to take any and all successes as evidence of effectiveness...while conveniently ignoring all the failures. Do a survey and count up the number of truely desperate people who have had prayers go unanswered.

On the other hand, if you surveyed the number of starving people--about to die--I'm quite certain you would find that the great majority of those who survived were given some food. The giving of food by any source is a far better predictor of survival than any religion-based method of treatment.

By the way, I grew up going to church every Sunday. My brother and I even went without our parents some times. I am not anti-religion by a long shot. But over the years I came to realize that the religious lessons I learned were really only a framework for what I consider to be the more practical--and more important--lessons: how to treat people, the value of humility, the value of faith (read: "optimism"), etc. The latter does not require the former, although a great many people frame it that way.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[Anonymous Coward]

From where I sit I see no substantial differense between scientists and priests.

Are you sitting in Texas?

Re:A Prayer to My God

[Scratch-O-Matic]

...evidence has no capacity to support or deny. Whether something supports something else is a decision made by a human being.

That's a very interesting idea that I respect.

Another value of science is not only the ability to collect evidence, but the ability to predict the results of experiments that have not been conducted yet, or to predict that a certain discovery will be made at some point in the futre. If such events do in fact occur in accordance with the predictions, that is even stronger evidence that the investigators are on the right track, and in those cases your theory above plays a far lessor role. I have not heard of a religion-based theory that has this sort of predictive success (though I'm happy to learn about them if there are any.)

Re:A Prayer to My God

[aeoo]

Ah, it's the pesky religion again. All I want to say about that is this. I am not religious. I am not a Christian, not a Jew and not a Muslim, etc. I like Buddhism, but I am not a Buddhist. I like some Hindu Advaita teachers, but I am neither a Hindu nor an Advaitan. I am not a philosopher, because my thought goes beyond conclusions and philosophies. If you want to label me, call me "contemplator". Contemplating is a process that is joyous in and of itself, right here and right now. It has nothing to do with conclusions. It is part of life and it is life itself.

If I saw someone dying, I would look them in the eye and allow myself to fully feel what is going on. And then I would say, with unearthly confidence, "Do not be affraid. Pay attention." Yes, pay attention. Never stop paying attention. Experience.

As a more practical advice, I'd suggest to examine the nature of stress as it actually occurs within you. As soon as you feel stress, examine it for its basis. When you think you have found its basis, examine that basis again, for its basis, and so on, until you arrive at the root. Then examine that root very thoroughly, fearlessly, unsentimentally, and you will set yourself free from stress and anxiety. Don't take my word for it though. Test it if you don't believe me.

I never say we should hate science. I like science too.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[aeoo]

In religion it's called "prophecy" and if you ask a true believer, then yes, prophecies are reliable and come true like clockwork.

But I am not a true believer. I am not religious. If you ask me about prophecies, then I will say "impossible to conclude one way or the other". If you ask me about predictive power of experiments, I admit to witnessing such power, but again conclude nothing. I also admit that I can predict that tomorrow I will go to the mall, and indeed go to the mall. I also admit I can change my mind and not go there. So is what I am saying predictive or not? And just because something is predictive, does it make it true and valuable solely for its predictive power? What kind of man would want to predict things? Certainly not a fearless man. A fearless man is not affraid of surprise or loss. And, as a person to person, I can admit to you that I will be very ashamed of myself if I die a wuss. Born a wuss and died a wuss is the most frightening fate I can imagine for myself. I am tired of making decisions solely based of fear. Isn't there something more wholesome that I can use as a motivator? I think there is. But how can I know what it is when 99% of my decisions are aimed at avoiding some negative consequence? I feel like a chain whipped slave when I live that way.

Rising above hope and fear is not easy, but I believe it can be done. This has nothing to do with religion or philosophy.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[aeoo]

LOL, NO! :)

Re:A Prayer to My God

[Scratch-O-Matic]

I think you've totally missed the point. I'm not talking about prediction as in fortelling the future...I'm talking about prediction like, "If my theory is correct, then if I conduct such-and-such an experiment, the result will be XXX." Or, "If my theory is correct, then I predict that some day such-and-such a discovery will be made." The whole point is that someone who does this is NOT relying on mystical powers or supernatural tools. Rather, he is further testing his theory by seeing if his knowledge can allow him to predict the outcome of further investigation. Using your "checking the mail" analogy, if I had a theory that my mail carrier came at 2:00 every day, then I could predict that there will be mail in my box if I check it at 2:05. Having it happen or not happen once or twice does not prove anything, but having a long string days where I found mail at 2:05 would tend to support my theory.

As far as prophecy, it's interesting that you specify that it is real TO A BELIEVER...the hallmark of a non-repeatable and unveriable belief.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[aeoo]

I think you've totally missed the point. I'm not talking about prediction as in fortelling the future...I'm talking about prediction like, "If my theory is correct, then if I conduct such-and-such an experiment, the result will be XXX." Or, "If my theory is correct, then I predict that some day such-and-such a discovery will be made."

Is meteorology a science or not?

The whole point is that someone who does this is NOT relying on mystical powers or supernatural tools.

Can you prove that scientists are not relying on mystical powers? Is this, so-called "non-reliance on mystical powers" merely a sentimental feeling?

As far as prophecy, it's interesting that you specify that it is real TO A BELIEVER...the hallmark of a non-repeatable and unveriable belief.

Well, to a believer it is indeed repeatable and verifiable. Just ask any believer. :)

Suppose you came to a person who was a true believer with the idea that "I do not believe anything" and had unswerving sentimental and zealous loyalty to such idea. How do you think such person would behave? Do you think it's possible to discern from the behavior alone whether the person really does or does not believe?

Re:A Prayer to My God

[Commander Trollco]

You are getting downmodded because you are wasting screen space. Every last comment you make, and you make TOO MANY, is I I I, ME ME ME, I THINK THIS, I AM THIS, BLAH BLAH BLAH, HEY LOOK AT ME!

Why don't you shut the fuck up and sit in a corner for a bit, you cock-smoking teabagger. Oh, yeah, taste my nuts.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[aeoo]

I've never heard a logical or reasonable presentation on creationism as a scientific possibility that was anything more than double-speak and the attempt to sway the ignorant (or at least, the uninformed).

*ahem*...

Asking theologians to come up with a scientific possibility for their theology is like asking scientists to come up with a theological possibility for their scientific findings.

Now, mind you, I think it's is possible to come up with both such possibilities, but WHY in the world would you care or want to? I don't understand? Are you feeling scared of religion? Are you feeling the need to establish the validity of science beyond doubt? Why can't science be enjoyable and still be doubtful at the same time?

Personally I am tired of mindlessly joining up with this or that creed. All creeds have flaws if you care to examine them. At least, if I join some creed, I am aware of some possible flaws in it, and don't become mentally drunk on "my" creed. But maybe being mentally drunk is not so bad either. I don't know. It's just not something I choose for myself.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[Scratch-O-Matic]

Again, totally missing the point. Meteorology is indeed a science, but making a prediction about which of a large number of mostly random events will occur in the weather is the APPLICATION of the science, not the DISCOVERY process of the science that I have been talking about. A better example of the predictive nature of the discovery process would be when someone first came to understand the relationship between temperature and dew point. Once that relationship was discovered, anybody could measure the temperature, measure humidity, and predict at what temperature fog would form in the air, even if that person had never even seen fog before. And had that person made such a prediction, and had the temperature then changed to match the dewpoint, that person would then see fog. And that phenomenon has been and will be observed time and time again, in a totally predictable and repeatable manner. Furthermore, it would be observable EVEN TO PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T BELIEVE IT. A "fact" that is observable only to people who believe in it is not a fact at all...it's only a BELIEF. A result of proper science, on the other hand, is observable and repeatable to anyone who wishes to have a look for themselves, whether they believe or not.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[aeoo]

I don't miss the point at all. Why not? Because I formerly held to the same opinion as you. But I grew out of it. I know exactly where you are coming from, whether you believe me or not. I grew up in exUSSR where science was pretty much a de-facto standard view and religion was constantly derided and laughed at, and I used to laugh at it and deride it too. I thought science was infallible and "the best", but I have since then divested myself of that view.

I don't want to argue with you forever. I think I have made my point clear. It is now up to you what you want to do about it. I can cut down every tree that I encounter, but it is not wise to do so. I will leave some trees standing, not because I lack the strength or wisdom to cut them down, but because I have better things to do.

Don't be a slave to your views.

Re:A Prayer to My God

[GreyWolf3000]

Don't be a slave to your views.

A bit dramatic, isn't it? I mean, a slave is one who is property of another; in this case, I believe your suggesting that he should not become property of his views. In other words, his views should not control his decisions. But, I think his views damn well ought to control his decisions. What else is there?

I agree that if someone is really set on proving to others how ridiculous their theologies are, and yet embrace their 'skepticism' dogmatically, a bit of perspective would do them good. Y'know, expanding one's mind. Definitely.

But I would say that such perspective should merely change the persons views, and then (hopefully) influence future decisions.

This is not just a silly nitpick--I've gathered from other posts that you are dangerously close to using pseudo-spiritual psychobabble as some sort of swiss-army knife for world problems. So instead of suggesting that you are a slave to your views, I'm going to suggest something far more threatening: that you change them.

Implicit in this suggestion is an invitiation for constructive criticism. I'm sure you have much to say.

From TFA...

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

"Our study shows that the claw was used as a climbing crampon. It allowed the dromaeosaurs to hook themselves on to the flanks of their prey: when the prey turned, so too was the attacker," Manning told Discovery News. He continued in a puzzlingly forced manner, "Yes. We truly have nothing at all to fear from what I am sure are very friendly dinosaurs. We should trust that any dinosaur attacks are certainly not imminent. Nothing to fear whatsoever."

Questioned on the claw marks in his back, Manning replied, "What? Oh that. Yes. Haha. Silly me, I must have walked into a door. Yes. Nothing to fear whatsoever."

Re:From TFA...

[Eradicator2k3]

"Our study shows that the claw was used as a climbing crampon..."

Check it out ladies!!! Introducing the new and improved CRAMPON!!!

Are you sick of not having cramps during periods(!) when you're not experiencing PMS?

Are you sick of not sticking foreign, artificial objects in your hummina-hummina during non-PMS periods(hah!)?

Well, your prayers have been answered by the new, easy-to-use CRAMPON, the only tampon designed to induce cramps!
The CRAMPON can be used 24/7, 365 days a year!

If you order within the next 10 minutes,we'll throw in a bonus CRAMPON for no extra charge and as an added bonus a free BARBED applicator.

ORDER YOURS TODAY!!!!

Re:From TFA...

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

Women's hygiene products? Man, you're peddling your wares on the wrong site. Unless... Oh you people sicken me!

Re:From TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a woman and I found that hilarious. I shall henceforth refer to my vagina as a hummina-hummina. However, I'm posting anonymously since I don't want to dispel all those quaint notions that so many /. readers seems to have about there not being any female slashdot readers.

Chaos Theory

[EdwinBoyd]

"Sure your scientists set up this elaborate demonstration because they could but they never stopped to think if they should!!!"

Also why is it every time a paragraph ends with "This is very important" usually isn't at all?

Re:Chaos Theory

[lionheart1327]

Boogedy boo. This is very important!

Hey, you're right.

Please pardon my cynicism

[NanoGator]

"I realized that the sick-claw was not a knife, but was rather more like the claw of a cat. Cats use their claws to pierce and hold prey, not to disembowel."

Right now I'm sitting here with a 2 inch long scratch on my tum... uh.. stom.. uh.. crap factory because last night my clutzy-ass-cat took a swipe at the cord to my sweat pants.

Re:Please pardon my cynicism

[Seumas]

Stop whining - it could have been a lot worse!

Re:Please pardon my cynicism

[Anonymous Coward]

So you rubbed your balls in catnip again, did you?

Re:Please pardon my cynicism

[Josuah]

Right now I'm sitting here with a 2 inch long scratch on my tum... uh.. stom.. uh.. crap factory because last night my clutzy-ass-cat took a swipe at the cord to my sweat pants.

Somehow I don't think you've died due to disembowelment yet.

Seriously though, if you ever watch a cat playing, or allow one to climb on you, you'd know their claws are for either climbing, traction like cleats, piercing and holding onto prey, and executing power slides around sharp corners on hardwood floors (claws are involved somehow, I just haven't figured out how yet).

Re:Please pardon my cynicism

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweatpants? So you've finally given up on the whole society thing, eh?

Where's the foot?

[Mr_eX9]

I know this is a serious story, but this is easily the most hilarious one that's been posted all week.

"Velociraptor Bad at Disemboweling." I mean come on.

Umm kay-A Salting Peter.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... unless they use the real deal, take the results with a grain of salt :)"

Salting wounds? Awful harsh aren't we?

yeah, um

[ZachPruckowski]

Not gonna lie. "Bored Scientists" isn't quite as interesting as "Bored Sorority Girls" or whatever. Seriously, why would anyone do this? I mean, if I donated to their organization, I'd stop the checks. Go cure cancer or something.

**Wild mood swing brought on by caffeine**

Re:yeah, um

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Oh, for God's sake. This is excellent science; it's very rare that scientists in an observational science (such as paleontology) get the chance to do such elegant experimental work, and they should be applauded for finding a way to do so.

Re:yeah, um

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

Go cure cancer or something.

Uh huh. Look, I'll be honest with you. I'm not sure paleontologists are able to cure cancer. I know. It comes as a shock to most people. We've all heard the tired old argument that dinosaurs died from cancer, and that the cure to cancer is in their magical dinosaur bones, but I just don't buy it. And frankly until someone proves it, I don't think much effort is going to be put into forcing paleontologists by whip and chain to cure cancer. I'm sorry that you had to hear this from me.

Re:yeah, um

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, I congratulate you. This was a burn of epic proportions. Indeed, I dub thee Captain Burns of the USS Starship Hot.

Re:yeah, um

[ZachPruckowski]

Yes, I understand that, but "British scientists at the University of Manchester were apparently bored and decided to find out, once and for all, if the Velociraptor was as mean as Jurassic Park would like everyone to think." doesn't really do it as a motivation to do research for me. Obviously, this was a joke, and shouldn't be taken seriously, just like my post.

Not to mention, it's sort of hard to say what a real raptor did by using a robotic model based on what we assume is the correct muscle structure based off of bones. In seriousness, I've been reading about robotic models and AIs, and they tend to come up with "unique" solutions to problems (which is good in my opinion). In this case, I'm not going to fund (if I had money) something that seems overly hypothetical. I mean, if they cloned a dinosaur to find out...

Re:yeah, um

[QuantumG]

I think the grandparent post was actually suggesting that palentology itself is a big waste of time. As such, all I can say is thank god we live in a free society where scientists are not forced to work on what is considered "most useful" by the powers that be.

Re:yeah, um

[azhyd]

This is indeed a delightful reply. I'd like to know the current job of the grandparent when he's back from hiding in shame.

Re:yeah, um

[Dasher42]

Uh huh. You just make those limp excuses for the paleontologists. Some runner at a marathon is going to totally blow by you and find that cure, and then they're going to be digging up paleontologist bones with their petrified feet planted firmly in their mouths. ;)

If Edsger W. Dijkstra wrote the headline...

[Saberwind]

"Velociraptor Considered Harmless"

Re:If Edsger W. Dijkstra wrote the headline...

[spudwiser]

mostly harmless

Re:If Edsger W. Dijkstra wrote the headline...

[UserGoogol]

Yes, but a Velociraptor armed with a GOTO? Nothing more dangerous, my lad.

10 STAB
20 GOTO 10

Geek Fight

[eluusive]

"His work is very important,"

I fail to see how it's important what a dinosaur did period. Great it punctured, big deal, they aren't around now anyways. This is about as important as two geeks debating spiderman vs batman who would win?

Re:Geek Fight

[Anonymous Coward]

Batman

Re:Geek Fight

[Anonymous Coward]

Spiderman!

Re:Geek Fight

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Definitely Spiderman.

Re:Geek Fight

[TheGilmanator]

It's not like that sentence was sarcasm or anything.

Re:Geek Fight

[Anonymous Coward]

Right because everyone knows Batman would kick Spiderman's ass.

Re:Geek Fight

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how it's important what a dinosaur did period.

And here I see how it's important to end with a period! Seriously, thought the page didnt reload fully the first time I read the blurb. It was only later that I realised that /. was only being at its natural best.

Re:Geek Fight

[CylanR77]

I fail to see how it's important what UNIVAC did period. Great it set the standard for computers to be accepted as comercially viable machines, big deal. That is about as important as as two geeks debating Windows vs Linux which will win?

Re:Geek Fight

[raoul666]

Batman. Fucking duh.

Re:Geek Fight

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I fail to see how it's important what a dinosaur did period.

Importance is subjective. It may not be important to you, and it may not be important for humanity in general, but in his particular field, it is important.

I'm sure many people feel that how planets are formed is pretty unimportant, too.

I bet it is!

[Joe Ego]

"His work is very important,"

They must know something we don't: such as when they're planning on turning Euro-Disney into Jurrasic Park.

His Work Is Very Important

[Greyfox]

Because now we all know that the next time we encounter a velociraptor we do not have to fear disemboweling. You would not believe how many nights this has kept me up...

Re:His Work Is Very Important

[Chris Burke]

I hope this doesn't keep you up at night, but all the article means is that the velociraptor would dig his claws deep into your entrails to hold you still while he killed you with his teeth, like a cat killing a mouse. Or like the thing the lives in your closet.

Goodnight!

Bio-CAD

[six11]

It's weird to see this on Slashdot, because I was researching "bio-CAD" about a month ago. The BC guys are not the only ones working on this sort of thing. For example: researchers at Buffalo are working on a similar problem.

Bio-CAD is an interesting field. You can use modeling or reconstruction of what you think an organism was like, and you can sometimes come to a conclusion that doesn't support the currently accepted theory of how something worked. The dromaeosaurs (velociraptor and friends) were among the smartest dinosaurs (as determined by the brain cavity's size). So if they were also capable of taking down larger dinosaurs by means of disembowelment (ant waiting for them to die), this means they have less reason to hunt in packs. But if they can't take down a big game as individuals, they may have had reason to work together. Now, I'm not a paleontologist, so I may have the story wrong here. But the basic idea is that you can use modeling and replication as a way to support or contradict other theories (which we can't directly measure).

Now we know why they are extinct

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Noah would have wanted these guy in his ark!

Claws hold the government teat while suckling

[Gothmolly]

Boy, silly me, I went to school to be an engineer, and spent countless thousands of dollars and 6 years of my life doing so. These guys get to play with dinosaur bones, fly all over the world looking at rocks, play with synthetic dinosaur claw machines, and don't ever have to make a penny. After doing this for many years, they'll retire on a fat taxpayer funded pension.

I guess I'm the sucker.

Re:Claws hold the government teat while suckling

[Anonymous Coward]

suck to be you, troll.

Re:Claws hold the government teat while suckling

[be-fan]

You do realize that engineering, as a profession, is more subsidized than paleontology? Paleontologists are usually supported by universities, which are at least partially supported by tuition. Meanwhile, entire branches of the engineering profession (eg: aerospace), exist either due to the DoD budget (for military stuff), or due to airline bailouts (for civilian stuff).

Re:Claws hold the government teat while suckling

[Gothmolly]

And the tuition which is NOT picked up by the government is covered by government-sponsored loans. The entire higher education industry is a racket. 'Engineering' is so broad a profession that it makes no sense to call it such. I work for a large bank, in the IT department. My job is certainly less subsidized than a dinosaur hunter. While entire branches of engineering MIGHT be subsidized, ALL of the branches of paleontology ARE subsidized.

Re:Claws hold the government teat while suckling

[be-fan]

Loans are rather different from grants, as anybody with student loans will tell you. The claim that higher education is a racket is moronic. Its the superiority of American higher-education that keeps us the dominant technological power. Yes, it costs the government money, but that money pays huge dividends.

Now, you might think the IT field is not subsidized, but consider its origins. A very large fraction of IT technology was developed under government grants. The internet is the classical example, but even if you consider stuff that was developed at commercial research labs, you have to realize a lot of those developments were at least partially the result of government contracts. In the end, an engineer complaining about government subsidies is like a farmer complaining about government subsidies!

Sounds even Meaner to Me!!

[logicnazi]

I don't know about anyone else but I think I would prefer to be disembowled rather than pinned with a claw. Sure disembowling is visually shocking and likely doesn't feel to pleasent it sounds a damn sight better than benning held pinned with a sharp claw while being eaten.

I mean have you ever seen a cat play with a mouse? It isn't always a quick death. Also if the example of big cats is any guide it doesn't mean it couldn't take down bigger animals either.

Obligatory joke

[Kombat]

I realized that the sick-claw was not a knife, but was rather more like the claw of a cat. Cats use their claws to pierce and hold prey, not to disembowel

Sounds like my ex-wife.

*buh-dum-ching!*

Cats use their claws to pierce and hold prey, not

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Cats use their claws to pierce and hold prey, not to disembowel.

Yeah, well they also use antigens in their saliva to incapacitate the male of the human species with convulsive sneezing, watery eyes, scratchy throat, and perpetually runny nose. If it weren't for cats there wouldn't be half as many single female homo sapiens as there are now.

Mod up

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up. Funny.

velociraptors suck

[minus_273]

Deinonychus would kick thier ass any day!

shit did i say that out loud..

Re:velociraptors suck

[Kompressor]

Ah, but a Troodon would likely outsmart it. :-D

Evil Disemboweling Kitty Cats

[PresidentEnder]

Has anyone ever been disemboweled by a cat? This thread has several mentions of how a cat scratched the poster, but never of how a cat disemboweled them. My cat has never disemboweled me. If we take this further (anything that can scratch can disebowel), I've had a nasty scratch or two courtesy of a nail (or two), but if you threatened to disembowel me with one, I'd laugh. I may receive a nasty puncture wound or two courtesy of your nail, but I'd laugh.

Re:Evil Disemboweling Kitty Cats

[TheLoneDanger]

I would imagine that if a cat (say a tiger, a large cat, but a cat nonetheless) disemboweled someone, they wouldn't be here to talk about it. A velociraptor was a fair amount bigger than a housecat.

Re:Evil Disemboweling Kitty Cats

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone? As in a person? Maybe not, but bigger cats in the wild do disembowl large prey with their rear claws. Domestic cats still have the instinct but rarely go after big enough prey to require disembowling.

Generally speaking I have only seen cats disembowl if the prey is a lot larger than the cat.

They do in fact use their claws for disembowling so these "scientists" are idiots.

Re:Evil Disemboweling Kitty Cats

[izomiac]

I would be very disturbed if someone who had been disemboweled posted on Slashdot. Both that a cat had done so and that they survived. Of course, velociraptors had 3.5" claws, which is a bit longer than most house cats that I've seen, and larger cats can actually disembowel their prey.

Re:Evil Disemboweling Kitty Cats

[dmaxwell]

Tom cats go for each others balls doing that. Nasty.

Re:Evil Disemboweling Kitty Cats

[AndroidCat]

My cat disemboweled me last week!

...I got better.

Re:Evil Disemboweling Kitty Cats

[joemontoya]

Unfortunately I have been disemboweled several times by my cat. Also I had my throat crushed once by my goldfish.

That's why this type of pseudo-science is so dangerous, it convinces people that exotic pets like Velociraptors, Pot-Belly Pigs, Marsupial Lions and Trolls are harmless. Sure, they are cute when they are little, but these animals are aggressive living things. Once they are grown - most people find they can't afford to buy the hundreds of pounds of meat these animals need to eat each day. So they drive out to the edge of town and dump the animals to fend for themselves.

The Florida everglades have been decimated by the Asian Pot-Belly Swine. During the height of the Pot-Belly craze in the 80's, millions of elderly couples purchased these cute piglets. When the animals grew to adulthood and their retired owners could no longer take care of them, they dumped them in the swamp. Now active living communities across the state are overrun with alligators, because the porcine infestation has destroyed the alligators native habitat.

Re:Evil Disemboweling Kitty Cats

[Tony Hoyle]

I don't think anyone is convinced Velociraptors are harmless.

Everyone knows Trolls are. Just let the post on slashdot and they'll be busy for hours.

Re:Evil Disemboweling Kitty Cats

[YttriumOxide]

My cat disembowelled a dog once. She was pretty much a normal housecat. Found in the wild at a young age, but grew up to a normal sized tabby with a bit of a vicious streak.
    Not entirely sure what kind of dog it was, but it wasn't small. Some kind of retriever or similar.

    The dog was on the front lawn, taking a dump. Fishface (for that was the cat's name, and I kid you not), ran outside and swiped it across the nose with her claw. The dog of course was taken by surprise and stood up on three legs while pawing at it's nose with the other. Fishface ran underneath the dog and swiped it through the gut. The dog staggered a bit and fell over dead with various internal mushy things (I can only assume intestines from the look of them) beginning to sag out of the largest of the scratch wounds.

    So, depending on one's definition of "disembowel", I'd say that qualifies...

    (and no, no-one put my cat down for it - we had to explain it to the neighbours, but fortunately they didn't seek legal action and Fishface died of old age a few years later)

Re:Evil Disemboweling Kitty Cats

[RockModeNick]

Our cat was a bit mean.... we once found another cat's severed tail in our front yard.

Re:Evil Disemboweling Kitty Cats

[UserGoogol]

That's nothing. My cat once brought home a human head.

Re:Evil Disemboweling Kitty Cats

[RockModeNick]

Did you get to keep it, or did those damn police make you give it back? It seems like every time your pet brings back a human bodypart, law officers need it, always some story about investigation or right to proper burial.

Re:Evil Disemboweling Kitty Cats

[belroth]

And they preyed upon creatures much larger than them (but probably not exclusively) - if you scale up from a raptor in the same ratio as cat to human you get a big animal. Do you think a raptor could disembowel something like a hippo? Remember raptors weren't man sized they were smaller. And hippos have skin thicker than raptor claws so it's reasonable that some dinos had skin at least as thick. It would make a good climbing surface though...

The movie was wrong?

[Pneuma ROCKS]

So, does that mean that San José, Costa Rica is not a beach after all?

In Other News...

[Eradicator2k3]

- Velociraptor bad at being snuggly pet.
- Velociraptor bad at Survivor immunity challenges.
- Velociraptor bad at surviving mass extinctions.
- Velociraptor bad at playing the good guy, just for once, in a movie

To summarize: Velociraptor BAD!!!!

Word, folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another of Zonks fabulous non-stories edited while fucking some underage boi on the kitchen floor of his parents house. Bravo.

DOH...

[Spy der Mann]

What about their JAWS?

Re:DOH...

[seramar]

Yes I believe the claws of mechanical sharks produced at movie-magic studios have a tough time piercing simulated pig hides, as well.

More Insteresting 10 Days Ago

[nuance9]

News as old as dinosaurs? BBC carried this story 10 days ago. I guess that isn't quite as old as dinosaurs. Of course, that supposing that dinosaurs aren't still alive on the bottom of the ocean.

Crocodile skin?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked, birds were a lot closer to most dinosaurs than crocs evolutionarily--and gutting a chicken would not have been challenging for that machine.

As I expected all along

[drzolo]

"... It turns out that disemboweling a dino probably would have been out of the question, since the best that big claw could do was usually just to leave a deep puncture" I knew it!! Haha, who is laughing now?....

It's not cool when...

[Anonymous Coward]

you're the taxpayer or student footing the bill for this crap.

I remember watching Jurassic Park

[QuantumG]

and thinking I could kick the shit out of one of those Velociraptors. They're short, they have short little arms and these long ineffectual tails and they can't turn their heads more than 80 degrees to the left or right. Not to mention the fact that they have poor peripherial vision and can't recognise stationary objects. In particular, when the kids ran into the computer room and hid, thinking the raptors couldn't open the door, but they did, the kids could have kept low, circled around, jumped on the raptor's tail and kicked it in the spine.. it'd be snappin' at em but as long as you stay behind it you'll be fine.. then you could do a wind choke on its prehistoric neck or just snap it Bruce Lee style.

That's why I really liked Pitch Black. Instead of pitting blood hungry monsters against helpless little kids, they threw in a bad ass human to take em on and, unlike the useless soldiers in Aliens, he actually put up a fight!

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[dmaxwell]

I've wondered how much dealing with animals is part of the martial arts. Surely the ninja or samurai on a midnight mission has had to deal with the odd dog or two.

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[QuantumG]

I learnt ninjutsu when I was a teenager. We learnt how to grapple with dogs. If you pin the front leg of a dog to the ground and yank on the other front leg the chest cavity will split down the middle. It's an instant, although extremely painful, death. I know it's cruel, but when people train dogs to be weapons against you it would be insane not to learn how to defeat them. My Sensei was a partner in a security company. We used to practice on his alsatian. I remember he used to say "anyone hurts my dog, we'll see if they can handle him in attack mode, whilst they're dealing with me."

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[Creepy Crawler]

And another way (which I actually did) is when a dog tries to bite you, make a fist. The dog will bite the fist. When it does that, take yoru closed fist and ram it down the throat of the dog. Then rapidly jerk your whole arm downwards.

The procedure will break the jaw of a dog. Quite easily. I ended up causing a compound fracture on many parts of the jaw bone.

They had to put down the dog I did that to, but the owner didnt complain.. They were happy I didnt sue.

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[NeMon'ess]

What if you get thrown off it's back, or maybe it topples to the ground and it's 300 pounds land on you? What if the skin is tougher than you realize and it's hard to choke it or get a grip since the neck is wider than a humans?

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[QuantumG]

I guess then you find out what the claws feel like. Better than running and hiding like a pussy.

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[izomiac]

Wait a second, you actually thought you could jump on a raptor and live? Perhaps it MIGHT be possible (if they weren't extinct) with an actual velociraptor (3 feet tall), but not with the ones in Jurassic Pack (Utahraptors I believe). First of all, I don't see where you're getting that they couldn't turn their heads more than 80 degrees, it looks to me more like 180 degrees. The tail is used as a counter-balance, so it's very flexable and heavy, perfect for a whip. In the movie one of them jumped on a T-Rex, so it could easily buck a person off if it needed to (I suspect mounting one would be about as hard as mounting a tiger). They're obviously much faster than a human and much stronger (can you tear a piece of flesh off a dinosaur)? Combined with a tougher bone structure I HIGHLY doubt any human could snap ones neck. The only way I'd think you could kill one without a weapon would be to suffocate it. But that's only if you could find a way to get that close and hold on to it for a couple minutes without getting clawed to death. Plus there's the whole thing about a wild animal that is used to fighting to survive, and the average human that is at a fraction of their potential strength and hasn't ever killed anything to eat. And, there were two in that scene of the movie anyway, so...

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[Anonymous Coward]

He actually said "whilst?"

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[QuantumG]

Well, it was 13 years ago dude.. I may be paraphrasing.

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[QuantumG]

Pfft. Those dinosaurs were in a zoo man. All they ever hunted was the domesticated goats and cows that the handlers fed them. It's not like they were part of an actual ecosystem and had parents to teach them how to hunt. I'm sure just stomping on their tail would make them run away like the little girlosaurous they are. As for there being two of em, you gotta split em up, take em out one by one. The first velociraptor would be wonderin' where the second one got to and then BAM! got one of them Sun monitors smashed on its head. Not to mention tripwires.. see how smart they are when they're chasin' you down a hallway and they trip over one of those suckers. When they're tryin' to get to their feet you bash in their head with a fire extinguisher.

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[Oligonicella]

So, geeks don't only have unrealistic fantasies and expectations about sex?

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[QuantumG]

So, geeks don't only have unrealistic fantasies and expectations about sex?

geeks? I think you just mean men. Besides, what fund is a realistic fantasy? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you're fucked up...

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever tried to encircle *two* animals at the same time? As a parent I would thoroughly forbid my children to play with velociraptors. Fortunately I am not (a parent).

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[Weedlekin]

Yeah, large carnivores one or two generations from the wild that haven't had to hunt are real softies. When they rip the odd keeper who gets overconfident, stage magician, or member of the public with a deathwish to bloody shreds, they invariably do it in a gentle, "but of course I've been raised in captivity" way, not like their wild brethren who boorishly leap around and snarl and cover everything in drool.

And it goes without saying that a raised-in-captivity bengal tiger, kodiac bear, or nile crocodile can have the shit totally kicked out of it by a geek who gets nose-bleeds after sliding a 19" monitor three whole inches. Because being raised in captivity and never having hunted means it'll just sit there and take the abuse, just like true domestic animals such as Rottweillers and Spanish fighting bulls do.

So anybody who is planning on visiting a safari park should take a geek with them. Then, if you break down or get a puncture in the lion enclosure, you can get out and fix it in the sure knowledge that your geek can just pick up one of those pesky cats by the tail and use it to club any others into mewling submission, assuming of course that they were all raised in captivity and never had to hunt.

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[QuantumG]

Around now I'm going to ask you if you're an American as you clearly don't have a sense of humour. Lighten up jerk.

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[Weedlekin]

No, I'm a Sporloringian. We're known for our lack of humour (probably due to a sprinkling of Germanic genes).

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[Creepy Crawler]

Messed up for what? Breaking the jaw of a wolf/mutt mix (I dunno, it was something...) that was attacking me?

Oh yah, I guess defending myself is stupid.

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[edunbar93]

Spoken like someone who's never even wrestled with a housecat.

Getting into a bare-knuckles brawl with even the smaller modern-day predators like a badger is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Forget one that's "only 3 feet tall" as you blithely put it.

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[Anonymous Coward]

You would stand as much of a chance fighting a real dromaesaur/raptor (velociraptor, deinonychus, dromaesaurus, utahraptor etc) as you would fighting a tiger.

As for peripheral vision and not spotting stationary targets, that's absurd.
It had far better peripheral vision than a human.
The neck would about as flexible as a bird.
And it would likely use it's hands to fight aswell as it's feet:

http://www.oberlin.edu/faculty/kmhubbar/images/Dei nonychus.jpg
http://www.mathematical.com/dinodeino.gif

Jurrasic park is horribly inaccurate, the mere fact that the Velociraptor portrayed in the movie isn't a Velociraptor at all but more of a cross between a Deinonychus and a Utahraptor speaks volumes.
The real velociraptor was stupid and about the size of a wolf, and had a flat, funny-looking scull.
Now the Deinonychus on the other hand...

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[MullerMn]

(I suspect mounting one would be about as hard as mounting a tiger)

I guess that explains why you're not welcome at the zoo any more.

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, we humans are very well equipped to engage wild carnivores in a hand-to-claw combat. I am sure this guy would agree with you:

http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1994-13.h tml

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[indiechild]

I think he meant that's fucked up because you let the dog bite your fist. But I guess in that kind of situation you're going to get bitten anyway, so you might as well take the offensive.

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[Creepy Crawler]

---I think he meant that's fucked up because you let the dog bite your fist. But I guess in that kind of situation you're going to get bitten anyway, so you might as well take the offensive.

Probably... I have no scarring on my fingers due to that, as it didnt even hurt much.

I knew I wasnt going to outrun it. I've dealt with it on prior circumstances (then, with a 5 foot electrical fence post). I hit it once, and it hobbled away. I wasnt trying to kill it then.. I just wanted to know I wasnt an easy target. I made a complaint with the cops on that time, alerting that a animal tried attacking me.

This time comes around, and it's trying to bite. Fine, bite my fist. Then in my fist went, and I slung that mutt to the ground. And wow, It was a gutteral whelp it made until animal control (and the cops, mind you) showed up to haul it away. Enough of the neighbors saw how it ran loose and did bad stuff, so I was safe there.

Well, too bad. I didnt mean to kill it, but good riddance it's gone.

Re:I remember watching Jurassic Park

[indiechild]

You did the right thing. I don't blame the dog though, I blame the owners -- they're the ones who raised it this way. Goddamn humans.

Re:Obligatory Jurrasic Park (the Movie) refference

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that in a fight, the lawyer might win? Noooooooooo!

Oblig. PA

[Anonymous Coward]

Van Helsing!

Snuggle-Saurus!

[damned_mediocrity]

From TFA: The Velociraptor dinosaur... was not as vicious as portrayed. On the contrary, it embraced its victims before its razor sharp teeth went to work...

Awww, look. He wants to hug me!

Definition of Disembowel

[krunk4ever]

For those, or maybe it's just me, that didn't know the definition (for some reason I thought it had to do with digestion)

Disembowelment is evisceration, or the removing of vital organs, usually from the abdomen. The results are invariably fatal. It has historically been used as a form of capital punishment.

So, I'm guessing from that post and the definition, disembowelment is when the velociraptor sliced you in the stomach, so your guts spill out, which they're claiming here is untrue.

Re:Definition of Disembowel

[Seraphim_72]

Disembowelment is evisceration

Yeah, that helps.

Re:Definition of Disembowel

[Anonymous Coward]

You could always go ask your Mom for help understanding it.

Re:Definition of Disembowel

[MooUK]

It's also a very effective way to take down an enemy in close combat, which is more of a historical use than punishment.

It's also very likely to STINK. Remember what's in some of the organs in there...

Yet again scientist realize

[Xiph]

that Hollywood movies don't always get their facts right. It reminds me of the roaring fast-running t-rex which couldn't see stuff when it was standing still. I can understand that Hollywood needs to come up with these things, if something haven't been studied thoroughly. What i don't understand is why we bother reading about whether this uninteresting tidbit of information is true, for the whenever it's been part of a movie.

Re:Yet again scientist realize

[Pollardito]

"Yet again scientist realize that Hollywood movies don't always get their facts right."

since it was based on a book, i think you mean that authors don't always get it right. which is interesting, because that same author is testifying to congress right about now, on the other side of the debate from most scientists

Re:Yet again scientist realize

[Darthmalt]

Actually if you read the two crichton books he contradicts the they can't see you if you don't move theory. With one scientist saying the other was wrong and that they can see you, but they might not necesarilly be hungry right after eating a large goat.

Now let me see if I've got this tight...

[gone_bush]

...use their claws to pierce and hold prey, not to disembowel

So I wont be disembowelled before the beastie eats me. That's reassuring. Not!

uhh...

[wingman358]

"...His work is very important," Uhhh... will someone please explain to me how building robotic dinosaur claws and tearing crap apart is important research?

Re:uhh...

[Anonymous Coward]

US Military Secret Project Codename Gundam Crisis

Crunch

[Doc Ruby]

All we can be sure of now is that in Velociraptor vs MechaVelociraptor, the robot can't disembowel the original. I hope we never learn whether the original destroy the robot.

Re:Obligatory Jurrasic Park (the Movie) refference

[Anonymous Coward]

http://rape-stories.viprape.com/Rape-fantasy-stori es.html

Oh that's alright...

[Auraiken]

...because i heard people on a *'not very well known' website that google was going to cure cancer. *That's sarcasm for the magical dinosaur bones people. =)

Re:Oh that's alright...

[Anonymous Coward]

*That's sarcasm for the magical dinosaur bones people. =)

The noise you just heard was the joke going over your head - or maybe you are in Iraq and it was a morter... either way see if you can buy a clue.

Ladies and Gentlemen...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, this was a joke, and shouldn't be taken seriously, just like my post.

Ladies and Gentlemen... JACK THOMPSON!

Velociraptor is the wuss

[Wyatt Earp]

Jurrasic Park misrepresented the Velociraptors.

Velociraptor has a skull length of 249 mm (9.80 in), a total length of 2.7 m (8 ft 10 in), a hip height of 0.5 m (1 ft 8 in), and weighs 20 kg (45 lb). The 'raptors portrayed there were modelled after a larger relative, Deinonychus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychus

Re:Velociraptor is the wuss

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear! I'd like to see their test results for a Deinonychus >:)

Re:Velociraptor is the wuss

[Wyatt Earp]

I'm assuming, having only skimmed the article that they are likely understating the ability of the claw and how the Velociraptor operated it's claw.

Skin, even the scales of a reptile, aren't that hard to cut, only takes a few pounds of pressure to cut a mammal's skin, based on Monitors and Iguanas I've been around (had a Green Iguana for 11 years) they are tougher, but not that much tougher than humans, maybe 200-250% tougher than we are. Reptiles have *very* strong fingers in species that use thier feet alot, like an Iguana, I have to use leather welding gloves to handle my beast.

Even with reconstruction of muscles based on striations of the bones, we don't know what kind of strength these creatures had, we don't know what kind of tip or edge they really had. This is all speculation. Based on my own experiance with a hand raised House Monster in the form of a Green Iguana, if my buddy weighed 20 kilos and didn't just sit around watching TV and listening to XM Radio and worked for his food, just getting a foot hold scrambling when picked up could easily cut to the bone.

Re:Velociraptor is the wuss

[Anonymous Coward]

WORST...
DRAWING...
EVER:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deinonychus.JPG

For God's sake, it's a turkey!

Re:Velociraptor is the wuss

[anti_analog]

I too, am glad someone is finally pointing out that a velociraptor is a tiny little thing compared to the 7 foot tall creatures displayed in the movies.

And besides the overall size, the head shape is definitely Deinonychus, taller vs. the long, thin head of velociraptors.

As someone who was a big Dienonychus fan from about the age of 10 when I read about them in National Geographic, this offended me, er, mildly.

Re:Velociraptor is the wuss

[Jugalator]

Jurassic Park misrepresented a lot of dinosaurs. They probably just scanned a lot of dinosaur references and took the looks that would look good in a movie, not really taking much into account how they lived besides the basics.

Same with JP3 and Spinosaurus:

In Jurassic Park III, it is portrayed as a lethal and dangerous killer, even winning a battle with a Tyrannosaurus. However as noted above, despite its length, it was more lightly built than Tyrannosaurus and other theropods, and its elongated jaws and conical teeth suggest it may have largely eaten fish, or else fed on carrion, rather than being a hunter of large prey like Tyrannosaurus.

Dilophosaurus:

Dilophosaurus was also included in the 1993 movie Jurassic Park (and the book by Michael Crichton on which the film was based). It sported a retractable frill around its neck, much like a frilled lizard, and was able to spit poison, aiming for the eyes to blind and paralyse its prey. There is no evidence to support this representation.

T Rex:

In the film Jurassic Park the T. rex seems to be running nearly as fast as the jeep, at around 40 mph (64 km/h). However, the time between strides is too small to reach that speed, unless it is taking impossibly large steps. The real speed of the animal (1015 mph, 1624 km/h) seems much higher by some kind of optical illusion. This has been asserted by the moviemakers and Hutchinson and Garcia [10].

In the novel,the T. rex has a very long prehensile tongue like contemporary giraffes. It uses this at one point for pulling Tim Murphy into its mouth. This is purely speculative and would only be good for very small prey that was either cornered are very weak, as it is apparenly weak and slow.

One of the films' most famous sequences are the appearances of ripples in bodies of water, accompanied by an earth-vibrating boom, indicating the footsteps of an approaching T.rex. If a T. rex were an ambush predator, perhaps in reality it would disguise its noisemaking.

There are probably more stuff too...

In the end, it's just an action movie and should be treated as such.

Re:Velociraptor is the wuss

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather fight a small Speedy Thief (velociraptor mongoliensis), than the Terrible Claw (Deinonychus Antirrhopus).

Evidence suggests that the Deinonychus hunted in packs, had a much larger brain relative to it's body size than any other dinosaur, and was likely warm-blooded and very active.

The Velociraptor mongoliensis on the other hand, wasn't very intelligent, and did probably not get along with others of it's kind (they killed eachother).

Not only is the size of the animal and the shape of the skull on the 'raptors' in Jurrasic Park much closer to the deinonychus, but the behaviour aswell.

Re:Velociraptor is the wuss

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to use leather welding gloves to handle my beast.

Heh heh heh... :-)

spiderman would win.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's plainly obvious. He's at least as smart as batman (invented the web stuff after all) but he's also got super powers. Batman's just rich.

Re:spiderman would win.

[QuantumG]

Yeah, but Spiderman is poor. Batman has all that military research to fall back on. Spiderman has to make do on his photographer wage.

Re:spiderman would win.

[Blakey Rat]

Once I came up with a superhero hierarchy and came to the conclusion that, all things considered, Aquaman would win. To wit:

Even the most powerful superhero can't kill Godzilla. Godzilla might not be able to stomp the Hulk, but it's not like the Hulk could do anything to Godzilla anyway. Superman might be able to fly through Godzilla and make a hole, but Godzilla heals really quick and he couldn't kill him altogether. So why is Aquaman the most powerful superhero?

Because Aquaman can telepathically control sea creatures, and Godzilla lives in the sea. QED.

Re:spiderman would win.

[QuantumG]

Yeah, but neither batman nor spiderman live in the sea so aquaman wouldn't stand a chance.

Re:spiderman would win.

[Blakey Rat]

Aquaman can control GODZILLA. Batman and Spiderman wouldn't have to be in the sea, Aquaman could just have Godzilla eat New York and Gotham respectively.

Although you bring up an interesting point... can Aquaman control sea creatures, even if they can walk on dry land? He should experiment on frogs first, before tackling Godzilla.

Re:spiderman would win.

[QuantumG]

Oh, I see your argument. Maybe we should have defined a 'fair fight' to not include pets. But yeah, I don't think Batman or Spiderman could do much to Godzilla.

It's about repeatability

[tepples]

But more generally, I'm not sure exactly why it is useful to build a robot arm to do their demonstration.

Robotics means you get consistent force from trial to trial.

Cats get rake attack if both front paws hit

[emeade]

http://www.planetadnd.com/interactive_books/mm0002 9.php

Errrr.....

[Now.Imperfect]

Why the heck is this in Hardware? o.0 'cause they used metal to make the claw? For a second I thought there was some new piece of hardware that people thought could be used to disembowle people.

Years of hopes and dreams smashed

[mortong]

Well, that does it. Ten years worth of scientific theories based on Hollywood special effects, down the tubes. The paleontology community may never recover. ...At least until JP4 is released.

Bogociraptor

[FishandChips]

Maybe they used this extra-long claw for some hitherto unsuspected purpose, like picking their nose?

Anyway, bad luck, Phil. I guess it's back to the disembowelling board for you.

to whom

[sydres]

is his work important to? dead dinosaur? or just in case we run into a velociraptor anywhere but a museum

Re: spiderman vs batman who would win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Batman.

Well...

[Slashdiddly]

That pretty much leaves lawyers in a league of their own.

Here's a good example of a Slashdot post:

[Headcase88]

Well, it differs. In the animated series, didn't Dr. Connor invent the web stuff? And in the movie the stuff was natural. But no one's denying Spidey is smart. Both Batman and spiderman are exceedingly intelligent, with Spiderman keeping his brain sharp with college studies and Batman frequently combating the Riddler.

Batman has more money (and therefore gadgets), but Spiderman has more supernatural powers (Batman has none AFAIK). It's very close, but Batman is more serious so I'll pick him. I think Batarangs would be pivotal to the battle.

I sitll think it's unfair that Superman could probably outrun the Flash. I mean, c'mon, he only has one power, can't he be better at that one thing?

Of course the front claws are mostly for grasping

[dtfinch]

That way it has leverage to disembowel the prey with its hind legs.

Sexual Display

[Mr_Huber]

I wonder how much these claws were used as a sexual display, both to advertise maturity and to threaten potential rivals. Think about it, most of the time when some animal sports some enlarged, prominent body part, it isn't for hunting, but for mating displays.

Perhaps, way back when, this was merely a giant evolutionary contest to see just who had the biggest claws in the neighborhood...

Re:Sexual Display

[Sigg3.net]

It doesn't make sense.
I've never gotten laid by giving a girl the finger.

Would you put your brain in a robot body?

[Mornelithe]

I took nature's most perfect killing machine, and needlessly turned it into a robot.

This is NeWz?!

[absinthminded64]

Yes .. we were all so overtaken by the fat kid's response to Dr. Alan Grant's demonstration of the CLAW that we paid no attention to it's clear roundedness and inability to CUT flesh. .

class hollywood Lights. . Camera. . (hey fat kid they outlawed cake) ACTION!! deception.

Long pointy rounded things cannot also slice flesh. . this is NEWS?! I surely hope we're not paying these SCIENTISTS .. MY tax dollars to make these types of discoveries.

Re:This is NeWz?!

[PakProtector]

Yes .. we were all so overtaken by the fat kid's response to Dr. Alan Grant's demonstration of the CLAW that we paid no attention to it's clear roundedness and inability to CUT flesh. .

class hollywood Lights. . Camera. . (hey fat kid they outlawed cake) ACTION!! deception.

Long pointy rounded things cannot also slice flesh. . this is NEWS?! I surely hope we're not paying these SCIENTISTS .. MY tax dollars to make these types of discoveries.

I worked at a Humane Society for several months and one of my coworkers there was once given a nearly half-inch deep gash by a cat clawing her. Are you still so sure that a round, pointed object cannot slice flesh?

Re:This is NeWz?!

[belroth]

I surely hope we're not paying these SCIENTISTS .. MY tax dollars to make these types of discoveries.

No, Manchester in the U.K., no dollars required.

Re:This is NeWz?!

[absinthminded64]

Yikes! Bad kitty!

I guess it would really depend on the skin your in.

Next up...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's next, tentacle experiments? Distended anus measurement? Human waste trajectory plotting? ...Profit?

This was on the BBC

[Turn-X Alphonse]

It was on the BBC and the theory (and a fossil which backed it up) was that the claw was ment to peirce the throat as the raptor grabbed onto the dinos face. It works in principle but anything which didn't walk on 4 legs may have made this totally useless.

Kangaroo or Ostrich as Control

[Derling Whirvish]

Knowing that a kangaroo or ostrich can disembowel someone as well, and we know that -- we don't have to guess, they should simulate those to see if they can reproduce the effect with a reproduction of those animals' legs using their model. If they can't, then there's a flaw in their methodology. You have to use a control.

Obligatory SPLORT! reference.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's that? Three Velociraptors having an orgy?

/. readers read the wrong news

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of "old news" on slashdot because people read the wrong news sites. If Americans read world news sites instead of (trusting/waiting for) domestic sources they wouldn't be Americans, would they?

Scary... riiiiight...

[bziman]

I don't know about the mutant 100 kilo pack-hunting raptors in Jurassic Park... but in real life, velociraptors were like 20 kilos. That's a bit bigger than your average house cat, and might be able to do a little damage to an unsuspecting human, but in the land of dinosaurs, this scary predator would most likely need to be scraped off the bottom of the foot of your average large herbivore.

Has anyone observed how cats use their back claws?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've played with enough cats to see their tendency to grab hold of you with their teeth, then mercilessly slash you repeatedly with their back claws. I still have pleanty of scars from those play sessions to prove it. I can only imagine what a raptor's claws would do in that situation.

bah

[Kuku_monroe]

Now just tell me the t-rex had feathers and this will be saddest day ever...

What I would rather know...

[vakerorokero]

Can they climb trees?? I rather avoid a fight with one of these things!

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

but a pointy stick

Now I eat the banana...

Re:Obligatory

[Clock Nova]

Or perhaps a passionfruit. Dangerous, those passionfruit.

Why didn't they just ask me!

[pigwin32]

My 3 year old son has a large velociraptor and those claws are not for disembowelling or for clawing. They're for hitting with, normally some place soft and sensitive, the pain is quite unbelievable. Don't believe everything scientists tell you, ask someone who has been there. Sheesh, how much did that study cost?

Tigers do disembowel

[pkphilip]

The whole assumption that cats do not disembowel is not entirely founded in fact. Larger cats such as the tiger do disembowel their prey on occassion.

If you read Jim Corbett's account of tiger attacks in India during the early 1900's, there are references to how some people came to hospitals after surviving a tiger attack holding the stomach shut with their hands to prevent their intestines from spilling over onto the floor.

On a side note - it amazes me how some people walked > 10 miles after sustaining such injuries.

A link to some information on Jim Corbett and his work in India:
http://www.nwf.org/productions/indiatiger/corbett. html/

"Sick-claw"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wth is a "sick-claw" anyway?

Saw this on TV, pretty flawed

[wodon]

This experiment was shown on British TV a few weeks ago as part of a documentary about dinosaurs hosted by Bill Oddie.
The crazy thing about the experiment is that they separated the very powerful thrusting motion of the velociraptor arm from the slashing motion of the claw.
When they showed it in action the arm would go forward towards the target (in this case a bit of pork) very fast then stop an inch short, they then engaged the claw action which slowly pieced the flesh but did not slash it.
Surely if the two actions were combined it would have had more chance of disemboweling!

Once helped restore a triceratops skull

[hey!]

A paleontologist I knew had found an upper horn in a badlands gully. He spent quite a bit of time looking for the rest of the animal, but this sort of thing happens all the time -- bits of fossils get moved around by geologic processes and you end up with bits an no chance of finding the rest. So he decided to mount it on a skull that was on display, that happened to be missing a horn. It turned out to be an excellent fit.

As I was helping him, mainly by standing around and being scared shitless that I'd break something, he pointed out the geometry of the horns and skull.

"They always show triceratops charging to attack with its three horns. But if this guy put his upper horns into position to attack, he'd end up breaking his upper jaw."

I looked, and sure enough the angle and length of the horns were such that if the animal charged anything, the horns wouldn't even come close before his jaw hit. If the animal managed to drop its head so its lower horn hit furst, the upper horns would be pointing down -- provided the animal wasn't tripping over its own face.

"So, what're the horns for?"

"Beats me."

He then went on to show me the soft, honeycombed texture of the frill, and the rich network of veins supplying it.

"Not much use as a shield. Probably a heat exchanger."

Re:Cats don't disembowel? Not usually.

[Vengeance]

Watch a lion attacking a herd animal of some sort. They leap onto the back of the thing, holding on with their claws and attempting to sever the spinal cord at the neck with their jaws.

I have this image in my head of a small flock of these dinosaurs doing essentially the same thing, using the claws on their hind feet to gain purchase on the back of some lumbering beast.

It's quite as fearsome an image as the disembowelling scenario, with the added bonus that it can last an agonizingly long time for a large prey animal.

Re:Obligatory Jurrasic Park (the Movie) refference

[Conanymous Award]

I'm sick of the pathological misspelling of Jurassic Park.

Talking about sick things, what the hell is a "sick-claw"? No wonder those Velociraptors couldn't disembowel anything, if your claw was sick you couldn't either!

Experimental archeology

[Savage-Rabbit]

The point of the robot arm is to get the same range of motion as the actual Dinosaur would have had. They can then give each joint a strength proportional to the size of the muscle that would have been attached to it (some guess work here I would assume). Then they can play around with it and see what different movements and would kind of attacks would have been possible and how much damage they would do. Animals use their claws in different ways, and the appendage the claw is attached to gives you just as much information as the size and shape of the claw itself. The expirement isn't what damage can WE do with a velociraptor claw it's what damage the velociraptor could have done.

And it is a commendable effort. It is amazing how many obviously dumb theories are repeated in both paleontological and archeological literature simply because nobody bothered to go out to the machine shop, set up a test rig and experiment. An example from archeology is the legend that has grown up around the British Longbow stating that these weapons were able to pierce the armor of even the best eqiuipped knights at long ranges. If you go out and test the Longbow it acutally turns out it was not terribly successful at penetrating medieval armor although it was still a valuable weapon. Fire an armor piercing arrow (bodkin arrrow) at somebody wearing a chain mail shirt (although I pesonally prefer to use a test rig to simulate a human and not just because chain mail wearing humans are getting rather rare nowadays) and it will penitrate but if the mail is of reasonably good quality (as in rivited or even double) and worn over padded armor the damage will often be surprisingly small. Repeat the experiment on plate armor and not the usual experiment of suspending a 3x3 foot flat plate of sheet iron in mid air by the corners (Where the bodkin will penetrate at short ranges with a powerful bow) but on an actual breastplate backed by padded armor and some test rig to approximate the wearer and a even an armor piercing Longbow arrow will bounce off due to deflection or fail to penetrate most of the time and especially at longer ranges. Similar stories can be told about a variety of scientific debates like for example, to cite an example from paleontology, whether or not the Marsupial lion was able to actively hunt or whether it was a pure carrion eater. People spend years debating and even mud slinging in some cases when a couple of weeks of experimenting can probably do alot more good.

Re:Of course the front claws are mostly for graspi

[Anonymous Coward]

That way it has leverage to disembowel the prey with its hind legs.

Which is, in fact, what a cat does with prey larger
than a mouse. My cat, for example, did a 'show and tell' for her kittens using a very large rat which
she had opened - with surgical precision - from neck to rectum. She had it splayed out on its back, with all the internal organs on display (rats have a very large liver, did you know that?).

Unfortunately, after the anatomy lesson, she left the remains for me to clean up.

Very Important Work

[Necromancyr]

His work is very important

Oh, ok. That means it must be important. Clarification of WHY it's important isn't needed I guess.

Cats use rear claws for something else

[kilodelta]

These scientists and the person posting the article obviously never saw a cat do its thing on a mouse.

Sure, the front claws are for holding prey. But the back claws are for gutting/disemboweling prey.

That's what I love about felix domesticus. They're perfect little predators.

Does this prove anything?

[Skrekkur]

Im not sure this proves anything, since you could still pierce skin with these claws given enough force to do so, and then you could start "cutting" and do some disemboweling. Am I the only one to see this or am I wrong?

Crichton's "Science"

[Grue]

So what you're saying, is that Michael Chrichton doesn't know science.

Could of told you that before.

Ahh, but Utahraptor fits the bill

[Anonymous Coward]

The dromaeosaur group also included Velociraptor, made famous by Steven Spielberg in "Jurassic Park". For the film, Velociraptor was made twice its actual size, which seemed to be very speculative at the time. However, within a year of the release of the film, a giant dromaeosaur had been found, namely Utahraptor. So life can be stranger than fiction!.

http://www.abc.net.au/dinosaurs/fact_files/sky/uta hraptor.htm

Prize....

[Jambon]

There's a prize awarded for this kind of research.

You're deliberately missing the point

[Gothmolly]

Engineering MIGHT be subsidized, depending on the field, and might HAVE BEEN subsidized, depending on the field, but paleontology ALWAYS is.