Slashdot Mirror


First Fossil Evidence That Velociraptors Hunted in Packs

Ponca City, We Love You writes "The New Scientist reports that palaeontologists have excavated a fossil trackway in Shandong Province in China 100 to 120 million years old that contains footprints left by six Dromeosaurs, the more formal name for raptors, showing evidence of group behavior. Up until now, the popular stereotype from Jurassic Park of raptors hunting in packs has had no fossil evidence to back it up. The paths of the six 90 kilo raptors do not overlap where the animals walked alongside a river or stream. '"The odds of these tracks being made by different individuals that just happen to be moving in the same direction, without their tracks stepping on one another, are small," said Jerry D. Harris, director of paleontology at Dixie State College. "Groups that do that usually have relatively sophisticated behavior, and they're relatively intelligent," Harris added. "By moving together in groups, it's entirely possible that they hunted in groups."'"

169 comments

  1. Fossil evidence? by Kohath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who needs fossil evidence? Just watch the movie. See? Packs.

    1. Re:Fossil evidence? by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who needs fossil evidence? Just watch the movie. See? Packs. And we know those bastards are light, too! Sure, they may look like they weigh a couple hundred pounds, but a 90 pound girl can knock one across the room with the right acrobatic attack!
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    2. Re:Fossil evidence? by joemawlma · · Score: 1

      "clever girl"

    3. Re:Fossil evidence? by LiquidAvatar · · Score: 5, Funny

      I bet that you're one of those people who insists on acknowledging Highlander 2...

      --
      It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
      -Voltaire
    4. Re:Fossil evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news...scientists discover that spaceships make loud whooshing sounds as they go by, and maneuver better if they bank during turns!

    5. Re:Fossil evidence? by davidsyes · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I say they were HOBBITS. The tracks are their HOBBITRAILS... these were the precursors to the hunter-killer packs. These had highly-modifiable feet.

      More at:

      http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-09/21/content_6124873.htm

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

      (wink, wink)

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    6. Re:Fossil evidence? by tcc3 · · Score: 3, Funny

      They made a Highlander II? =)

    7. Re:Fossil evidence? by Darby · · Score: 3, Funny


      I bet that you're one of those people who insists on acknowledging Highlander 2...


      Damn, Dude. That was harsh ;-)

    8. Re:Fossil evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >but a 90 pound girl can knock one across the room with the right acrobatic attack!

      judging how that little girl looks today i'd *love* to get knocked across the room by her...

    9. Re:Fossil evidence? by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Funny

      I bet that you're one of those people who insists on acknowledging Highlander 2... Highlander? Sequels? I don't know what you're talking about. There can be only one.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    10. Re:Fossil evidence? by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      No, these guys are just trying to ruin your childhood all over again. Don't listen to those bad men!

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    11. Re:Fossil evidence? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      And we know those bastards are light, too! Sure, they may look like they weigh a couple hundred pounds, but a 90 pound girl can knock one across the room with the right acrobatic attack!


      You're missing the fact that the girl, like most of the characters in the movie, is actually a superhero.
    12. Re:Fossil evidence? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      You're missing the fact that the girl, like most of the characters in the movie, is actually a superhero. What's Jeff Goldblum's power, the ability to mutter to himself in a rapid stream-of-consciousness patter without taking a breath?
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    13. Re:Fossil evidence? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      That and having a direct line to mother nature's plans for teaching all a lesson, yes.

    14. Re:Fossil evidence? by Kettle+Face · · Score: 1

      I for one (pun intended) would rather acknowledge Highlander 2 than the latest atrocity known as Highlander: The Source. Lets all just agree that the series was far superior to the movies and leave it at that.

    15. Re:Fossil evidence? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      I for one (pun intended) would rather acknowledge Highlander 2 than the latest atrocity known as Highlander: The Source. Lets all just agree that the series was far superior to the movies and leave it at that. Well, the whole Highlander universe has it's problems. There's never been a trouble-free outing, not even the first movie. I suppose it's just the nerd in me but the rules are arbitrary enough to make me really want to start questioning them. It's kind of like with Gremlins, can't eat after midnight? So when does cease being "after midnight" and "the new day" so the critter can eat again? If it can't get wet, how does it hydrate? Does it have to be liquid water or will high humidity cause it to reproduce? What about if it's foggy out, the kind that lays down a dew on anyone passing through it? Within the highlander series, when you die as an immortal you come back to life unless your head is taken. Ok, so simple stabbings and gunshots aren't lethal. Do organs regenerate? If you are stabbed through the heart, do you get a new one? Do amputations come back? It was implied that Kurgan's throat wound would not heal because the neck doesn't regenerate. So if Christopher Reeves were a highlander immortal, would he still not be able to walk? Can you recover from head injuries? What if you blew the head off with a shotgun, do you get his essense? If you have to cut the head off with a sword, why not knock him down with guns first? It takes a bit of time to come back to life, you could have your target down on the ground and head chopped before he knew what hit him. Lots of holes to poke. Probably the best example of fucking with the rules was that Immortal who hunted with dogs. His prey would never see him coming because the dogs wouldn't set off the immortal's spidey sense or gaydar or whatever you want to call it.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  2. Run, Randall, Run! by ClayJar · · Score: 3, Informative

    (I hope this doesn't get in the way of my thrice-weekly xkcd entertainment.)

    1. Re:Run, Randall, Run! by mark99 · · Score: 5, Funny

      This link is more relevant: http://xkcd.com/135/

    2. Re:Run, Randall, Run! by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

      And this one. Where are your velociraptor entry-points?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Run, Randall, Run! by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      From one of the other two comics I read aside from xkcd:

      dino baby

    4. Re:Run, Randall, Run! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question one states that Raptors reach a top speed of 25 meters a second.

      Question three states that Raptors reach a top speed of 10 meters a second.

      "Warning: this comic occasionally contains ... advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)."

      Is that right, eh?

    5. Re:Run, Randall, Run! by Fallingcow · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, in the second one, one of the three raptors has an injured leg and is limited to 10m/s. Otherwise, the problem would be much simpler.

    6. Re:Run, Randall, Run! by kayditty · · Score: 0

      I don't know how people can be so dumb. I pointed out the very same thing the grandparent did in a thread several months ago, and I got the exact same response.

      You need a longer attention span, better reading comprehension, and less of a hair trigger. The problem states that raptors move at 25m/s. It is correct that 2) states one raptor is injured and limited to 10m/s as a result. However, the relevant portion is in a different section, 3), wherein it says plainly that raptors reach a maximum speed of 10m/s, contradicting 1). Have a nice day.

    7. Re:Run, Randall, Run! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      He meant the third question. Look at the very last line in the cartoon: "Remember, raptors run at 10 m/s and they do not know fear." The injured raptor is in the second.

      While you can retcon it by saying "oh, it slows them down to run through a building", it still is inconsistent with the first question.

    8. Re:Run, Randall, Run! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly didn't read it.

      "...raptors run at 10 m/s..."

      Plural. More than one.

      The second question only mentions the one.

    9. Re:Run, Randall, Run! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds about right to me. I don't see how one error, nearly typo quality, negates that.

    10. Re:Run, Randall, Run! by another_twilight · · Score: 1
      In both 1 and 2 the speed mentioned is referred to as the "top" speed. In 3 you are reminded only that "raptors run at 10m/s". Presuming no error, then this leads to the conclusion that raptors do not always run at their top speed, but have a 'cruising' speed. Not an unreasonable presumption.

      Or the complexity of having to include acceleration/deceleration and turning radius was beyond the scope of the question and so it was simplified to an 'average' of 10 m/s. The 'reminder' even points you away from this sort of calculation and hints that you should simply concentrate on finding an optimal path.

      You are probably right, it was an error, but how about you play along.

      I don't know how people can be so literal

      ... there, got that for you
    11. Re:Run, Randall, Run! by kayditty · · Score: 0

      It's not like I didn't take that into account. I don't know if I'm being literal, though, but what else would I be? The only evidence I have to go on is what's presented to me. And just because I pointed out the flaws in what I saw doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the joke or am not 'playing along' or whatever it is you're talking about. I like seeing how things work and what's true about them. I actually quite enjoyed that comic and several others on xkcd, for what it's worth.

      I still don't think it's the case, though, that he was trying to establish a "cruising speed" or anything of that nature, if not specifically because of the reminder presented. And I think you're probably reading into this a bunch more than I am. I don't know how people can be so.. hrm, what's a good word? unnecessarily contrary?

  3. XKCD by dtmfdan · · Score: 2, Funny

    let the XKCD references begin

    1. Re:XKCD by physicsboy500 · · Score: 1, Funny
      --
      The original generic sig.
    2. Re:XKCD by celardore · · Score: 3, Funny
    3. Re:XKCD by doti · · Score: 2, Informative
      Don't forget the NO-RAPTORS t-shirt, at http://xkcd.com/store

      Say no to velociraptors (and all other members of the dromaeosaurid family). By wearing this shirt, you make your position clear: you do NOT want to be hunted down and eaten by raptors.
      --
      factor 966971: 966971
  4. Duh? by nih · · Score: 4, Funny

    seriously, i wish God would stop planting 'evidence' of dinosaurs, this is getting rather tiresome.

    --
    I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
    1. Re:Duh? by Shaitan+Apistos · · Score: 4, Funny

      seriously, i wish God would stop planting 'evidence' of dinosaurs, this is getting rather tiresome. Sigh. Why does everyone think Christians are stupid? We KNOW there were dinosaurs. Nothing in the bible says there weren't. They lived alongside man thousands of years ago and died out because they couldn't fit on the ark. Except the little ones which I can only assume were sinners.

      Duh.
    2. Re:Duh? by someone1234 · · Score: 2, Funny

      But, it is somewhat curious that there is such evidence only after God had seen the movie.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    3. Re:Duh? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      According to the Creation Museum there should be some caveman tracks nearby too.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    4. Re:Duh? by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      I thought it was the devil that was planting them to throw us off the scent or lead us away from the "true" knowledge or something like that.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    5. Re:Duh? by technococcus · · Score: 1

      No no no, when the flood was over and there wasn't anything to eat, God commanded the Christians to eat the dinosaurs because they were so tasty!

      Geez, what are they teaching you kids in Sunday school...

    6. Re:Duh? by spazekaat · · Score: 0

      They lived alongside man thousands of years ago and died out because they couldn't fit on the ark
      Don't forget the OMGPON^H^H^H^H^H^HUnicorns !!
    7. Re:Duh? by mrcleaver · · Score: 2, Funny

      The little ones did make it on the ark, they just evolved into birds afterwards.

    8. Re:Duh? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Except the little ones which I can only assume were sinners.

      Today, we call the lizards.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  5. raptor pack prey by King+Gabey · · Score: 1

    I wonder what other dinosaurs would be prey for the Utah raptor... as vicious as they may be, I'd imagine some might be still too big for them (except maybe calves)

  6. They walked in packs by Wolfier · · Score: 1

    Any evidence of hunting while in packs? They could had walked to their offices to work in packs, just like we do.

    1. Re:They walked in packs by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Pretty unlikely that they broke off as individuals to hunt. About the only analogy that would support that would be some sort of mass migration behavior like with birds. Hmmm...

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:They walked in packs by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      I'm more afraid of evidence that they could open doors.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    3. Re:They walked in packs by KidKadaver · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, this just establishes that they died in packs; perhaps also that they had cults and poor judgment.

  7. Blasphemy!! by Ronin+X · · Score: 4, Funny

    They were obediently following Adam and Eve around, and it was only 6000 years ago.  Blasphemers!

    --
    Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
    1. Re:Blasphemy!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > and it was only 6000 years ago. Blasphemers!

      6011, innumerate clod!

  8. pack hunters? by trybywrench · · Score: 3, Funny

    so velociraptors may have been pack hunters? thanks for the nightmares.

    --
    I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
    1. Re:pack hunters? by greenguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      TFA says there were six of them. I suppose that makes them six-pack hunters.

      I can identify with that.

      --
      What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
    2. Re:pack hunters? by owlnation · · Score: 1

      I suppose that makes them six-pack hunters.
      Oh great! Drunken packs of savage dinosaurs... just what we need... I wonder if they evolved into Jocks?

      Um, sorry... I mean, devolved.
  9. Artisan Tracker by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nah... The movie that comes to my mind is completely different.

    I am getting a picture of very clean cut, tall, dainty and somewhat immortal lithe man (with bow strapped across back, of course) darting back and forth across the plain. He sniffs here, looks there, describing what the signs indicate happened (all while you're seeing flashbacks to millions of years ago where the pack of raptors were hauling tail across the terrain with two little midget dinos tied to a couple raptors' backs because some dark T-Rex said "don't eat them".

    That's some tracker...

  10. Great News by GammaKitsune · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now all we need to find is some evidence of raptors being able to open up doors, and we'll have proof that Hollywood knows more about Dinosaurs than Science.

    --
    Gamertag: WyleType
    1. Re:Great News by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Now all we need to find is some evidence of raptors being able to open up doors, and we'll have proof that Hollywood knows more about Dinosaurs than Science.

      Eh, Hollywood sucks, but who is to say that they WOULDN'T have been able to figure out how to open a door, given the right motivation? My dog can open doors. Ever watch squirrels figure out "squirrel-proof" bird feeders? Ever seen a cat that was toilet trained?

      Granted, the mammalian brain has tens of millions of years of evolution over the dinos, but who is to say what they would have been capable of? Imagine if we actually were able to somehow obtain an intact DNA strand, clone them and observe their behavior? It's probably not possible, because the science behind Jurassic Park was flawed in this area, but just imagine if it was?

      Can you honestly say that you WOULDN'T go to a Jurassic Park if someone managed to pull it off?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Great News by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      Can you honestly say that you WOULDN'T go to a Jurassic Park if someone managed to pull it off?


      Every time the scene where they first see the dinos roaming about is shown, all I think is, "I'd give my entire life savings to visit such a place." I almost cry thinking about how cool it would be to walk with dinosaurs (present day birds, alligators, komodo dragons and other such creatures excluded).

      So yes, in my case I would do everything both within and outside my power to see such a place. Not a zoo but a real, honest-to-goodness park where they can roam free and be who they are.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Great News by rucs_hack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Eh, Hollywood sucks, but who is to say that they WOULDN'T have been able to figure out how to open a door, given the right motivation?

      If by motivation you mean claws you could fillet a buffalo with, then probably they could, at least with most of the doors I see.

      Granted, the mammalian brain has tens of millions of years of evolution over the dinos,

      The dinosaurs had no need for a large brain, they were the dominant species, most of them were big, there was food, water, it was warm, and they either ate each other or vegetation. Intelligence would not confer an evolutionary advantage.

      Same's true for most mammals today. They don't need large brains because what they have gives them all the advantages they need. We only got them because we were being stomped on, chased, mauled and eaten by almost anything else alive. It was get smart or die out. Ok that's a simplification, but how many truly smart top predators are there?

    4. Re:Great News by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Now all we need to find is some evidence of raptors being able to open up doors, and we'll have proof that Hollywood knows more about Dinosaurs than Science.

      Raptors can open doors, but they are slowed by them. They take 5 minutes to open the first door and half the time for each subsequent door. Remember, raptors run at 10m/s and they do not know fear.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    5. Re:Great News by businessnerd · · Score: 1

      You did finish the rest of the movie, right? I have to admit the park was pretty cool up until the dinosaurs started eating everyone.

      --
      "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
    6. Re:Great News by 2names · · Score: 1

      So yes, in my case I would do everything both within and outside my power to see such a place. Not a zoo but a real, honest-to-goodness park where they can roam free and be who they are.

      Sheesh. Lay off the dope, hippie.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    7. Re:Great News by tcc3 · · Score: 1

      Sure I'd go. Just not to the special preview before the opening. Wait a few weeks.

    8. Re:Great News by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      That part of the movie was a crock of shit though. The book was at least somewhat more realistic on this. When the fences went down, the game warden guy wasn't even worried about it at first, because most of the animals had already been shocked a few times and it only takes a handful of shock events to condition an animal to avoid the fences, whether or not they are energized.

      But let's look at the modern world. You know you can take a safari and get to within meters of apex predators without being attacked? You know that a lot of people go swimming in shark-infested waters all the time and you can count the number of annual shark attacks with your fingers.

      For an animal to attack you it either has to perceive you as pray or feel threatened by you. Most animals are justifiably leery of human beings and don't consider them as suitable pray under normal circumstances. I see no reason why dinosaurs would be any less controllable with modern technology then any of the other dangerous animals that we interact with.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:Great News by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      We only got them because we were being stomped on, chased, mauled and eaten by almost anything else alive

      And amazingly enough we survived in spite of all the disadvantages that our large brains bring. Like the complications of childbirth. How many other animals have birthing problems like we do? Or the fact that our young are completely helpless at birth, which while not exactly rare in the animal kingdom (common among mammals) is hardly an advantage.

      but how many truly smart top predators are there?

      Eh, off the top of my head, orcas and wolves both stand out as apex predators that are fairly intelligent. I could probably throw human beings onto that list, but that's probably cheating ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Great News by alx5000 · · Score: 1

      Mmmmmmmmm.... The makro sharks from Deep Blue Sea?

      --
      My 0.02 cents
    11. Re:Great News by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      You know that a lot of people go swimming in shark-infested waters all the time and you can count the number of annual shark attacks with your fingers.

      Yes, but that's due to my fingers still being on the end of my intact hands and arms because I don't go swimming in shark-infested waters.

    12. Re:Great News by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new slashdot XKCD Raptor meme.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    13. Re:Great News by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      Eh, off the top of my head, orcas and wolves both stand out as apex predators that are fairly intelligent

      I thought of the wolves thing myself, but actually their smart in their domain, but not able to think outside of, for want of a better term, the box. A lone wolf is usually not at all that efficient in the wild.

      Orca's? Well those be whales, and whales have large brains, but not, I seem to recall, that large for their body size. I'm not yet convinced as to the intelligence of whales. Not that I therefore approve of killing them or anything, but I wonder how much is real of their purported intelligence. Elegant maybe, beautiful and mysterious certainly, but really smart? I has a doubt.

      It would be nice for them to be around long enough for us to find out though...

    14. Re:Great News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how many truly smart top predators are there? If you've ever seen Dateline: To catch a predator, not many.
    15. Re:Great News by dwye · · Score: 1

      how many truly smart top predators are there?

      If you've ever seen Dateline: To catch a predator, not many.

      But if Dateline is catching them, they are NOT the top predator, Dateline is.

    16. Re:Great News by dwye · · Score: 1

      > how many truly smart top predators are there?

      How much intelligence does it take to sneak up on a leaf?

      You will find that predators are almost always smarter than their prey. After all, if the prey were smarter than their predators, they wouldn't get eaten, and the so-called predators would starve, then go extinct (or shift prey, at least).

    17. Re:Great News by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      For an animal to attack you it either has to perceive you as pray or feel threatened by you. Most animals are justifiably leery of human beings and don't consider them as suitable pray under normal circumstances.


      That's because, over the time that humans have been on the Earth, the animals that haven't been leery of humans have been hunted down by humans, exerting considerable selective pressure.

      Dinosaurs that magically (i.e., through sufficiently-advanced technology) reappeared would not, presumably, have the benefit of that selective pressure, and presuming that they were either predators that ate things for which humans were a reasonable match to whatever senses they used for prey identification, or just suitably territorial, would probably eat or attack humans without hesitation.
    18. Re:Great News by Yoozer · · Score: 1

      Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Let Hollywood get the facts about computers - ban the bleeping, swooshing, and fast scrolling text, as well as the ACCESS GRANTED and blowing up a single pixel into a high-resolution picture. That'd actually amaze me.

    19. Re:Great News by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      If you ever saw the Blue Planet episode where the female Orcas are teaching their young the techniques of sea-lion hunting on a beach in Patagonia, I think you'd have little doubt that they are intelligent and socialised creatures.

      The fact that this behaviour is passed down from generation to generation makes it, for me at least, qualify as a culture on the same sort of level as hunter-gatherers in human terms.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    20. Re:Great News by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      A lone wolf is usually not at all that efficient in the wild.

      That doesn't mean they aren't smart creatures though. That just means they are social creatures that do better in packs. How well do human beings cope with extended solitude? All /. relationship jokes aside, think about it. Why else would solitary confinement be considered punishment and extended solitary cruel and unusual?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:Great News by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      would probably eat or attack humans without hesitation.

      I dunno. It really doesn't take that many shock events for an animal (even a "dumb" one) to learn. Would I want to go up against a T-Rex with a cattle-prod? Hell no! But why would you be any more afraid of one in a controlled setting then you would be afraid of a tiger or lion in the same setting? Either one can kill you if it catches you without weapons or technology.

      Most predators also won't bother to hunt if they aren't hungry -- it's a waste of energy -- they never did explain (in either the book or the movie) why the presumably well-fed dinosaurs felt the need to go to such lengths to hunt humans. Ever been to an aquarium and seen the pray fish in the same tank with the sharks? The sharks completely ignore them because they are well fed by their handlers. Sharks have been around since the dinosaurs, largely unchanged from the present day, and if they can suppress their predatory instinct when not hungry, why wouldn't dinosaurs?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    22. Re:Great News by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      You know that a lot of people go swimming in shark-infested waters all the time and you can count the number of annual shark attacks with your fingers.

      Sharks took my fingers you insensitive clod!

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    23. Re:Great News by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, brains do confer a distinct advantage to predators. I don't mean speaking the Queen's English and making parlor conversation kind of brains; I mean the brains my cat shows when she approaches from the opposite side of the nearest tree to the squirrel she's stalking.

      Here's one distinct case of how brains can confer predatory advantage.. Marsupial tigers had a much stronger bite than the modern placental counterpart. Sabretoothed cats had their famous large canines. However, the modern large cats are smart enough to learn to bite their prey at the back of the neck where it counts, and that smarts, I'll wager, carries with it adaptability for the long term, provided we don't wipe them out or their habitat.

    24. Re:Great News by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      Sabretoothed cats had their famous large canines

      Those were for biting at the throat and severing veins only, if they hit bone they were very likely to break, and they weren't for tearing chunks out either, that might break them too. It was a choke or bleed to death thing, not a savage rip the throat out affair. Their strategy was apparently much the same as modern cats, with the requirement for sabre teeth being brought about because their prey was big, and thus had large necks to get through.

    25. Re:Great News by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Most predators also won't bother to hunt if they aren't hungry -- it's a waste of energy -- they never did explain (in either the book or the movie) why the presumably well-fed dinosaurs felt the need to go to such lengths to hunt humans.


      There's a couple of possibilities that immediately spring to mind: they weren't all that well-fed to start out with, either so that the savage feeding displays would be more impressive, or because they just hadn't worked out the right feeding yet; or the carnivores were (to keep the tour more convenient) packed too close together with inadequate territory, and were stressed and extra aggressive because of that.

      Ever been to an aquarium and seen the pray fish in the same tank with the sharks? The sharks completely ignore them because they are well fed by their handlers.


      Some sharks, sure. Great whites, not so much. (See, e.g., the last couple paragraphs here.) While certainly it is by no means certain that T-rex or other predatory dinosaurs would have the same problems with temperament, I don't think you can categorically say they wouldn't either.
  11. 6000 by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 2, Funny

    is the number of slashdotters that simultaneous think they should attempt to post something witty using this number.

    --
    sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
  12. No proof of hunting by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Even if you prove that they were together, it still does not mean they were hunting together. It is possible that they have just finished their end-sem examn and were hanging out together to relax with some beer around a camp fire. Or they were playing three a side basketball. Or just watching TV. Or they five of them were the chumps and the sixth one is the Amway salesraptor. There are so many possibilities, these guys are jumping to conclusion creating the image of vicious hunters and contaminating the jury pool.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:No proof of hunting by trongey · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... they were playing three a side basketball...

      This is rediculous. Have you ever tried to play 3on3 without anybody's paths crossing?
      For that matter, what are the chances that six raptors with beers would be able to walk a straight line?
      You clearly need to put more thought into your hypotheses before you present them. Now go and completely rewrite this paper.
      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    2. Re:No proof of hunting by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Starting with removing that silly "3 a side" phrase. It ain't an English sport.

  13. China? by Numbah+One · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Raptors were Chinese?

  14. Perhaps they didn't hunt together at all by Lucas123 · · Score: 0

    Has anyone considered the possibility that they just died together, huddled en masse in fear as humans came along to reft their land from them?

    1. Re:Perhaps they didn't hunt together at all by vidarh · · Score: 2, Funny

      If they were so amazingly smart as to know that humans would come along a few tens of million years after their time, yet stupid enough to worry about it.... Nah, I think I'll discount that idea.

    2. Re:Perhaps they didn't hunt together at all by duggi · · Score: 1

      Your idea might be interesting, but you spoiled it with the humans part. They might just have died together and we found the fossil record for that? From the article, It is just a collection of foot prints(non-overlapping is one key) and the group behaviour is deduced from this: The nature of the rock tells us that there cannot have been much time between the tracks being made and being buried by stream deposits in the Cretaceous period Maybe we are thinking about the group behaviour because we saw the movie? They might be hunting each other too(a possibility?). I think the above two observations are insufficient for any deduction. I would guess that they hunt alone, as all powerful non-social animals do(cheetah,tiger,crocs). But maybe thats why I am not a paleontologist.

      --
      http://monkeynesianeconomics.blogspot.com/
    3. Re:Perhaps they didn't hunt together at all by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, perhaps. I was just trying to be funny. I'm going to have to work on that.

  15. Dr. Grant was right! by Token_Internet_Girl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Try to imagine yourself in the Cretaceous Period. You get your first look at this "six foot turkey" as you enter a clearing. He moves like a bird, lightly, bobbing his head. And you keep still because you think that maybe his visual acuity is based on movement like T-Rex, he'll lose you if you don't move. But no, not Velociraptor. You stare at him, and he just stares right back. And that's when the attack comes. Not from the front, but from the side, from the other two 'raptors you didn't even know were there. Because Velociraptor's a pack hunter, you see, he uses coordinated attack patterns and he is out in force today. And he slashes at you with this... a six-inch retractable claw, like a razor, on the the middle toe. He doesn't bother to bite your jugular like a lion, say... no no. He slashes at you here... or here... or maybe across the belly, spilling your intestines. The point is... you are alive when they start to eat you. So you know... try to show a little respect.
    "

    --
    Sure baby, I'll give you my phone number...in Hex
    1. Re:Dr. Grant was right! by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He doesn't bother to bite your jugular like a lion, say... no no. He slashes at you here... or here... or maybe across the belly, spilling your intestines

      I've always said that we mammals don't really have it that bad. Yeah, being eaten by a lion probably sucks, but at least he makes a halfway clean kill (closes the airway or bites into an artery and you bleed out) before him and his buds start to eat you.

      Go a little lower on the chain then mammals and you'll find out just how much of a raving bitch mother nature truly is. The lion doesn't cripple you, lay his eggs inside you, to eventually hatch and consume you from the inside out while your are still alive. The lion doesn't dissolve your insides and suck them out while you lay there paralyzed from his venom.

      Wow, I'm glad I'm on the top of the food chain.......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Dr. Grant was right! by Token_Internet_Girl · · Score: 1

      Wow, I'm glad I'm on the top of the food chain.......
      You're a CEO of a Fortune 500 company?? Can we go on a date pls :(
      --
      Sure baby, I'll give you my phone number...in Hex
    3. Re:Dr. Grant was right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, being eaten by a lion probably sucks

      Understatement of the week.......

    4. Re:Dr. Grant was right! by PixelScuba · · Score: 2, Funny

      Token_Internet_Girl: Can we go on a date pls :(

      It's a trick. Get an Axe.

    5. Re:Dr. Grant was right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good christ there is nothing in this world I hate more than spiders. THEY LIQUIFY YOUR INSIDES AND DRINK THEM AND YOU CAN'T DO A DAMN THING OH JESUS

      I swear, if spiders ever got to the size of small dogs and roved around in packs, I would carry a shotgun with me everywhere I went.

    6. Re:Dr. Grant was right! by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

      If we weren't on the top of the food chain, I would certainly be an advocate of mass extinction! (till we were on top, of course)

      --
      You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
    7. Re:Dr. Grant was right! by ozbird · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't worry, there's still mind control parasites to contend with - tinfoil hats won't help against those.

    8. Re:Dr. Grant was right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He doesn't bother to bite your jugular like a lion, say... no no. He slashes at you here... or here... or maybe across the belly, spilling your intestines. The point is... you are alive when they start to eat you. So you know... try to show a little respect."

      No, not all right. Based on experimental work (see the article above), the claws probably weren't very effective for disemboweling. They were more for grasping and hanging onto things, like a cat's claws. Then they probably did bite the neck or any other part that was conveniently deadly.

      But I'm totally in agreement about the "try to show a little respect" part.

    9. Re:Dr. Grant was right! by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, there's still mind control parasites to contend with - tinfoil hats won't help against those. Uhh, have you ever seen a mind control parasite penetrate a tinfoil headpiece? Sorry, Mr. CIA/FBI/NSA/KGB/FSB, I know you are all one in the same vying for world domination, and your attempt to persuade me to remove my cranial protection is laughable at best.

    10. Re:Dr. Grant was right! by pipingguy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hermes Conrad: On to new business. Today's mission is to go to the brain slug planet.
      Dr. Zoidberg: What are we going to do there?
      Hermes Conrad: Nothing. Just walk around not wearing a helmet.

  16. It was just ONE Velociraptor.. by hansraj · · Score: 5, Funny

    .. with lots of free time and a sense of humor. :|

  17. Jurassic Park by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Seems to have won a number of educated guesses about how big dinosaurs were and how they acted. Its nice to see a film actually get things (more or less right).

    The only thing that it seems they may come a cropper on is skin colouring and coating as it appears that velociraptors may have been feathered.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Jurassic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's largely because Michael Crichton actually read up a little on dinosaurs before he wrote the book. As I understand it, pack hunting was theorized for raptors before then, but simply didn't have any evidence.

    2. Re:Jurassic Park by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      First, it wasn't a movie that "got things right", it was a book that the movie happened to be loosely based on.

      Second, no one these days is really doubting that Velociraptor is a small chicken sized scavenger that lived in Asia, not a human sized predator that lived in North America. Crichton's book was more likely about a different dinosaur, the Deinonychus, which for a brief period of time (which happened to be while he was writing his book) was classified by some to be a type of Velociraptor. That classification didn't last long, but Jurassic Park was such a success that the term 'raptor' stuck and has become the nickname for the entire Dromaeosauridae family (which includes the Deinonychus and several other large apparent predators).

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    3. Re:Jurassic Park by Draped+Crusader · · Score: 1

      The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park had no feathers because part of their DNA was missing and had to be spliced with the DNA from frogs.
      They were mutants or something.

  18. The real motivation behind the tracks people by rubenerd · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Clearly these dinosaurs weren't running millions of years ago and because they were hunting in packs... they were running 6000 years ago from great floods and packs of creationists. Even I didn't need to RTFA to know that.

    --
    Cheers, ~ Ruben
  19. Muldoon was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    clever girl(s)

  20. Additional evidence by Lurker2288 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The paths of the six 90 kilo raptors do not overlap where the animals walked alongside a river or stream. '"The odds of these tracks being made by different individuals that just happen to be moving in the same direction, without their tracks stepping on one another, are small," said Jerry D. Harris, director of paleontology at Dixie State College."

    Wow, they must really be smart. They travel single-file, to conceal their number.

    1. Re:Additional evidence by Chode2235 · · Score: 1

      ...but the blast marks are too precise to be from raptors.

    2. Re:Additional evidence by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      They didn't have sidewalks back in those days. Maybe it was just their version of "step on a crack break your mothers back"! Sorry for that, I'm logging out now...

  21. yes, they hunt in packs by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    but they are not very good going after you if you hide in the ceiling tiles, they find kitchen floors slippery, and a good reflective aluminum surface should be good enough to give at least one of them a banged head

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:yes, they hunt in packs by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      The true way to defeat a raptor is by running back into your Mystery Mansion filled with trap doors, secret weapons and a mirror room a la Enter The Dragon.

      --
      Balderdash!
  22. Amway by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    "Amway salesraptor" Wow, that is scary. Almost as scary as a pair of bible punching Jehova's Witness raptors.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  23. raptor math by steak · · Score: 0, Redundant

    http://x008.uploaderx.net/x/details/913_raptors.jpg

    i love number 2

    2. you are the center of a 20m equilateral triangle with a raptor at each corner. the top raptor has a wounded leg and is limited to a top speed of 10 m/s. the raptors run toward you. at what angle should you run to maximize the time you stay alive.

    1. Re:raptor math by dnwq · · Score: 1
    2. Re:raptor math by Fusselwurm · · Score: 1

      original here:

      http://xkcd.com/135/

  24. Let's find out by Nonillion · · Score: 1

    So why don't we build a facility to breed them from DNA extracted from mosquitoes trapped in Amber, run the place with Silicon Graphics workstations with some smart ass obese slovenly IT guy... Oh wait..

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
    1. Re:Let's find out by Mammoth81 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Where do I go to apply for the job of "some smart ass obese slovenly IT guy"?
      I have all the qualifications:
      Smart ass, check.
      Obese, check.
      Slovenly, check.
      IT guy, check.

      And do not think i am kidding, i am all of the above!

    2. Re:Let's find out by MiniMike · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fortunately, the difficulty in obtaining the dinosaur DNA and SGI workstations is more than compensated for by the ease of finding a smart ass obese slovenly IT guy...

  25. Obligatory. by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1, Funny

    "They're moving in herds... they do move in herds!"

    1. Re:Obligatory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      around here they move in Hurds....

  26. Best place to see dinosaur skeletons in Bay Area? by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 1

    I live in the SF Bay Area. Where is the nearest place I can take my curious children to see full sized assembled dinosaur fossil skeletons? Thank you for the slightly off topic post.

  27. Dude, it's not planted by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, it's not planted as such. At some point the great game designer in the sky thought it would be fun to have some big stuff running around the high level areas. And some 90 kilo birds that He planned to use later as the Blood Elves' mount.

    But you know how that ends up working. You tweak a little here, a little there, and next thing you know they're whining that you've nerfed them to death and start cancelling their subscriptions in droves.

    So, you know, cut Him some slack. What do you expect Him to do? Hide that they ever existed? Like that ever works. Try deleting just a post or two on a board and you end up with a whole rebellion on your hand. Try denying that the game ever had dinosaurs? Ooer... noone does... ermm...

    Well, OK, so Sony's propaganda machine does try to present the new animal breeding on SWG like some revolutionary new feature, and not, say, like they had animal handlers in the first place and they removed them.

    But I figure God is better than Sony, you know? (Ok, ok, so that's not hard to achieve;) He's not affraid to admit that some things weren't that well balanced in the first place and had to be changed.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  28. Re:Best place to see dinosaur skeletons in Bay Are by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    Try calling the California Academy of Sciences on Howard. 415-321-8000

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  29. Re:Best place to see dinosaur skeletons in Bay Are by Chapter80 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I live in the SF Bay Area. Where is the nearest place I can take my curious children to see full sized assembled dinosaur fossil skeletons?
    Simple. Just stay where you are.
    No need to travel to a new place. Simply travel back in time 100 million years.
  30. that is not news... by garompeta · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was already known that Dinosaurs were sociable animals. They are still alive in a special place. It is called Congress.

    1. Re:that is not news... by Jehosephat2k · · Score: 1

      ... or Toronto. http://www.nba.com/raptors/

  31. Historical inaccuracies by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The movie is a work of fiction. Once again, an American movie director distorts history to satisfy American audiences. This is an affront to our history-- why do we tollerate it?

    The movie shows American packs. However, any history book will show that those are clearly British packs.

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    1. Re:Historical inaccuracies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The movie is a work of fiction[...] why do we tollerate it? Perhaps because it's spelled correctly?
    2. Re:Historical inaccuracies by Chysn · · Score: 1

      > The movie shows American packs. However, any history book will show that those are clearly British packs.

      What's all this, then?

      --
      --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
      -- See?
    3. Re:Historical inaccuracies by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Apparently it's my lame attempt at a joke. I was talking about American vs. British *dinosaurs*, but that was misunderstood, somehow.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  32. Re:Duh? It was the flood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dinosaurs were running away from Noah's Flood.
    Large numbers of entangled fossils are also found where the water swept them together.

  33. The real question by Grandiloquence · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The real question is, can they open doors?

  34. One little GOTO by GogglesPisano · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Re:One little GOTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:One little GOTO by julesh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to mention here (Randall answering audience questions at UIUC, including what the raptor entry points for the building are; non-torrent versions here; definitely worth downloading).

  35. Wrong you are, limey twit by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    any history book will show that those are clearly British packs

    Considering it was before the 1707 Act of Union (or whatever that treaty was that "united" England and Scotland),
    they may have been English packs (probably rugby hooligans) but they were not British packs.

    Well, I am American, so I've probably got redcoat history wrong too. But they weren't British packs.

    1. Re:Wrong you are, limey twit by owlnation · · Score: 1

      Well, I am American, so I've probably got redcoat history wrong too. But they weren't British packs.
      Quite correct -ish.
      • 1603 Union of The Crowns
      • 1707 Act of Union (Parliaments)
      • 1995 Braveheart -- The Act of Gibson (the rewriting of history and the beginning of the end)
      • 1997 Scotland Act (The Act of Fools), The End.
      Since Britain refers to the island also, they could still be British Packs. But judging by their behavior I'd suggest Scots or Irish in all likelihood.
      (before any nationalists switch flame-on, I was born in Edinburgh, but consider myself British. There is no country of Scotland. There was, and (sadly) there may yet be. But right now, it only exists in tiny nazi-onalist minds.)
    2. Re:Wrong you are, limey twit by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      Well, I am American, so I've probably got redcoat history wrong too. But they weren't British packs. Quite wrong. The Act of Union created the United Kingdom. Britain and Britons predated, by quite some time (like by 2000 years), the creation of the United Kingdom.
    3. Re:Wrong you are, limey twit by greginnj · · Score: 1

      any history book will show that those are clearly British packs
      Considering it was before the 1707 Act of Union (or whatever that treaty was that "united" England and Scotland), they may have been English packs (probably rugby hooligans) but they were not British packs.
      Could we please agree to at least use the correct term for them: Pax Britannia ?

      A grateful nation thanks you.
      --
      Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
  36. Eggs by psychicsword · · Score: 1

    Be sure not to take them or they will hunt you down.
    Even if you hide them in... lets say a camera case.

  37. Screw Beowulf, here's the prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What we're imagining is a velociraptor cluster.

  38. Re:Best place to see dinosaur skeletons in Bay Are by TimToady · · Score: 1

    So you think the SF Bay Area was in exactly the same place 100 million years ago, do you? Quite apart from the motion of the earth around the sun, and the motion of the sun around the galaxy, and the motion of galaxy through space, the terranes that now comprise the Bay Area were off in at least six different parts of the world at that time. So you'll have to be a bit more specific...

  39. You call that a headline? by LA+Thierry · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wake me up when there's fossil evidence that Jesus had a pet dinosaur.

  40. Military formation by Bob-taro · · Score: 2, Funny

    "The odds of these tracks being made by different individuals that just happen to be moving in the same direction, without their tracks stepping on one another, are small,"

    It goes way beyond that. This proves that they were marching 6 abreast. If some were walking behind the others, the footprints would still have overlapped. The theory of caveman dinosaur cavalry formations has never had any fossil evidence ... until now!

    --
    Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
  41. Re:Best place to see dinosaur skeletons in Bay Are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Not quite in the neighborhood, but if you ever come to Europe, pop over to the Natural History Museum in Brussels. It has the largest dinosaurus collection of Europe and it just finished a renovation of 25mio . In the free-of-charge opening Weekend (last week). there were 18000 visitors (the museum is now closed again for refurbishing). There were 3 hour waiting lines: http://www.naturalsciences.be/index_html

  42. Jurassic Park IV was right about 'raptors' by Speefnarkle1982 · · Score: 1

    "Jurassic Park IV was right about 'raptors' " Jurassic Park had the right ideas about "raptor" dinosaurs - they were big, they were bad, and they were Grand Chess Masters...

  43. Re:Best place to see dinosaur skeletons in Bay Are by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 1

    I love Brussels. Does this museum contain any discovered fossils of the ancestors of the Manneken Pis?

  44. Lions hunt in packs by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Therefore tigers, leopards, cheetahs, cougars, bobcats, servals and ocelots must all hunt in packs. And that's how we do Science on Slashdot, apparently.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  45. Why not? by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 1

    I realize you were being funny, but your post made me wonder why anyone really would doubt that they were pack hunters. Wolves and other wild canines hunt in packs. A few species of big cats hunt in groups. Why wouldn't the small carnivores of sixty million years ago also hunt in packs?

    1. Re:Why not? by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Because eagles are solo hunters, just like the rest of the modern birds of prey? I'm pretty sure that there are species of duck that hunt solo, and migrate in groups.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
  46. "Films got it right...." by cyberfunkr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No... Michael Crichton got it right. Which isn't that surprising considering his scientific background.

    Yes, this is a Wikipedia entry, but it still gives out reasonably good idea of his education.

    Please stop giving Spielberg credit for another mans educated guess.

    1. Re:"Films got it right...." by lgw · · Score: 1

      Crichton's raptors were normal-size. Spielberg wanted big raptors for the movie, so thay'd be more scary. Thus, when big-raptor remains were discovered that were dubbed "Spielberg raptors" not "Crichton raptors". Also, Crichton's a hack who's never managed a satisfactory ending to anything he's ever written.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:"Films got it right...." by H0D_G · · Score: 1

      Michael Crichton may have got pack hunting right, but he got nanotechnology (Prey) and climate change (State of Fear) wrong.

      --
      Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
    3. Re:"Films got it right...." by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Crichton's a hack who's never managed a satisfactory ending to anything he's ever written.
      Which is especially interesting since he's only really got the one story:

      A small group of people gets cut off from society in dangerous circumstances. They get picked off one by one until a very few remaining people prevent the big disaster. (...or so they thought, if a sequel is in the offing)
      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:"Films got it right...." by lgw · · Score: 1

      No, no., it's "a very few remaining people try in vain to prevent the disatser, then the deux ex machina fixes everything, the end". ;)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  47. Re:Best place to see dinosaur skeletons in Bay Are by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 1

    Not so. Since the universe is infinite, defining a center point is arbitrary. By choosing the ground beneath my feet as the center point of the universe, going back in time will simply reverse the effect of the various velocities you see affecting my position by defining your center point elsewhere :)

    --
    It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
  48. Of Course it's Planted by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Come on now, dinosaur tracks? Tracks in a riverbed where the river is powerful enough to wash their bones downstream. Oceans and seas came and went, mountain ranges were raised up and eroded to nothing since the time of the dinosaur, yet their tracks still exist? Of course they're a plant.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  49. Evidence? Where? by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

    Really all this concludes is that there are multiples of these dinosaurs in the same place at the same time; not that they hunted in packs. For all we know, they might have been fighting each other, mating or coming together to die of old age or starvation. Maybe there was a shortage of food and a particularly large dinosaur wandered into the same area as they were...so they all charged the big guy down. But without using any known "pack tactics" to do so (i.e. just using their normal solitary hunting tactics).
    Sorry but until the exception becomes the standard in fossil evidence, I refuse to believe it.

    --
    Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
  50. ... and can we get one thing clear ? by The+Sith+Lord · · Score: 2, Informative

    Those dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were NOT "raptors", but more closely resembled the deinonycus.

    Velociraptors were smaller, and had longer, crocodile like jaws.

    This has been annoying the crap out of me since Jurrasic Park first came out.

    1. Re:... and can we get one thing clear ? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I bet they would have listened to you if you'd had sent them your home video featuring those beasts live.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  51. Re:Best place to see dinosaur skeletons in Bay Are by Bootard · · Score: 1

    If you're in the east bay, you might want to stop by the Valley Life Sciences Building (usually abbreviated VLSB) and their Paleontology Museum on the UC Berkeley campus. They have a lot of cool stuff, although for most of it not necessarily from a child's perspective. However, what they *do* have is a full sized assembled T-Rex, which is pretty impressive to see, for curious children of all ages.

    --
    exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
  52. Re:Best place to see dinosaur skeletons in Bay Are by dwye · · Score: 1

    > Where is the nearest place I can take my curious children
    > to see full sized assembled dinosaur fossil skeletons?

    Since other posters suggested as far away as Europe, I feel free to add this:

    The Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, PA displays actual fossil dinosaur skeletons. Most places just display plaster or fiberglass castings, usually painted to look like the original rock. They have a very nice collection, including a T-Rex, an allosaurus, a stegosaurus, and a Diplodocus carnegii (guess why it is named that) that takes up most of the hall. Going to the (in same building) library was fun, growing up.

  53. Book of Daniel: Bell the Dragon by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, not Jesus, but in the book of Daniel, you can read about a dragon called Bel in Babylon:
    1:23 Now there was a large dragon, and the Babylonians used to revere it. 1:24 The king said to Daniel, "Surely you can't claim that this is not a living god. So worship it!" But Daniel replied, "I will worship the Lord my God alone, for he is the living God. 1:26 But, O king, if you will grant me authority I will put the dragon to death using neither sword nor staff." The king replied, "I grant you authority."

    Most of the dragon stories (and most stories about other gods) were excised from the Bible by King James, but this one slipped through.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  54. Re:Best place to see dinosaur skeletons in Bay Are by TimToady · · Score: 1

    Well, even leaving conservation of momentum out of it, before you sign up for the kind of time machine that tracks the ground under your feet, you'd better calculate the odds that the ground beneath your feet today was a pool of magma 100 million years ago. :)

  55. Finding the best path by mark99 · · Score: 1

    You would have to use calculus of variations to do this properly I think.

    The way I understand the question the raptor is always running at you. So the question is what path has the longest run until the raptor hits you.

    Still seems hard. Not sure how I would set it up. Didn't do a lot of CofV in my university days, and none after it.

  56. Incorrect nomenclature by TechnicolourSquirrel · · Score: 1
    Dromaeosaur is *not* the 'more formal' name for Velociraptors. They are two separate species. In fact each is its own genus, represented by the two 'type species' (i.e. meaning the species whose discovery was first used to identify the genus): Dromaeosaurus albertensis, and Velociraptor mongoliensis. Note that these are both scientific names, and both equally formal.

    Now, both of those species happen to fall into a larger grouping of relate fossils called the Dromaeosauridae -- and in that sense they could both be referred to as 'dromaeosaurs' (though not 'Dromaeosaurus'). But that would be a less formal and less specific way to refer to them.