Maori Legend of Man-Eating Birds is True

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Maori Legend of Man-Eating Birds is True

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 14, 2009 @03:58PM from the beautiful-plumage dept.

jerryatrix writes "Legends of the New Zealand Maori tell of giant man-eating birds. New scientific evidence proves that these birds did exist and were around the same time as humans in New Zealand. From the article, 'Scientists now think the stories handed down by word of mouth and depicted in rock drawings refer to Haast's eagle, a raptor that became extinct just 500 years ago.'"

338 comments

so... by brainstem · 2009-09-14 16:02 · Score: 5, Funny

So it wasn't the dingo, after all.
1. Re:so... by Rophuine · 2009-09-14 16:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Well, it was DIRECTLY the dingo, but then the eagle got the dingo. It's called the food chain, and we're not always at the top!
2. Re:so... by MichaelSmith · 2009-09-14 16:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  So it wasn't the dingo, after all.
  No dingos in NZ.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
3. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 16:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Of course not! Not any more -- did you see the size of those Dingo eating birds?
4. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 16:17 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Actually there is no evidence that there was ever any land animals whatsoever in NZ except for lizards, insects and spiders. Unless you count flightless birds.
5. Re:so... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · 2009-09-14 16:21 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Actually there is no evidence that there was ever any land animals whatsoever in NZ except for lizards, insects and spiders. Unless you count flightless birds.
  So, aside from the sheep-eating lizards, poisonous insects, deadly spiders, and territorial (and vicious) birds... you'd be perfectly safe.
6. Re:so... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · 2009-09-14 16:22 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  we're not always at the top
  Sometimes it's nice not to be on top.
  
  You know, change it up a little.
  Keeps things fresh.
  Puts a little spice in things.
  
  Who am I kidding... *sigh*
7. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 16:55 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You totally forgot New Zealand's only native land mammal, the bat. There's an amazing video of the native bat running, because it'd evolved to be flightless like the birds.
  But, the Haast Eagle was unconfirmed before this? I've been brought up and it's always been a fact to me.
8. Re:so... by flibbajobber · 2009-09-14 17:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The actual news here is that they co-existed with the Maori - it was previously thought they had died out before the Maori arrived. The existence of the Haast's Eagle was well known and there exist Moa bones with massive gouges from being attacked by these Eagles.
9. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 17:17 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually there is no evidence that there was ever any land animals whatsoever in NZ except for lizards, insects and spiders. Unless you count flightless birds.
  So, aside from the sheep-eating lizards, poisonous insects, deadly spiders, and territorial (and vicious) birds... you'd be perfectly safe.
  Last I checked we only had man eating birds, and the odd man eating Maori.
10. Re:so... by mi · 2009-09-14 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  So it wasn't the dingo, after all.
  And not the corporations either:
  
  The eagle is thought to have died out after the arrival, 1000 years ago, of humans, who exterminated the giant moa.
  At least, the corporate greed is not to blame this time...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
11. Re:so... by Dunbal · 2009-09-14 17:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Actually there is no evidence that there was ever any land animals whatsoever in NZ except for lizards, insects and spiders.
  However unlike Australia, not all of them are poisonous and potentially fatal to humans...
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
12. Re:so... by w0mprat · 2009-09-14 18:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You totally forgot New Zealand's only native land mammal, the bat. There's an amazing video of the native bat running, because it'd evolved to be flightless like the birds.
  The native bat is not flightless. It does a funny scamper thing along the ground but this does not make it flightless.
  
  But, the Haast Eagle was unconfirmed before this? I've been brought up and it's always been a fact to me.
  Haasts Eagle bones were identified in 1870 by Julius Von Haast. This thing preyed on the Moa, a 12-foot tall 500lb flightless bird. There is no question that a human would have been a much easier much more defenseless snack than a Moa. It would be unlikely that they didn't eat the occasional human.
  
  When the first polynesian settlers showed up they would have climbed out of their Waka http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/waka-canoes and on to the lunch menu.
  
  --
  After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
13. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 19:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  So, aside from the sheep-eating lizards, poisonous insects, deadly spiders, and territorial (and vicious) birds... you'd be perfectly safe.
  Deadly spiders? New Zealand has no snakes and only one species of poisonous spider (the Katipo) that's rare, endangered, and found only on coastlands (eg. not inland). The next worse thing (probably a whitetail spider) merely makes you nauseous, and is not deadly.
  Because of the tectonic plate movement New Zealand drifted off before animals and before evolution favoured overtly vicious creatures, let alone poisonous creatures.
  New Zealand was a land full of birds before humans arrived in about 1000 AD, bringing rats and other animals.
14. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 19:42 · Score: 0
  
  Put more simply, there were no mammals in New Zealand until humans (Moriori, some earlier settlers?) came along and imported other mammals.
15. Re:so... by Daimanta · 2009-09-14 20:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "The actual news here is that they co-existed with the Maori"
  If by co-exist you mean EAT THEM, then yes, there was a lot of co-existence.
  
  --
  Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
16. Re:so... by pthisis · 2009-09-14 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  Bats are still mammals, and there are certainly species of bats in NZ that predate humans.
  
  --
  rage, rage against the dying of the light
17. Re:so... by SlashWombat · 2009-09-14 20:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Deadly spiders? New Zealand has no snakes and only one species of poisonous spider
  That's because the Maori's ate them all. Seriously, the bloody Maori's are the only native race to ever get a treaty from the vicious pommy bastard tribe!
18. Re:so... by digitig · 2009-09-14 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  Deadly spiders? New Zealand has no snakes and only one species of poisonous spider
  That's because the Maori's ate them all. Seriously, the bloody Maori's are the only native race to ever get a treaty from the vicious pommy bastard tribe!
  Not wise to eat poisonous spiders. Venomous ones, now that could be another matter...
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
19. Re:so... by gkai · 2009-09-14 20:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You totally forgot New Zealand's only native land mammal, the bat. There's an amazing video of the native bat running, because it'd evolved to be flightless like the birds.
  Haasts Eagle bones were identified in 1870 by Julius Von Haast. This thing preyed on the Moa, a 12-foot tall 500lb flightless bird. There is no question that a human would have been a much easier much more defenseless snack than a Moa. It would be unlikely that they didn't eat the occasional human.
  A human much easier meal than a moa? The first humans before they knew about Haast eagle maybe, then the occasional child or woman, and then it was over for the easy meals, more likely encounter was full grown Maori males looking for a vengence and the high status of coming back in the tribe with Haast eagle beak, talons and feathers...
  Imho it was the occasional human meal was what caused the extinction of Haast eagle, probably more than overhunting of the Moas: No easy meal after the first few unaware victims, and systematic destruction of nests, youngs and preying adults afterwards...just like all other predators meeting the homo sapiens and having the bad idea (well, more the natural idea not yet eradicated by darwinian evolution) of thinking "this naked monkey looks like easy meal".
  And not only eat the good old homo sapiens, but also eating any of his food stock would turn a bad idea for long term survival: RIP wolves, american lions, lynx, ...: a top predator sharing territory with a sufficiently dense human population is doomed.
20. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 20:48 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, so it's man eating predatory bats now.... [citation needed]
21. Re:so... by digitig · 2009-09-14 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  "Predate" or "pre-date"? Or both? In this context it's hard to tell.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
22. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 21:11 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, corporations are people too you insensitive clod!
23. Re:so... by mike2R · 2009-09-14 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's because the Maori's ate them all. Seriously, the bloody Maori's are the only native race to ever get a treaty from the vicious pommy bastard tribe!
  That's an interesting assertion. How are you defining native? And treaty? (I'm assuming that 'vicious pommy bastard tribe' refers to us inhabitants of the sceptred isle) Surely Britain must have had a number of treaties with Indian principalities (although I suppose that would have been the East India Company rather than the British state). I thought however that Britain did enter into treaties with a number of native American tribes around the time of US independence.
  
  --
  This sig all sigs devours
24. Re:so... by Hognoxious · 2009-09-14 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  For maximum lulz, you must spell it "corporation$".
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
25. Re:so... by gronofer · 2009-09-14 21:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually there is no evidence that there was ever any land animals whatsoever in NZ except for lizards, insects and spiders. Unless you count flightless birds.
  I think the usual claim is no mammals except for bats. There were other animals that you didn't mention, such as worms and centipedes.
26. Re:so... by Hognoxious · 2009-09-14 21:38 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  ..: a top predator sharing territory with a sufficiently dense human population is doomed.
  What have Texans got to do with it?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
27. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 22:27 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  So we knew they existed and we knew that the Maori told stories of and painted pictures of something remarkably similar yet we decided that the Maori knew about it because of all the Maori archeologists? I don't get why it would just be assumed that the stories and paintings were about snuffleupagus
28. Re:so... by Hal_Porter · 2009-09-14 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  Whoosh.
  X-Mod-Mindfuck: that's the sound of a swinging pendant, not a low flying joke
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
29. Re:so... by EatHam · 2009-09-14 23:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Thanks for ruining the joke, Captain Pedantic.
30. Re:so... by Scrameustache · 2009-09-14 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  There is no question that a human would have been a much easier much more defenseless snack than a Moa.
  I have a question: what made you think of Maoris as "defenseless"?
  Was it the full face carved tattoos?
  
  --
  You can't take the sky from me...
31. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 00:22 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, that is a bird! I have never seen one up close, but this is a bird. May I take your bird back to camp as my prisoner?
32. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  "But, the Haast Eagle was unconfirmed before this? I've been brought up and it's always been a fact to me."
  Wait....you ARE a Haast Eagle?
33. Re:so... by Pikoro · 2009-09-15 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  squirrel!
  
  --
  "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
34. Re:so... by robthebloke · 2009-09-15 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Damn. I just knew those tales of St George were true!
35. Re:so... by nazsco · 2009-09-15 02:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  because it'd evolved to be flightless like the birds.
  You mean 'was designed to'.
  
  --
  I don't mind the karma burn, just can't let a joke slip by
36. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, it's more like unlike Australia, none of them are poisonous or potentially fatal to humans... Unless you're allergic to wasps.
37. Re:so... by Omniscient+Lurker · 2009-09-15 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Europeans have lots of pictures of dragons, we won't believe them til we find bones.
38. Re:so... by clone53421 · 2009-09-15 03:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You know, those legends would be easily explained if "dragons" turned out to be some sort of fire-breathing dinosaur, but we're not allowed to entertain notions of dinosaurs coexisting with humans in the time-line of biological evolution.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
39. Re:so... by berbo · 2009-09-15 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  My new favorite band name: Captain Pedantic and the JokeKillers!
40. Re:so... by steelfood · 2009-09-15 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  the odd man eating Maori.
  So what would even men eat?
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
41. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  Look guy. He's Admiral Pedantic not Captain Pedantic.
42. Re:so... by Calithulu · 2009-09-15 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Only in America. In New Zealand they're just really influential businesses.
43. Re:so... by Nerrd · 2009-09-15 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Its all a matter of perspective. I'm quite certain dinosaurs still coexist with humans, in fact, we seem to enjoy them batter dipped and deep fried.
44. Re:so... by Foobar+of+Borg · 2009-09-15 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Last I checked we only had man eating birds, and the odd man eating Maori.
  Apparently, you also have shotgun-wielding guys in dresses that like desecrating churches, like this guy. On a related note, this story makes me wonder if there has ever been any evidence for the Naga or the Garuda (sans mythology, of course).
  
  --
  Similar to the upcoming US election results
45. Re:so... by commodore64_love · 2009-09-15 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's because the few dinosaurs that survived the Asteroid Extinction evolved into warm-blooded feathered lizards... and by the time homo erectus arose, those feather lizards had become birds.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
46. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  I hereby grant you permission to entertain the notion of "dragons", unicorns, angels, giants, and whatever other mythical creature you can think of as having evolved and gone extinct without leaving a trace of evidence in the fossil record.
  When I was a kid I had a book called Flight of the Dragons which was written as coffee table book and pursued this line of thought. It was quite entertaining as was the "Tourist's guide to Transylvania", and a historical record of the combat spacecraft used in the Earth-Centauri wars of the coming century.
47. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Well, duh, isn't that the same way we coexist with cows and sometimes even dogs?
48. Re:so... by Miseph · 2009-09-15 05:23 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  It is well established that dragons were never something that people actually saw... they were imagined monsters. European written and oral tradition simply does not contain any credible tales of human-dragon interaction, and provides ample evidence that no such thing ever happened.
  Thanks for playing.
  
  --
  Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
49. Re:so... by TheLink · 2009-09-15 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Well I don't tend to associate the word "defense" with Maoris.
  
  If a bunch of tattooed Maoris come at you with their wahaikas, taiahas and kotiates, there ain't gonna be much defense involved on their part.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
50. Re:so... by Foobar+of+Borg · 2009-09-15 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  I don't get why it would just be assumed that the stories and paintings were about snuffleupagus
  Because, as everyone knows, the snuffleupagus co-existed not only with man, but also with the elmo. If the snuffleupagus tried to eat a human being, the elmo would be very angry with them. One of them might even go so far as to write a song about them.
  
  --
  Similar to the upcoming US election results
51. Re:so... by hey! · 2009-09-15 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  I think eating implies coexistence, although the converse is not necessarily true.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
52. Re:so... by Chris+Burke · 2009-09-15 06:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  we're not allowed to entertain notions of dinosaurs coexisting with humans in the time-line of biological evolution.
  You can entertain any notion you want. Don't expect anyone to consider your ideas anything more than entertainment until there's some evidence.
  As far as the evolutionary time line, it's not a matter of "you're not allowed" so much as "there's a gap of hundreds of millions of years between the youngest known (non-bird) dinosaur fossil and the earliest known primate fossil." Call me when you find a dinosaur fossil from 100k years ago. Until then, I think I'll refrain from subscribing to your newsletter.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
53. Re:so... by kimvette · 2009-09-15 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure that the "fire breathing" stories are extreme exaggerations. To this day there are animals which excrete peroxides and other substances which when mixed (when they hit the prey, usually small bugs) get really hot (to boiling temperatures) and/or become caustic. There is definitely a beetle still living today which does this (bombadier beetle, IIRC?) and there may be a couple of lizards with this kind of mechanism.
  Could that have been an alligator-sized lizard, or maybe something slightly larger? If such a creature did coexist with man, it's not such a huge leap to see how the the "fire breathing" stories came about, now is it? If an animal can spit or squirt what becomes steam or an extremely corrosive alkaline or acid, speaking of such things as "breathing fire" is not really all that far off.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
54. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  Wot 'bout the swimmin' ones?
55. Re:so... by clone53421 · 2009-09-15 08:09 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It wouldn't be the first time a "long-extinct" creature had been discovered to be not quite so long-extinct as we'd thought.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
56. Re:so... by Chris+Burke · 2009-09-15 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  It wouldn't be the first time a "long-extinct" creature had been discovered to be not quite so long-extinct as we'd thought.
  Have any of these been ones that allegedly terrorized the populace only a few hundred years ago? I'd think something as conspicuous as a dragon would be easier to find evidence for. I thought most of the creatures that were thought to be extinct but weren't tended to have survived somewhere that people didn't frequent, rather than say mainland England.
  Anyway, it would be hypothetically interesting, but a hypothetical it remains.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
57. Re:so... by clone53421 · 2009-09-15 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  I had in mind a creature which was slightly less ferocious, and significantly less noticeable, which is probably why it wasn't hunted to extinction.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
58. Re:so... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2009-09-15 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  I think he meant a treaty that actually survived more than a few weeks.
  You've got to admit, among native tribal peoples, we whites descended from Englishmen and Northern Europeans have a horrible reputation for lying.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
59. Re:so... by tkw954 · 2009-09-15 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  did you see the size of those Dingo eating birds?
  You should see the one that preys on helicopters.
  On a side note, I wondered why this picture was suddenly getting so many views. I guess the upgrade from "bird eating" to "man eating" makes the Haast eagle a lot more interesting.
60. Re:so... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2009-09-15 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the description in the Catholic Old Testament book "Bel and the Dragon" didn't breathe fire, but did have rather bad breath; I read an article once that compared it favorably to a Nile Crocodile.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
61. Re:so... by Chris+Burke · 2009-09-15 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  I had in mind a creature which was slightly less ferocious, and significantly less noticeable, which is probably why it wasn't hunted to extinction.
  But that is still a fire-breathing dinosaur in modern times that explains middle-ages dragon myths. A combination of something that there is no evidence of having existed in the last hundred million years, and something that there is no evidence of having existed ever. Hell, as long as this is still strictly in your mind, why not add in that it can turn invisible at will, and that when it dies its body turns to ash? At least then you have a nice tidy answer for why there's no evidence for this.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
62. Re:so... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2009-09-15 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  European might not- but Jewish Greek Egyptian writings even included it in scripture (Bel and the Dragon, a kind of addendum to the Book of Daniel in which an encounter with a dragon is indeed described; one could also point out that a similar encounter is attributed to Alexander the Great). Of course, their dragon didn't have wings, and didn't breathe fire, just had bad breath. It was probably a crocodile.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
63. Re:so... by JWSmythe · 2009-09-15 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  There's a reason they wrote the Kama Sutra, and it wasn't just to write a dirty book. :) There's a whole variety of positions that don't put you on top.
  Oh, we were talking about the food chain, weren't we? :)
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
64. Re:so... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2009-09-15 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  What about the horseshoe crab? Aren't there fossil examples of that from the Paleozoic Era, along with other trilobites? And what about the crocodilian arm of the Archosaur family, of which there are several hundred individual species alive today?
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
65. Re:so... by Chris+Burke · 2009-09-15 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  What about them? So there are ancient creatures that survive in some form today. Sharks are another example. None of those are dinosaurs, and also unlike dinosaurs there is ample evidence of their survival into modern times.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
66. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  Replace 'whites' with 'human beings' and you have a more accurate statement. Unless you're prepared to claim that if situation was reversed it would be any different--in which case you'd simply be a racist instead of an ignoramus.
67. Re:so... by lawpoop · 2009-09-15 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  If by co-exist you mean EAT THEM, then yes, there was a lot of co-existence.
  That's usually what happens when animals co-exist. Think about it -- if they weren't co-existing, how would they have any opportunity to eat each other?
  
  --
  Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
  -- Pablo Picasso
68. Re:so... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2009-09-15 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Well, to be explicit, I'm a Cascadian Culturalist. And a Catholic Culturalist. In that I see in those two meta cultures something beyond normal humanity.
  But that doesn't excuse the way Northern Europeans have done colonialism- over and over and over .....
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
69. Re:so... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2009-09-15 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  The Archosaur family, having evolved during the Triassic period, are considered dinosaurs, and half of them are land based without feathers. Trilobites, not so much- they're more related to scorpions and other insects than lizards.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
70. Re:so... by Chris+Burke · 2009-09-15 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Archosaurs includes dinosaurs and crocodilians, but crocodilians are not dinosaurs. Trilobites aren't even close to dinosaurs. :P
  But be that as it may, I'm still not seeing your point. Crocodiles are alive today, so maybe some non-avian dinosaurs are too, but we just haven't found them yet? What? Throw me a bone here.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
71. Re:so... by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · 2009-09-15 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Maori's aren't native. the Mori Ori were native, the Maoris came along and ate all of them along with the rest of the wildlife.
  
  --
  -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
72. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  It isn't a matter of "being allowed to entertain" such notions, just that the evidence points to dinosaurs having disappeared quite suddenly and quite long ago and no evidence to the contrary has been found. It doesn't preclude the possibility that such evidence might at some point be found, but there's a significant additional problem...
  We've never observed any animal breathe fire, and it's difficult to even imagine what kind of animal might possibly do that, how it could be done and why...presumably any animal with such an ability would exhibit significant enough biological differences that it would probably not even be lumped in a specific category of animal currently understood...
73. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara
74. Re:so... by trickofperspective · 2009-09-15 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  From TFA, the actual news is that the Haast's eagle had a body structure that could support predation, rather than just scavenging, as was previously thought. Since humans are blamed for their extinction, you've got yourself a bit of a chicken/egg situation on non-co-existence.
75. Re:so... by Flere+Imsaho · 2009-09-15 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it's Lieutenant Pedantic
  
  --
  It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
76. Re:so... by Chris+Burke · 2009-09-15 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  Which is even farther from dinosaurs than the example of crocodilians given by the other poster.
  Seriously, are you trying to show that there are creatures who date back hundreds of millions of years? So what? I know it's possible for a species to have survived that long, it's just that so far as we know dinosaurs aren't among them. Excepting birds of course.
  Or is it just that this ancient reptile is from NZ? :)
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
77. Re:so... by lowededwookie · 2009-09-15 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  That's because the Pommies almost got their butts handed to them on a silver platter at the Battle of Gate Pa. That's when the Pommies found out that the Pa is a little more resilient than they first thought. Not only that, I think the Pommies were scared by the fact they ate an entire race of people called the Morioris. I hear pasty white guys taste like chicken.
78. Re:so... by Meski · 2009-09-15 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Being eaten by a bird? Hmmm.
79. Re:so... by clone53421 · 2009-09-16 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  A combination of something that there is no evidence of having existed in the last hundred million years, and something that there is no evidence of having existed ever.
  Careful now. If you start using arguments like that, I might ask you for evidence that "missing links" ever existed. We know they did, right?
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
80. Re:so... by Chris+Burke · 2009-09-16 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Careful now. If you start using arguments like that, I might ask you for evidence that "missing links" ever existed. We know they did, right?
  We predicted missing links, and absolutely yes we've found missing links, for an absolutely astounding number of cases in the last ~150 years. Even as the term "missing link" changes to mean the link between the last "missing link" subsequently found, and whatever it was supposed to be linking. Again and again. The gaps in the fossil record are ever-shrinking, and paint an absolutely clear picture.
  So sure you can ask do we "know" that the 1/(Nth) yet undiscovered "missing link" down to the point where you're asking for the the specimen between a grandfather and grandchild, and of course we don't "know". But given the ridiculous amount of verified predictive power of the current evolutionary model, you would only ask that question as though it were meaningful due to obstinance or ignorance.
  Comparing the "missing links" for which there are significant fossil evidence suggesting to a freaking dragon, which has zero evidence for hundreds of millions of years, is ludicrous. Surely you can comprehend the concept of "degrees of evidence" even for things that aren't "proven" (because science doesn't do that). "Missing links" -- enourmous evidence. Modern day dragons? No evidence whatsoever.
  Find me any evidence that non-avian dinosaurs survived 50 million years ago, and while you'll still only be at a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the evidence for "missing links", you might at least have a basis for comparison. All the other ancient "living fossils" other posters mentioned have a huge and continuous fossil record. Your dragon? Zero. Even trying to compare this to the "missing links" is hilariously blind.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
81. Re:so... by TheRaven64 · 2009-09-16 03:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Fire breathing isn't hard to explain. Fish control their depth using a swim bladder, which contains air (providing buoyancy) and is squeezed to increase the fish's density. A few species of fish generate electricity for communication and attack. If you pass electricity through salt water, you can separate it into hydrogen and oxygen. A fish that stored hydrogen in its swim bladder, instead of air, would be able to fly, using its flippers for directional control, rather than lift (although it would need to return to the water quite quickly if it didn't also evolve the ability to breath air). It would have an obvious evolutionary advantage, because it could escape predators by launching itself into the air for a little while. The oxygen produced by this process would be a dangerous waste product that the fish would need to expel. If you increase the oxygen concentration by a few percentage points on a warm day, wood and a number of other common materials will spontaneously combust. This wouldn't technically be fire breathing, but the burning people probably wouldn't argue the difference.
  It doesn't take a huge evolutionary leap to go from large fish to flying, fire-breathing dragon. Dragons in different cultures look quite different. Chinese dragons look like large eels, which is quite feasible, from an evolutionary standpoint. Western dragons look more like balloons so, if they existed, would be most likely a mutation that increased the size of the flight bladder allowing longer periods in the air (and possibly storage of the oxygen as well, so that they could use it for attack; the fire-breathing attributes of dragons are more commonly highlighted by western myths than eastern ones).
  Of course, no one has found a skeleton of a dragon. Given that they would be mostly aquatic, with lightweight bones and contain a bladder full of hydrogen that would relax when they died and probably cause them to burn, that isn't entirely surprising, but without such a skeleton (or a live specimen) there's no compelling evidence that they ever did exist. Didn't exist and couldn't exist are not the same thing though; in evolutionary terms dragons are mere likely than some things that do exist, like bombardier beetles and the duck-billed platypus.
  It is highly unlikely that a dragon could evolve via the same route as a bombardier beetle; the chemicals that they use for attack evolved as a toxin secreted over their exoskeleton that made the poisonous to things that tried to eat them. Anything not covered in chitin that developed this mutation would die in screaming agony before it was able to reproduce.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
82. Re:so... by TheRaven64 · 2009-09-16 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Australasian fauna is one of the strongest arguments against intelligent design that I can imagine. Although, of course, a few of the plants God created on third day could possibly explain His behaviour on days four to six. Maybe the seventh day also included getting the munchies as well as resting...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
83. Re:so... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2009-09-16 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  I see crocodiles as a subspecies of dinosaur- given when they evolved as a definition of "dinosaur"- during the mid Triassic, much earlier than the Cretaceous era. Thus they are an example of a non-avian dinosaur species that survived the Cretaceous -Tertiary extinction event.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
84. Re:so... by Chris+Burke · 2009-09-16 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  I see crocodiles as a subspecies of dinosaur
  Biologists don't. They consider them a relative of dinosaurs, but they are different for valid biological and phylogenic reasons. Dinosaurs and crocodilians are separate branches of archosaurs. Look it up.
  given when they evolved as a definition of "dinosaur"- during the mid Triassic, much earlier than the Cretaceous era.
  That's a pretty bad definition. Lots of things, including even more distant reptile relatives of dinosaurs such as Icthyosaurs, evolved during that era, and that's assuming you intended to restrict your definition to other reptiles and not, say, fish.
  Thus they are an example of a non-avian dinosaur species that survived the Cretaceous -Tertiary extinction event.
  Even granting that what you meant is simply that a creature that evolved in the Triassic survived to modern times... There's tremendous fossil evidence for the existence of crocodilians from that time through to current times. There's no evidence of "dragons" or any reptile that could be like them.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
85. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 23:34 · Score: 0
  
  As far as the evolutionary time line, it's not a matter of "you're not allowed" so much as "there's a gap of hundreds of millions of years between the youngest known (non-bird) dinosaur fossil and the earliest known primate fossil."
  "Hunderds of millions of years" is a gross exaggeration: the dinosaurs have only been extinct for 65 million years. (The age of "the earliest known primate fossil" depends on whether plesiadapis (55-58 Mya) is considered to be a primate.)
86. Re:so... by omnichad · 2009-09-18 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  This is all after he stopped being Big Bird's imaginary friend.
Still unanswered... by MiniMike · 2009-09-14 16:03 · Score: 1, Funny

No word on the part of the legend where they also had giant lasers...
1. Re:Still unanswered... by mindbrane · 2009-09-14 17:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No lasers back then boy, then there was just good and evil. Real evil, the kind you could sell your soul to. God, demi gods, spirits, sprites, ghouls, and, of course, Old Nick himself. But, then came the great Schism.
  It started with just the most basic machines, toys really. They're were inspired by God because He'd taken it into His thought about His thought thinking about His thought that since He'd created the place, He was best seen as the Designer, an Intelligent Designer. The Devil argued God hadn't really designed anything at all, had just set things out then let things "Go to Hell", as the Devil put it. But God went on about Intelligent Design and how Man, in His image, should be an Intelligent Designer too. That's when it all started about the machines. The Devil can't stand infernal machines. It's his hearing, it's too acute. He has to be that way to hear even the slightest hint of malicious intent. He finally had enough and headed out with all the lesser spirits in attendance. The lesser spirits were spooked by the machines, called them unnatural.
  I was probably the last one to get a good deal on my soul. Soon after I cut my deal, the Devil just didn't make any more offers. His heart just wasn't in it anymore.
  God likes the way things have gone. His creations creating. Turning out machines intelligently designed, or nearly so. We haven't spoken in a while, but, when last we spoke He was big on the idea of the entire world as a giant Dyson sphere. I miss the old days when evil had some value.
  Regards
  A. Faustus
  it's past my bedtime, i'm over tired and am probably gonna be sorry i posted this, but what the hell.
  
  --
  ideopath @ play
2. Re:Still unanswered... by Thanshin · 2009-09-14 17:55 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  "After an unprecedented archeological effort, the last page of the original bible has finally been found. It contains just one sentence."
  
  it's past my bedtime, i'm over tired and am probably gonna be sorry i posted this, but what the hell.
3. Re:Still unanswered... by Vahokif · 2009-09-14 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  You should start a religion.
4. Re:Still unanswered... by Gandalf_Greyhame · 2009-09-14 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  In the same dig they also located the first page of the bible. It reads,
  
  To my darling Candy.
  All characters portrayed are fictional and any
  resemblance to any persons is merely coincidental
  Religious groups around the world are condemning the find and refuting its authenticity
  
  --
  I am not stubborn. I am right!
5. Re:Still unanswered... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  They found the first page too:
  "All characters in this book are fictional, and no reference is intended..."
6. Re:Still unanswered... by BradleyAndersen · 2009-09-15 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  this is fantastic.
7. Re:Still unanswered... by Whorhay · 2009-09-15 06:57 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Actually I was expecting it to say "We apologise for the inconvenience."
8. Re:Still unanswered... by Kittenman · 2009-09-15 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  Or plan a murder (oblig. "Doors" quote)
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Close by sifRAWR · 2009-09-14 16:06 · Score: 1

Dingos were australian. Wrong country I'm afraid :P
1. Re:Close by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 16:15 · Score: 0
  
  Dingos were australian. Wrong country I'm afraid :P
  Were...? Still are, I think you'll find.
2. Re:Close by robthebloke · 2009-09-15 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they signed up to the British Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act of 1927. I might be wrong though....
Damn. by FlyingSquidStudios · 2009-09-14 16:13 · Score: 3, Funny

The Maori didn't mess around with animals they didn't like. They killed off the Moa too.

--
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
New Zealand fauna by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 16:13 · Score: 5, Informative

I lived in New Zealand for awhile and it's shocking the number of flightless birds that died out. The final death blow to some species was the introduction of rats. They ate the eggs of birds and wiped out many species of Weta Bugs. New Zealand missed out on the mega Fauna extinction their's happened in the last 2,000 years instead of 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. Modern science just missed out on a lot of species. Hard to believe how different the world was 20,000 years ago, 500 years ago was nothing. It was only a few lifetimes before Europeans set foot in New Zealand.
1. Re:New Zealand fauna by timmarhy · 2009-09-14 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  your sad about weta bugs? those things fucking bite you.
  
  --
  If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
2. Re:New Zealand fauna by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 19:56 · Score: 0
  
  I once removed a weta from the girls loo at school by hand and it didn't bite me.
3. Re:New Zealand fauna by Korgan · 2009-09-14 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  No more likely to bite you than a bumble bee will bite you. Just don't piss them off and you can handle them without issue. Problem is they look pretty scary to most people. Huge grasshopper type bug with huge thorns over its legs and body that lives in dark places like caves and hollowed trees. Still, as long as you don't piss them off, you can pick them up without fear. Just hope no one before you came along and pissed it off before you got there. ;-)
4. Re:New Zealand fauna by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 21:38 · Score: 0
  
  You're thinking of Huhu beetles.
5. Re:New Zealand fauna by Scrameustache · 2009-09-14 23:58 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  and wiped out many species of Weta Bugs.
  So that's why their massive software runs so well!
  
  --
  You can't take the sky from me...
6. Re:New Zealand fauna by asc99c · 2009-09-15 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  Probably the direction evolution took on New Zealand wasn't best in the long run. Some of these birds were so vulnerable that a single cat wiped out an entire species:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephens_Island_Wren
I want one as a pet by Slavik81 · 2009-09-14 16:15 · Score: 1

Gentlemen, start your cloning!
Big bird. by Neanderthal+Ninny · 2009-09-14 16:17 · Score: 1

Now this is big bird.
1. Re:Big bird. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  Great. Now I'll never look at Sesame Street the same way again.
Re:Wait by JustOK · 2009-09-14 16:18 · Score: 1

He was a Colonel and even had millions of people helping him.

--
rewriting history since 2109
And now you know why LOTR was made in New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 16:18 · Score: 5, Funny

The eagles are coming! The eagles are coming!
And you thought that was CG!
And people want to save the dying species.. by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · 2009-09-14 16:19 · Score: 2

I'm just glad there weren't any environmentalists trying to save this bird, 500 years ago.

Then again ... maybe there were a few (tasty) ones...
In Tune... by Das+Auge · 2009-09-14 16:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

The primary reason that they went extinct was due to a loss of food. The Maori hunted all of the moa species of bird (large and flightless) to extinction. Another prime example of natives living "in tune" with nature...
1. Re:In Tune... by Rophuine · 2009-09-14 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  There are thousands of examples, in nature, of invading or adapting species eating out the food supply of other species, causing extinctions. This isn't an example of natives not living 'in tune' with nature, it's an example of people being 'a part of' nature.
2. Re:In Tune... by unfunk · 2009-09-14 16:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  by "natives" are you referring to the Maori people? Because they're not native to New Zealand
3. Re:In Tune... by Samgilljoy · 2009-09-14 17:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think you may have missed the sarcastic subtext of the original post. There's a recurrent myth in the modern world, especially in technologically developed societies, that "natives" or "primitive man" or whatever somehow lived and still live "in tune" with nature or in harmony with it or whatever. They all supposedly respect the land in a way we don't, are inherently wise, spiritual, blah, blah, blah.
  You are, of course, correct in pointing out that hunting species to extinction is a very natural thing to do, though it depends on how you define things. The original poster was poking fun at the myths using the terms as propagators of the myth would themselves define them. Arguing what's natural and what's not is a different issue.
  More often than not, past and "primitive" societies would have exploited or would exploit nature as thoroughly as we do, anyway, were it not for limitations of populations and technology.
4. Re:In Tune... by aussie_a · 2009-09-14 17:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Are any of us native to anywhere except Africa?
5. Re:In Tune... by sweetnavelorange · 2009-09-14 17:21 · Score: 0
  
  What value of "native" exactly would you count as "native"? They're as native to New Zealand as any humans are to anywhere except maybe the rift valley, ie., a distinct subpopulation that has developed solely in a certain place. Your link just explains their ancestry - you won't find M
6. Re:In Tune... by the_womble · 2009-09-14 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  Human beings are not native to anyway other than Africa.
  It is usual to regard the surviving (in significant numbers) identifiable group that has been longest in a place as native - so we can regard the English as native to England, the Turks as native to Turkey, the Japanese as native to Japan etc.
  I cannot think of anywhere that has not been overrun by invaders who have displaced a previous people at some point its its history.
7. Re:In Tune... by Rophuine · 2009-09-14 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  ... That's pretty much a longer version of what I meant. I didn't flesh it out, but I was worried that the OP was NOT being sarcastic. Just, you know, clearin' things up. Perhaps, I might add that you could replace 'past and "primitive" societies' with 'animal populations'. My point was that it's a basic instinctual drive, we're just more successful than the other critters.
8. Re:In Tune... by Dunbal · 2009-09-14 17:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  past and "primitive" societies would have exploited or would exploit nature as thoroughly as we do, anyway, were it not for limitations of populations and technology.
  Dead on. The only reason the buffalo was still around in huge quantities was because native americans didn't have rifles, or horses for that matter.
  Native cultures were famous for "slash and burn" agriculture, possibly the most destructive farming method around that leeches all the nitrates out of the soil in just a few years, forcing the farmer to keep moving (and destroying his surrounding jungle). Crop rotation was a European invention.
  One mustn't let guilty feelings about the de facto destruction of native cultures by European civilization lead us into believing that somehow these people were much better than us. They were just people. Some were good. Some were bad. Every one of them left an environmental mark on the world around them.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
9. Re:In Tune... by Rophuine · 2009-09-14 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, no. I got the sarcastic subtext; I thought you were referring to some kind of meta-sarcasm. My point was that the hunting out of a species is no different to the over-predation that any predator will engage in. Where there are multiple food sources, one less successful food source can be completely depleted.
  
  The myth is that 'primitive man' was somehow "in tune" with nature; the reality is that 'primitive man' has no inherent in-tune-ness or spiritual connection with nature, but then nor do other carnivores. Or herbivores, or plants, or whatever. Nature is competitive, and extinction is a natural process.
  
  That doesn't absolve us of responsibility, though; we're supposed to be able to 'rise above' our animal instincts. We should be MORE in tune with nature.
10. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 18:10 · Score: 0
  
  The way I heard it was that the Maori killed off the Moa through overhunting, and then realising what they'd done turned to sustainable agriculture. They learnt their lesson, apparently we haven't.
11. Re:In Tune... by Rophuine · 2009-09-14 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's odd, I thought we were practicing sustainable agriculture and conservation as well? Wait, who's 'we' in your case?
12. Re:In Tune... by Johnno74 · 2009-09-14 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and yet modern day Maori have rights to issue themselves "Customary fishing permits" which are except from any bag limits or equipment restrictions that all other amateur fishermen must obey.
13. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 18:41 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  This is so, so wrong. Slash and burn agriculture (swidden) is generally sustainable form of farming and many indigenous people have practiced it continuously for thousands of years. Swidden has even been shown to improve biodiversity of secondary forests fallows on which it is practiced.
14. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 19:05 · Score: 0
  
  it was not only the rifle. one could kill buffalos in larger quantities without bullets - the problem is the conservation and transportation of the meat afterwards. It was the invention of artificial cooling (first by storing ice harvested in winter in caves, later by technological methods) that enabled the processing and transportation of meat besides the local butcher or the on side camp. This made mass killing 'reasonable' and finished off the buffalo.
15. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 19:19 · Score: 0
  
  Hate to burst yer bubble there but even the "Japanese" aren't native to Japan. The current "Japanese" are probably from china or some other asian country.
  "Native" Japanese are called the Ainu and probably came to Japan a hell of a long time ago via a land bridge. They are the "Natives" of Japan and like most natives got shafted by the colonists.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people
16. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 19:25 · Score: 0
  
  This isn't an example of natives not living 'in tune' with nature, it's an example of people being 'a part of' nature.
  I think it's good to get some numbers here to understand what happened.
  Maori destroyed about 1/3 of New Zealand's forest and European's destroyed another 1/3rd.
  The Maori hunting technique was to start forest fires and catch the animals as they rushed out. Europeans burnt forests to get more farming land.
17. Re:In Tune... by codeButcher · 2009-09-14 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  Do you perhaps mean Slash-and-char?
  
  --
  Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
18. Re:In Tune... by Runaway1956 · 2009-09-14 19:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  *cough cough*
  The buffalo wasn't finished off because the white invaders ate them up. The Army wanted the herds destroyed, with the goal of depriving natives of food. Around the same time, the railroads promoted trophy hunting, because the herds were a threat to the trains.
  The near extinction of the buffalo would be less shameful if they had been hunted for food. Millions of buffalo were slaughtered, just to rot in the sun.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
19. Re:In Tune... by teh+kurisu · 2009-09-14 20:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The Welsh have a greater claim to be the natives of England than the English do, given that the Anglo-Saxons invaded from Europe around the 5th century AD and displaced the Brythonic tribes. Hell, even the Romans were in England before the English.
  The same is true for Scotland as well. The native Picts, most likely also Brythonic, were well established by the time the Gaels (known to the Romans as the Scotti) arrived from Ireland, but were eventually assimilated into Gaelic society.
20. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 20:58 · Score: 0
  
  Maori culture went through a rich mega moa omlette stage, until the moa and other easy protein sources were depleted or wiped out. Then after they had used all the oil they were forced to resort to smaller vehicles and more sustainably harvested seafood, sweet potato and other food sources. Sustainability often isnt a choice. necessity invention etc
  Reccomend guns germs and steel.
21. Re:In Tune... by Fred_A · 2009-09-14 21:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  This is so, so wrong. Slash and burn agriculture (swidden) is generally sustainable form of farming and many indigenous people have practiced it continuously for thousands of years.
  
  Sure, go tell the people of Madagascar (a common example) how sustainable it is.
  I drove through the country and saw firsthand the damage it does to the land and animals (you think the small land critters, chameleons and insects have time to run away ? well they don't). All the topsoil gets wiped away by the rain, then the villages get wiped away, then people move and destroy some other place.
  The island is slowly turning into a desert.
  
  --
  
  May contain traces of nut.
  Made from the freshest electrons.
22. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 21:32 · Score: 0
  
  Dunno about you, but I'm a small blue furry thing from Alpha Centauri.
23. Re:In Tune... by Nazlfrag · 2009-09-14 21:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually, the Maori people were very conservation aware and utilised temporary taboos on resources to preserve them, known as Rahui. It might not have helped the Moa, but to call the close connection of their spirituality and natural conservation a myth is quite disingenuous.
24. Re:In Tune... by plastbox · 2009-09-14 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously?! What level do I need to get my Fishing to for this? Getting sick and tired of my damned 20-slot Frostweave bags and the only upgrade is the insanely expensive 22-slot Glacial bag. No bag limits? You must be joking!
25. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 22:52 · Score: 0
  
  More often than not, past and "primitive" societies would have exploited or would exploit nature as thoroughly as we do
  Too bad nature made them extinct or they'd be around so we could tell them what a bad idea it was.
26. Re:In Tune... by chrb · 2009-09-14 23:14 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Every one of them left an environmental mark on the world around them.
  Yes, but the environmental mark was, on average, a lot smaller than modern living. The Australian Aborigines had a way of life that was essentially unchanged for tens of thousands of years. The lifestyle consisted of finding water sources, hunting for food, and collecting wild growing berries and fruits from the land (not farming). Everything that they constructed was made from wood and other natural, biodegradable materials, from completely renewable and sustainable sources. Without intervention, they would probably have continued their lifestyle for tens of thousands of more years. Modern living is not sustainable - we are facing Peak Oil in the next few decades, we have an estimated 20 years or so of coltan supplies left, and we are using up many other limited resources relatively quickly. Our current lifestyle is based on consumption of resources that we can't replace. The Aborigine way of life would still be viable in 200 years, our Western way of life may well not be (people will do their best to adapt, but that adaptation may involve going back to a lifestyle of 200 years ago, with a strong focus on manual agriculture and labour).
  
  Native cultures were famous for "slash and burn" agriculture
  Many (most?) native cultures did not practice farming, instead living off wildly growing foods and hunting. Some Aborigines practiced "fire farming" in the last 5,000 years (after 40,000 of not farming in any sense of the word). Researchers suggest that this was sustainable "Aboriginal people's use of fire involved developing a self-sustaining mosaic of burnt and unburnt areas that reduced the damaging effects of fire". The fact that it was a stable way of life for 5,000 years suggests that it was more sustainable than the current fossil fuel based lifestyle.
27. Re:In Tune... by chrb · 2009-09-14 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it has been shown that the English are genetically closer to Dutch and Germans than Welsh and Scots. BBC article link That's a poke in the eye for the BNP (speaking of which, I'd love to see Nick Griffin on Who do you think you are?
28. Re:In Tune... by welcher · 2009-09-14 23:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  that's the post i was about to write - Maori lived a distinctly unsustainable life when they first arrived, as did the ancestral aboriginals. But they figured out, through necessity or desire, to live somewhat in tune with their environment. Arguing that it was a lack of technology kinda misses the point.
29. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 23:44 · Score: 0
  
  In case you are referring to the Australian Aborigines: Those people set fires to the underbush which made the plants develop & pop their seeds pods (many .au plants do not rely on insects). White farmers forced them to stop and there were some devastating fires from the excess of dead plants (wood etc lasts 200 years in the dry & hot environment of the .au desert).
  In caye you mean the war strategy of burnt earth.. _that_ was invented in Europe, correct ,)
30. Re:In Tune... by Elky+Elk · 2009-09-14 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  I think its only the language and culture that moved around, most of the people didn't.
  Both Anglo-Saxon, and Celtic (and Roman and Norman and Viking) invasions haven't changed the genetic makeup as much as we used to think.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles
31. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  We're native to earth.
32. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  Crop rotation was a European invention.
  Uhhh... no. Crop rotation was invented just about everywhere including in the Americas by Native Americans.
33. Re:In Tune... by Carik · 2009-09-15 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Depends how it's done. In some places (I think in South America, but I can't recall precisely) slash and burn was historically used as part of a crop rotation, with selected trees retained; usually trees that were valuable to local wildlife, or produced products that humans wanted. If you only clear the land every five to ten years, the burning adds a lot of nutrients back into the soil, and encouraging wildlife to inhabit the land when it isn't being used does the same. Since the land was only intensively farmed for a year or two, and then encouraged to recover (native plant seeds being brought in, and adjacent areas being left "wild") for four to eight, it stayed pretty healthy.
  Even if it's not perfect, that's a far cry from the modern version, which wipes out everything on a piece of land and then uses the land until it can't support anything at all.
34. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Slash-and-burn does not leech nitrates out of the soil any faster than modern agriculture, but modern methods include putting it back with chemical fertilizers.
  Slash-and-burn is better than crop rotation if the land is returned to fallow for many years before being slashed-and-burned again.
35. Re:In Tune... by catbertscousin · 2009-09-15 01:50 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  As opposed to the natives, who would drive a whole herd off a cliff to eat one or two...
  
  --
  No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
36. Re:In Tune... by Attila+Dimedici · 2009-09-15 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the environmental mark was, on average, a lot smaller than modern living. The Australian Aborigines had a way of life that was essentially unchanged for tens of thousands of years.
  That they adopted shortly after using a slash and burn approach to get rid of a predatory lizard that was too large and dangerous for them to handle with any of the other technology available to them and turned much of Australia into desert from grassland (sorry, I don't know how much of the current Australian desert was desert before the aboriginals arrived).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
37. Re:In Tune... by Snowgen · 2009-09-15 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  We're native to earth.
  There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. That they may have been the architects of the great pyramids, or the lost civilizations of Lemuria or Atlantis. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man who even now fight to survive somewhere beyond the heavens...
38. Re:In Tune... by H0p313ss · 2009-09-15 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  We're native to earth.
  There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. That they may have been the architects of the great pyramids, or the lost civilizations of Lemuria or Atlantis. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man who even now fight to survive somewhere beyond the heavens...
  Hmm... Battlestar Galactica, Star Gate, Zombie Jesus... If only I could stick to one set of mythology...
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
39. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  And by buffalo, you mean American bison:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison
40. Re:In Tune... by misexistentialist · 2009-09-15 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's hardly a "myth". Hunter-gathers obviously depend on being in tune with nature, though over-predation is also quite natural. In industrial societies humans are adapted to an artificial environment which is itself dependent on nature, and is certainly in most respects worse than the natural world which is formed by much larger forces on a much longer timescale.
41. Re:In Tune... by greyhueofdoubt · 2009-09-15 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  The Aborigine way of life would still be viable in 200 years,
  Except for the part where they hunted many of their food species to extinction, right?
  -b
  
  --
  No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
42. Re:In Tune... by Swampash · 2009-09-15 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  And after all the megafauna were extunct, we started eating each other.
  TOLD YOU WE WUZ HARDCORE
43. Re:In Tune... by Dunbal · 2009-09-15 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Slash-and-burn does not leech nitrates out of the soil any faster than modern agriculture
  Actually it does - because most of the nitrates lie on top of the soil in the form of ash from the burning, and are washed off almost immediately in the first rains. Slash and burn will only get you one - or if you're lucky and it doesn't rain too much two - good harvests.
  Of course letting the land return to fallow is PART of crop rotation (with the added twist that modern rotation adds the planting of nitrogen fixing plants/legumes for a season), so I don't see how slash and burn could be "better".
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
44. Re:In Tune... by chrb · 2009-09-15 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Except for the part where they hunted many of their food species to extinction, right?
  If you're referring to Australian megafauna, then the primary cause of death was the first humans in Australia burning the landscape, not hunting for food. And that was 47,000 years ago. After that they lived as part of a stable eco-system, and as far as I know, have never hunted any of their food species to extinction.
45. Re:In Tune... by chrb · 2009-09-15 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  The papers I've read suggest that it was forest that was burnt to produce grassland which animals would graze on, in turn making it easier to hunt them. The aim was not to get rid of megafauna, since there is some evidence that humans ate the megafauna. Changing climate was primarily responsible for changes and erosion of soil, not humans, although they did have some localised effect (ref).
46. Re:In Tune... by chrb · 2009-09-15 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  I should add that, regardless of the initial impact events of 47,000 years ago when humans arrived, once established they did become part of a stable eco-system, with a stable population size, for over 40,000 years. It really was a sustainable lifestyle. I doubt that the current Western lifestyle will be sustainable for the next 100 years, never mind the next 40,000. All sources of energy we currently have - oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear fuels - will run out within the next few hundred years. Without some dramatic breakthroughs in energy technology, Western civilisation as we know it will come to an end in a relatively short space of time.
47. Re:In Tune... by Chris+Burke · 2009-09-15 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Dead on. The only reason the buffalo was still around in huge quantities was because native americans didn't have rifles, or horses for that matter.
  Nonsense. The only reason there aren't still huge quantities of bison is because of a deliberate campaign to drive them extinct in order to deprive the natives of food. Before they had rifles and horses the natives were still able to kill large numbers of bison, but because they were only killing to meet their needs, this was no threat to the bison population at large. This didn't change even after they got guns and horses, so there's no basis for your statement whatsoever.
  They were just people. Some were good. Some were bad. Every one of them left an environmental mark on the world around them.
  That's basically true. Every human settlement has an environmental impact. That doesn't mean the scales are the same, or that there is never any thought as to controlling that impact. Some peoples were quite conscious about sustainable living. It was hardly a universal trait of indigenous peoples, but not non-existent. You say some were good, some were bad, but your example with native americans seems to imply that you think they are all basically equal, and that European industrial-era lack of concern for balance with the environment is a universal human constant and the only difference was the means. I'm with you on not idealizing the cultures that we destroyed, especially not out of guilt, but I think you picked a terrible example because it shows the opposite of what you intended it to.
  Yet on the other hand, actual wild animals often completely fail to achieve balance in nature. Quite often "balance" is simply that the animal will die off when it destroys too much of its environment. A herd of African elephants will completely destroy a stand of trees, and then simply move on. Wolves will happily eat the very last deer and rabbit in the forest, and then the wolves die due to lack of food. Rats -- geeze, forget about it.
  Humans are, as far as we know, unique among animals in that we can/will actually consider whether our lifestyle is sustainable, and if it isn't, change it. Arguments about whether exploiting the environment is "natural" is just an excuse not to exercise that ability. Arguing that even those people we idealize as being in touch with nature never did or never would exercise this ability is simply wrong. Many did. You don't have to idealize them to recognize this fact. It's not about them being "much better than us". They are just people. So are we. We have the same ability to consider our environment. Use it, don't disclaim it.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
48. Re:In Tune... by Archangel+Michael · 2009-09-15 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Our current lifestyle is based on consumption of resources that we can't replace.
  Love it when people talk like this. I usually ask them "are you willing to give up modern life". You know, cars, fresh food year round, no fridge, modern medicine (universal healthcare) etc.
  They all claim to want it, but fail when someone asks them to step up to the plate and put their money where their mouth is.
  So, are you ready to give up TVs and other appliances and live in a tent or mud hut you made yourself? You willing to not have a new Cell phone every 1.75 years? WHAT are you doing to REALLY cut your consumption to nothing?
  Now, welcome back to modern world. You can't have MODERN without the baggage it comes with. And good luck with that.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
49. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  You *do* know that lots of Buffalo were killed just for their hides, with the rest of the bodies left to rot on the Great Plains, right? The Native Americans did no such things, but the Europeans/Americans had the attitude of taking nature and bending it to your will to suit your needs... even if bending nature in that way causes it to break.
50. Re:In Tune... by Runaway1956 · 2009-09-15 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'm an American, you insensitive clod. I speak American English. WE KNOW what a buffalo is. When we feel it necessary to translate for you outsiders, we will refer to bison. KTHXBAI
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
51. Re:In Tune... by BradleyAndersen · 2009-09-15 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Wow! This is honestly the first time I have heard someone other than BradleyAndersen say this! Good job! It is fun to point out to people that I, a Caucasian, am in fact, African American.
52. Re:In Tune... by chrb · 2009-09-15 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  What is your point? Of course people want all the advantages of modern living. But it is all built around the easy availability of energy from fossil and nuclear fuels and precious metals from the ground. Unless we discover some new source of energy, the supplies we currently have will run out, and then the modern lifestyle will end.
  It is possible to appreciate the benefits of modern living, but at the same time acknowledge that a lifestyle based on consumption of finite resources will end when those resources are used up. It does not follow logically that acknowledging the latter implies the former can not be true, so your argument makes no sense.
53. Re:In Tune... by dajak · 2009-09-15 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  The buffalo was in decline well before the Army started its economic war on the plains indians after the civil war. Horses compete with the buffalo over pasture land, and make hunting buffalo easy. There were bloody wars between indians over access to increasingly scarce pasture land and buffalo before the white man entered the scene.
  Most pastoral nomad cultures on the plains used to be farmers before they gained access to horses in the 18th century, and there were simply too many of them. They probably would have caused an ecological disaster as bad or worse on the plains given enough time.
  Limiting access to a resource like the great plains is an intrinsically hard problem. Compare it to fishing. It's a typical scenario for a tragedy of the commons, and there is little in the history of the plains indian horse cultures that suggests they might have escaped it.
54. Re:In Tune... by dajak · 2009-09-15 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  That criterium obviously still doesn't make the Turks native to Turkey. Kurds and jews, to name some random minorities, were surely there before the Turks invaded.
55. Re:In Tune... by Archangel+Michael · 2009-09-15 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Your original implication was that it was better than it is now. Promoting the idea that the old ways were "sustainable" is nothing more than smokescreen.
  
  (people will do their best to adapt, but that adaptation may involve going back to a lifestyle of 200 years ago, with a strong focus on manual agriculture and labour).
  The problem with your reasoning, is this. 200 years ago, they said the same things as you're saying now, only it was other things that we were using up at astonishing rates. Some where predicting cities buried in horse manure.
  Things always look unsustainable, and the world is always on the brink of destruction. Has been for thousands of years.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
56. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  "Crop rotation was a European invention."
  Isn't crop rotation mentioned in the Bible? Well, not exactly, but at least letting the field lay fallow was:
  "Every seven years, don't plant your fields or prune your bushes" (Lev. 25:3 & 4).
57. Re:In Tune... by dasunt · 2009-09-15 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the environmental mark was, on average, a lot smaller than modern living. The Australian Aborigines had a way of life that was essentially unchanged for tens of thousands of years. The lifestyle consisted of finding water sources, hunting for food, and collecting wild growing berries and fruits from the land (not farming). Everything that they constructed was made from wood and other natural, biodegradable materials, from completely renewable and sustainable sources. Without intervention, they would probably have continued their lifestyle for tens of thousands of more years.
  From wikipedia: "There was considerable innovation occurring within Aborginal technology in the last 3000 years prior to colonisation. Quartz was used as a substitute for chert and was being worked by indigenous craftsmen. The dingo was brought from southern Asia. Small scale agricultural developments occurred with eel farming in western Victoria and yam planting e.g. in Geraldton"
  Just because they didn't reach the same technological heights as Europeans did at first contact doesn't mean that the aboriginies sat around doing the exact same thing their great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great Grandpa did.
  We also probably didn't see the cultural attributes that did not survive because they weren't sustainable. And we didn't see the outcome of the unsustainable practices that were around when Europeans arrived -- disease and violence came first.
58. Re:In Tune... by lawpoop · 2009-09-15 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I was born about 300 miles from where I live... does that count?
  
  --
  Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
  -- Pablo Picasso
59. Re:In Tune... by FrameRotBlues · 2009-09-15 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  So where is that new technology? I understand both your guys' points, and you're both right.
  
  Back in the day, 200 years ago, some predicted cities would be buried in their own horse manure from all the traffic. Then came gasoline, and within 30 years(!) the horses were gone and along with them went the entire support staff and infrastructure. (Think horse manure haulers, hoof trimmers & shoers, and stagecoach builders.) They adapted to the new technology (like stagecoach builders did) or just ended their way of life and moved on (like hoof trimmers).
  
  So the question is, what will the new technology be? What will replace gasoline, which replaced horses? And how will we deal with the change in infrastructure?
60. Re:In Tune... by rtfa-troll · 2009-09-15 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  I usually ask them "are you willing to give up modern life". You know, cars, fresh food year round, no fridge, modern medicine....[blah blah blah]
  This is not an "either or" proposition. You can give up some things. Cycle rather than using a car. Don't watch TV. Walk occasionally. Eat food which is locally grown and in season. You'll actually find that your life is better for it. Just because over consumption of "modern life" is bad doesn't mean that you can't do anything at all.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
61. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  The problem with your reasoning, is this. 200 years ago, they said the same things as you're saying now, only it was other things that we were using up at astonishing rates. Some where predicting cities buried in horse manure.
  Riiggght
  That's why your alternative to the conservative's same ol' same ol'
  is living in mud huts without the accoutrements of modern civilization
  I think you just like to bury things in horseshit
62. Re:In Tune... by breeze95 · 2009-09-15 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  past and "primitive" societies would have exploited or would exploit nature as thoroughly as we do, anyway, were it not for limitations of populations and technology.
  Native cultures were famous for "slash and burn" agriculture, possibly the most destructive farming method around that leeches all the nitrates out of the soil in just a few years, forcing the farmer to keep moving (and destroying his surrounding jungle). Crop rotation was a European invention.
  What nonsense. Do you even know what slash and burn is and why it was used? Slash and burn was a technique used in tropical climates (it was also used in Europe) to fertilize the soil. In tropical climates plants, trees and crops grow year round this depletes the nutrients in the soil quickly. Since, fertilizers have only been around 100 years or so to replenish the soil the farmers had to âoeslashâ the foliage on the land and âoeburnâ it. They then leave it for nature to re-fertilize it while they farm a different plot of land. Eventually when the current land needs to fertilize they will slash and burn it and go back to the previous land that was fertilized by slashing and burning. This method is not very efficient but if you donâ(TM)t have fertilizer itâ(TM)s the only game in town. Europe didnâ(TM)t have that problem because of winter. Crops canâ(TM)t grow in winter. This means that European farm lands are idle for 5 to 6 months a year which slows soil from degrading. Also, the winter climate kills most foliage which in turn fertilizes the land for the spring.
63. Re:In Tune... by chrb · 2009-09-15 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  From what I understand, the lifestyle of Aborigines was essentially unchanged for over 40,000 years. In the last 5,000 years things did change. The link from Wired supports this:
  "Aborigines arrived 45,000 years ago, spreading across the continent with startling rapidity. Then, in anthropological terms, they cooled their heels for the next 40,000 years: no significant population expansion. No fundamental changes in lifestyle. That changed 5,000 years ago. Populations shot up. Settlements increased in number, and their inhabitants grew more sedentary. Scientists can't explain it."
  The Wikipedia article is talking about innovation in the last 3,000 years which is compatible with this view.
64. Re:In Tune... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 16:35 · Score: 0
  
  The only reason the buffalo was still around in huge quantities was because native americans didn't have rifles, or horses for that matter.
  "was still around".. is the operative term here. Except for some breeder/maintence stocks, they're basically gone.
  The buffalo are mostly gone because the US government realized the US Cavalry couldn't genocide off the Indians, so they decided to kill off the buffalo to destroy Indian populations. The buffalo populations were destroyed by white Americans, not the Indians.
65. Re:In Tune... by BoothbyTCD · 2009-09-16 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I agre, but your notion that the Maori were primitive is not really valid. By the time the Maori ancestors arrived in New Zealand the Polynesian cultural template had been refined for many thousands of years. It came equipped with a kit of animal husbandry, plants, gear, sophisticated navigation all honed for the establishment of island hopping civilization. Just because none of this was made of metal or had blinken lights does not mean it wasn't technology. They were notstone age hunter gatherers like the !Kung or amazonian tribes.
  
  --
  snig
NZ pacifist warrior culture by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 16:23 · Score: 0

Yes, modern NZ is a bit funny.
They have gone politically Left and therefore fairly pacifist, but at the same time they are an amalgamation of the Maori warrior culture and the English (not to be F'd with either).
So, while NZ may no longer be looking to go to war, back the F' up if they ever do.
1. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 17:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  New Zealand has two military intelligence bases, Waihopi and the other I forget the name of, both of which are apart of the ECHELON Network. New Zealand 'Peace Keepers' are situated in Timor Leste, were involved in Bougainvillea (both small Pacific islands) and are in various other Pacific nations right now. New Zealand followed ' lead into South Africa in the Boer Wars, even conquered German Samoa at the start of World War One (we literally had a Prime Minister with an Imperialist vision for New Zealand at one point), went to Africa and and Europe during WWI (the famous words about Britain 'Where she goes, we go') and by a quirk of our time zones, New Zealand was the first to declare war on Germany. We fought in Europe again during WWII, and we protected the Pacific from the Japanese threat. In the fifties, we sent the K-Force into Korea, and troops got involved in the Malay Conflict (as 'military advisor's' of course). I have a second-cousin once removed that was killed fighting in Vietnam in the NZ Contingent, though our force over there was a token. And up until 2006 the S.A.S. were in Afghanistan, and rumoured to have done over the border trips into Iraq. They've just been given the go ahead for redeployment.
  In short, do your research man.
2. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by aussie_a · 2009-09-14 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  Funnily enough, I believe it was due to the warrior culture of the Maori that the white immigrants were able to peacefully (well, more peaceful then us aussies did with the aboriginals) co-exist. From what I've heard (which is only a very little bit), the maori tribes were too busy fighting each other to pay much attention to the white immigrants and that they even allied with the white immigrants to help them in their fights with the other tribes.
  Had they been slightly more peaceful, they might have united against the immigrants and successfully driven them off. As it was, they mostly just ignored the immigrants because they were too busy fighting each other.
  At least, that's what I've been told. I might have got it COMPLETELY wrong ;)
3. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by carolfromoz · 2009-09-14 17:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yeah I also understood they did better than us because of the Maori being fighters - but more because the arriving whiteys realised they couldn't just walk all over the natives and had better cut some deals. In Australia we just hunted them down, poisoned their flour, etc etc
4. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Dunbal · 2009-09-14 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  So, while NZ may no longer be looking to go to war, back the F' up if they ever do.
  The same can be said from all of England's colonies/conquests. The ANZACs surely earned their reputation in both world wars, but would you discount the role played by the Gurkhas, Canadians, or even the Scots? When you heard bagpipes, saw turbans, or heard "eh" or "no worries" on the battlefield, it was time to run...
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
5. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 17:57 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  1) At no point in time did I doubt NZ's abilities or say that they have not made very valuable contributions in the past. Quite the opposite.
  2) That said I was not aware of the Afghan SAS. I had assumed Helen Clark had put an end any "foreign adventures"
6. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by djupedal · 2009-09-14 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  I was once stationed at 'the other I forget the name of'. We went into town on a weekend pass and had the hardest time finding a taxi driver that knew the way back. Ended up it was just over the hill from 'some city I can't recall just now'.
7. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 19:25 · Score: 0
  
  So how does it feel to be from a country that almost always chooses the wrong side to fight on?
8. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Runaway1956 · 2009-09-14 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  I've experience the very same thing in the Caribbean. I wonder if it's a conspiracy.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
9. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by CmdrGravy · 2009-09-14 19:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think, from what I've read somewhere, that another reason the Maoris didn't come off as badly as some of the other indigenous people the British came across is that they were excellent fighters. Since they did spend most of their spare time fighting each other they had had a lot of practice when it came to fighting the British.
  Despite the fact the colonists had naval guns and firearms the Maoris were able to devise tactics which completely negated the advantage they would have otherwise provided and dealt out a couple of fairly comprehensive beatings to the colonists so much so that during WWI the British actually recruited Maori elders to advise them how to conduct effective trench warfare.
10. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by benesch · 2009-09-14 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  And up until 2006 the S.A.S. were in Afghanistan, and rumoured to have done over the border trips into Iraq
  NZ occupies Iran?????
11. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by arethuza · 2009-09-14 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  Since when was Scotland a colony or a conquest of England's?? ;-)
12. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by MrKaos · 2009-09-14 20:29 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The ANZACs surely earned their reputation in both world wars,
  
  My grandfather fought in 5 WW2 campaigns. Whilst lined up waiting to be evacuated (australians, scots, canadians, I think greek) from *somewhere* via a beach, British redcap's on horseback arrived and announced that all the colonial troops would have to stand aside while the British troops were evacuated first.
  The battle hardened Australian troops responded by killing all 12 MP's, queue jumping is disliked to this day in Australia.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
13. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Korgan · 2009-09-14 21:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Not really quite the case. Maori and the British fought tooth and nail for most of the 19th century. In fact, some British officers wanted nothing more than to completely wipe Maori off the face of the planet, and in some areas pretty much succeeded.
  NZ's history as far as the colony is concerned is far from peaceful. Maori didn't stop fighting each other, maybe. But they didn't just ignore the British either. They used the British technology against each other, and also against the British.
  The major issue with the Treaty of Waitangi is that the Maori version and the English version are not identical. The translations were pretty rough. So even after it was signed by all the tribal leaders across the country, there are still disputes going on between the Crown and many of the Maori tribes today. The only difference is that the weapon of choice is now money and land. Or the expenditure of former, and prolonged occupation of the latter.
  http://www.newzealandwars.co.nz/ is a good place to find out about the wars that raged in the 19th century.
14. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 21:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  On and off from 1066 to 1745.
15. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Nazlfrag · 2009-09-14 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  You should start your research here.
16. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by rxmd · 2009-09-14 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  And up until 2006 the S.A.S. were in Afghanistan, and rumoured to have done over the border trips into Iraq.
  Afghanistan has no border with Iraq.
  That is, unless you assume that as true New Zealanders the SAS are descended from birds.
  
  --
  As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
17. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 21:44 · Score: 0
  
  Man, you're right. Those Japanese in WW2 were so enlightened. Let me guess, you're French
18. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Hognoxious · 2009-09-14 21:46 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  SAS looks like some kind of acronym. I wonder what the A stands for.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
19. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Hal_Porter · 2009-09-14 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  My grandfather fought in 5 WW2 campaigns. Whilst lined up waiting to be evacuated (australians, scots, canadians, I think greek) from *somewhere* via a beach, British redcap's on horseback arrived and announced that all the colonial troops would have to stand aside while the British troops were evacuated first.
  The battle hardened Australian troops responded by killing all 12 MP's, queue jumping is disliked to this day in Australia.
  Nothing is worse than when reality resembles a scene from a Mel Gibson film.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
20. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  during WWI the British actually recruited Maori elders to advise them how to conduct effective trench warfare.
  That's not a recommendation for fighting prowess then. We Brits were pretty hopless in the trenches......
21. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 00:26 · Score: 0
  
  Your A$$. Warm Regards, Yours Truly
22. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by CmdrGravy · 2009-09-15 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, we were less hopeless than the Germans for example.
23. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by rohan972 · 2009-09-15 01:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Never watched Braveheart obviously.
  
  How, exactly, did you think the various (non-English) parts of the United Kingdom became united under an English monarch?
  
  ... Uh, I see your ";-)" now, I'll post anyway though.
  
  --
  http://marriedmansexlife.com/
24. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by jthayden · 2009-09-15 03:41 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  IANAK (I am not a Kiwi.) but as I recall hearing on our vacation there, NZ had the highest WW2 death toll as measured by percentage of population. Of course I have no citation for that though...
25. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Dunbal · 2009-09-15 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  It was hard for me to type that: I'm half Scots, my mother and grandmother were born in Aberdeen, and I belong to the Stuart clan, I guess :)
  But history is what history is... and at least I know that Scotch is a drink...
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
26. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by MrKaos · 2009-09-15 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing is worse than when reality resembles a scene from a Mel Gibson film.
  My grandfather was very humble and I don't think the sickly type of heroism that is portrayed in many of these movies is quite right, I think it was more a case of desperation to survive. Like hiding under an old boat with his squad for three days in blazing heat because they came down the wrong ridge right into Italian forces and had to wait for them to pass. He survived all of WW2 so he must of been a decent soldier, but the war cost him three daughters which I think he never really got over decades later.
  He was so appalled by the thought of killing after the war that even killing animals for food on the farm was impossible for him. I think he'd seen enough death.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
27. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Noren · 2009-09-15 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  NZ also has a fine counter-alien task force, the Astro Investigation and Defence Service, as shown in the Peter Jackson documentary, Bad Taste. They drove a Morris Minor.
28. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  The British treatment of the Maori's may have also had more than a bit to do with the imminent arrival of French colonists and the distance from England for fighting a war. British came across many great fighting people in their expansion around the globe.
  In addition to this most of the fighting between Maori and British settlers actually came about after the Treaty was signed during the late 1800s. It was during this period that the design of the Maori Pa (fort) really came into its own in defending against traditional British fighting techniques.
29. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by erayd · 2009-09-15 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  SAS looks like some kind of acronym. I wonder what the A stands for.
  SAS stands for Special Air Service.
  
  --
  Forget world peace, bring on -1 pointless
30. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  No, the reason they didn't come out so bad was that at the time (approx 1840) the British were in their "Civilised Christians" mode. They wanted to convert the locals to productive members of the empire.
31. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by shermo · 2009-09-15 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's probably because the maoris actually invented trench warfare while fighting off the british.
  http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-doc/news/media-releases/2008/early-maori-military-engineering-skills-to-be-honoured-by-new-zealand-professional-engineers/
  
  --
  Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
32. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Hognoxious · 2009-09-15 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  So they can fly, right over your head?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
33. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, it's the bullets that fly over your head.
34. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Elky+Elk · 2009-09-16 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  There hasn't been an English Monarch since 1066.
35. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  The fact the Maori didn't come off worse than other peoples has less to do with their fighting ability and more to do with the kind of people who migrated to New Zealand in the 19th century. Intermarrage and fraternising were routine. There were Maori members of parliament in the 19th century and both races lived side by side.
36. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by TheRaven64 · 2009-09-16 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well, in the case of Scotland, because Elizabeth I didn't have any children and her closest surviving relative was... King James of Scotland, son of Mary Queen of Scots. So technically, the subsequent English kings (for a few generations, at least) were Scots, not the other way around.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
37. Re:NZ pacifist warrior culture by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  SAS stands for Special Air Service ... aka commandos. Don't tease those fellas ... you think Haasts Eagle and the Moa and Maori are tough? They're pussys beside SAS.
Glad these things are gone by pwizard2 · 2009-09-14 16:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Some species of Terror Bird would chase down their prey and literally peck it to death. They had an interesting feature about these things on Discovery last night; with this story it just seemed appropriate to mention it.

--
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
1. Re:Glad these things are gone by Mr.+Roadkill · 2009-09-14 16:34 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Some species of Terror Bird would chase down their prey and literally peck it to death. They had an interesting feature about these things on Discovery last night; with this story it just seemed appropriate to mention it.
  Polly wants a cracker. NOW. And a couple of llamas. And a six pack of assorted primates, starting with you.
2. Re:Glad these things are gone by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2009-09-14 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  Kea have also been known to do that to sheep.
3. Re:Glad these things are gone by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 21:40 · Score: 0
  
  Sheep, yes. And cars. Tourists. Beer cans. When the top of Mt Cook fell off, some time back, photos show some Kea nearby. Very suspicious.
4. Re:Glad these things are gone by Megane · 2009-09-15 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. Man-eating chocobos. (Well, not strictly man-eating, since there weren't humans around then. But you know what I mean.)
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
5. Re:Glad these things are gone by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  ...would chase down their prey and literally peck it to death...
  Sounds like my mother-in-law.
6. Re:Glad these things are gone by Chris+Burke · 2009-09-15 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Polly wants a cracker. NOW. And a couple of llamas. And a six pack of assorted primates, starting with you.
  Well if that's the way you're going to be, then I'm not getting you a cracker! Or a llama!
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
7. Re:Glad these things are gone by xmod2 · 2009-09-15 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Polly wants a cracker. NOW.
  Actually, I believe the Maori are darker skinned.
It...can't...be by popo · 2009-09-14 16:26 · Score: 1

A legend of a man... eating birds?
What's next? Some kind of ...fried chicken?

--
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
1. Re:It...can't...be by Sooner+Boomer · 2009-09-14 17:02 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  In Soviet Russia, bird eat YOU!
  
  --
  Chaos maximizes locally around me.
2. Re:It...can't...be by Man+Eating+Duck · 2009-09-14 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  A legend of a man... eating birds?
  
  It *can* happen, I tell ya! :)
  
  --
  Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
3. Re:It...can't...be by agnosticnixie · 2009-09-14 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  Look, the irish have cattle raids, of course there had to be a people where the great epic hero was a poulterer or something :p
4. Re:It...can't...be by Jesus_666 · 2009-09-15 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Look, the irish have cattle raids[...]
  What level range? Any decent loot to be expected?
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Let me break it down for you... by tcopeland · 2009-09-14 16:27 · Score: 2, Funny

Don't go into Power Dome A.

--
The Army reading list
1. Re:Let me break it down for you... by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-09-14 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  Or the garage.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
2. Re:Let me break it down for you... by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-09-14 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  Not to reply to myself, but...
  There's more.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
3. Re:Let me break it down for you... by Warhawke · 2009-09-15 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Obligatory: If only the Maori had Mr. Munroe...
  Or This
Perhaps not only in NZ by andyh-rayleigh · 2009-09-14 16:32 · Score: 1

So - just maybe - the Roc may also have existed???
1. Re:Perhaps not only in NZ by dbIII · 2009-09-14 17:46 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  So - just maybe - the Roc may also have existed???
  Perhaps, but only in a hard place.
2. Re:Perhaps not only in NZ by BluBrick · 2009-09-14 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's almost what I was thinking. Most legends have some basis in reality. Perhaps this is the origin of the Roc legend(s).
  
  --
  Ahh - My eye!
  The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
Cool, but can we clone it? by Plazmid · 2009-09-14 16:36 · Score: 4, Funny

It became extinct fairly recently, why don't we clone it? Surely these things will make a great addition to the New Zealand Air Defense Force.
1. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by grcumb · 2009-09-14 17:04 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  It became extinct fairly recently, why don't we clone it? Surely these things will make a great addition to the New Zealand Air Defense Force.
  Well, it would at least mean that New Zealand would have an Air Defence Force...
  (I'm Canadian. I'm allowed to make these jokes.)
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
2. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by aussie_a · 2009-09-14 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  While they might not hagve an air defence force, I believe they recently started testing anti air missiles. Apparently their epsionage forces finally recovered the plans to what they call The Catapault.
  (I'm Australian. I'm allowed to make these jokes).
3. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by Johnno74 · 2009-09-14 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  While they might not hagve an air defence force, I believe they recently started testing anti air missiles. Apparently their epsionage forces finally recovered the plans to what they call The Catapault.
  (I'm Australian. I'm allowed to make these jokes).
  I'm a NZer living in australia, and I approve of your joke :)
  NZ is a great place, but I'm convinced that the population is just too small, and some of the people living there are just too much of a dead weight to really let the country succeed.
  This is a shame, as there are some awesomely smart creative people there.
4. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by Bede+EW · 2009-09-14 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  What defence force?
5. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by qc_dk · 2009-09-14 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  A friendly hello from Denmark another of the world's small countries.
  I've always felt an inexplicable kinship with new zealanders and the dutch.
  I've never been to either country, but I just have this feeling that they are
  quite similar to Denmark. Small countries where the people are perfectly
  happy to lead quiet lives out of the lime light of the world stage and
  yet producing a large amount of culture and research compared to their size.
  I guess i'm trying to say that there are many ways for a country to succeed.
6. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by Volguus+Zildrohar · 2009-09-14 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  If you bring that thing back to life, it will totally cripple our sheep-powered internet.
  
  --
  When confronted with one problem, some think "I'll use recursion". Now they are confronted with one problem.
7. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 22:47 · Score: 0
  
  What's Denmark?
8. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by Nermal6693 · 2009-09-14 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's the place where Lego comes from.
9. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by catbertscousin · 2009-09-15 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  No wonder the new themed sets are so rotten.
  
  --
  No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
10. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by Attila+Dimedici · 2009-09-15 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  What's Denmark?
  It is one of the smaller states of the European Union. Once upon a time it was a full fledged independent country that played a significant role in world affairs (or at least European).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
11. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by H0p313ss · 2009-09-15 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  A hit! A palpable hit!
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
12. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  It became extinct fairly recently, why don't we clone it? Surely these things will make a great New Zealand Air Defense Force.
  FTFY
13. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  I so miss Satirewire (No longer being updated) it was a really funny site
14. Re:Cool, but can we clone it? by YttriumOxide · 2009-09-16 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  I've never been to either country, but I just have this feeling that they are quite similar to Denmark. Small countries where the people are perfectly happy to lead quiet lives out of the lime light of the world stage and yet producing a large amount of culture and research compared to their size.
  As a New Zealander that has lived in the Netherlands and visited Denmark, you're quite right :)
  (actually, I'm just down the road a bit from you at the moment - living in Northern Germany these days)
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Okay. . . by mrgiles · 2009-09-14 16:39 · Score: 1

Who was the smart arse that tagged this 'australia'?
1. Re:Okay. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 16:42 · Score: 0
  
  Probably an Australian wanting to yank a few kiwi chains. Pretty funny, if you're west of the Tasman.
2. Re:Okay. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 17:13 · Score: 0
  
  Same thing. Like china and japan.
3. Re:Okay. . . by aussie_a · 2009-09-14 17:25 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Pffft. We don't want New Zealand! Tasmanians are bad enough with all their in-breeding. If we allow the New Zealanders in we'll forever be associated with beastiality as well!
4. Re:Okay. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 21:18 · Score: 0
  
  You mean asia?
5. Re:Okay. . . by Lifthrasir · 2009-09-15 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually bestiality - the best-iality there is :)
  
  --
  No beer, no TV make Lifthrasir something something
Kind of a shame... by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-09-14 16:49 · Score: 1

It would be cool if it was alive today...
I mean, it's not as if that's the only creature that could singlehandedly overpower a human, even the only one that could swallow us whole. Should we have killed all the lions, tigers, and bears?
I would love to have seen one of these in a zoo.
Of course, the fact that they're gone means we can actually go to New Zealand safely...

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
1. Re:Kind of a shame... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 17:14 · Score: 0
  
  Of course, the fact that they're gone means we can actually go to New Zealand safely...
  Now all's we need is a reason to actually go there.
2. Re:Kind of a shame... by Runaway1956 · 2009-09-14 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  "Of course, the fact that they're gone means we can actually go to New Zealand safely..."
  Dude, you haven't been paying attention. All the badass critters have been killed off, because there are badass PEOPLE living there!! Between the Maori and the Anglos, you're likely to be eaten if you visit there!!
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
3. Re:Kind of a shame... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 21:29 · Score: 0
  
  lions, tigers, and bears?
  Oh my...
4. Re:Kind of a shame... by Hal_Porter · 2009-09-14 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  I heard an odd story about a friend driving around the middle of nowhere in Australia. He stopped for some reason and he started to hear things. He listened more carefully and looked out the window. It was dusk and he saw a big crowd of people running towards his car, whooping to each other and sounding extremely drunk/hostile. He started the engine, floored the accelerator and kept it floored until he found a town, many miles later.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
5. Re:Kind of a shame... by Clever7Devil · 2009-09-15 00:46 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It would be cool if it was alive today...
  Yeah... That would roc!!
  
  --
  "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
6. Re:Kind of a shame... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 00:48 · Score: 0
  
  He stopped for some reason...
  To have a piss...
  It was dusk and he saw a big crowd of people running towards his car, whooping to each other and sounding extremely drunk/hostile.
  Maybe he shouldn't have pissed in the mouth of the sacred skull on the sacred burial mound on the sacredest day of the year?
7. Re:Kind of a shame... by rohan972 · 2009-09-15 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  He started the engine, floored the accelerator and kept it floored until he found a town, many miles later.
  Being in an outback town would not necessarily solve that problem.
  
  --
  http://marriedmansexlife.com/
8. Re:Kind of a shame... by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-09-15 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Uhm... Middle Earth?
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
9. Re:Kind of a shame... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  It would be cool if it was alive today...
  Yeah... That would roc!!
  No.
  Just NO.
10. Re:Kind of a shame... by Molochi · 2009-09-15 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Skiing in July and August is a good reason.
  
  --
  "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
Don't ANYONE tell Randall Munroe. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 17:20 · Score: 0

I don't think the poor guy could handle knowing there were raptors roaming free just 500 Years ago.
Too bad McDonalds wasn't around back then by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 17:20 · Score: 0

Imagine how many nuggets one of these would make
Yup.. by refactored · 2009-09-14 17:21 · Score: 5, Funny

AC said.. Last I checked we only had man eating birds, and the odd man eating Maori.
Yup,...it'd be a pretty Odd man that eats a Maori. Pretty tough buggers those. :-) A bit of a step up from Pit Bull I tell you!
1. Re:Yup.. by rve · 2009-09-14 18:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yup,...it'd be a pretty Odd man that eats a Maori. Pretty tough buggers those.
  Tough? You're probably cooking them too fast. Have you tried preparing one sous-vide ?
2. Re:Yup.. by hey! · 2009-09-15 06:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Tough? You're probably cooking them too fast. Have you tried preparing one sous-vide ?
  Close. Slow cooked in a wet sand pit filled with hot rocks and covered with palm leaves is the regional cooking method. Kind of like a clam bake, without the clams.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
DNA? by Runaway1956 · 2009-09-14 17:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Is there any chance of getting some DNA, cloning a few of these dudes, so that we can set them loose in the cities? I can see the population problem slowly improving. I can see the gene pool improving, at the same time. This idea has promise.....

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
1. Re:DNA? by Ragzouken · 2009-09-14 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on what your idea of 'improving' the gene pool is.
2. Re:DNA? by maxume · 2009-09-14 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  He favors those that run away.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
3. Re:DNA? by Gravitron+5000 · 2009-09-15 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on what your idea of 'improving' the gene pool is.
  Filling it with the blood of many urbanites.
4. Re:DNA? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  I know I'd be selected for pretty well, I shoot straight and carry a big gun.
  But in typical "survival of the fittest", I'd be the opposite of fittest: glasses, IBS, allergies (seasonal and food), no running ability (shin splits if I try) and horrible diet (can't eat fruits or vegetables, I gag). I am at least in shape though. But judging by anecdotal evidence, I'd also lose at the sexual selection game. FML
5. Re:DNA? by Phoenixlol · 2009-09-15 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  While our parents are en-route to their jobs we will inherit the upper levels of our residences.
6. Re:DNA? by dwye · 2009-09-15 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Teddy Roosevelt, is that you?
Video link by Valdrax · 2009-09-14 17:42 · Score: 5, Informative

There's an amazing video of the native bat running, because it'd evolved to be flightless like the birds.
Video
Shame on you for talking up something so cool and not providing a link.

--
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
1. Re:Video link by brentonboy · 2009-09-14 20:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's not actually flightless, though it does spend most of its time on the ground.
2. Re:Video link by Valdrax · 2009-09-15 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  You know, the video does show that fact around the 31 second mark. FYI.
  
  --
  If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Unladen Velocity? by BJ_Covert_Action · 2009-09-14 17:43 · Score: 1

According to TFA:

With a wingspan of up to three metres and weighing 18kg, the female was twice as big as the largest living eagle, the Steller's sea eagle.
So it's late and I don't have my trusty TI-89, can anyone calculate the maximum airspeed of this beast? ... Unladen of course =)

I can't see it being a problem really, unless there is an African variant....

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
1. Re:Unladen Velocity? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 19:01 · Score: 0
  
  My 3 meter F3B racing model glider has 3M span and weighs less than 3KG. With a very thin low camber airfoil it can reach in excess of 350KMH.
  Bird is heavier, but pobably would have more drag.
no evidence of land animals? by siloko · 2009-09-14 18:29 · Score: 3, Funny

So, aside from the sheep-eating lizards . . .
. . . well I'm hoping the sheep eating lizards found more than just evidence of 'land animals' else they would soon become 'fuck, where's the sheep?' lizards. Admittedly they sound dangerous too . . .
1. Re:no evidence of land animals? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 02:52 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Please refrain from using 'fuck' and 'sheep' in the same sentence when discussing NZ.
2. Re:no evidence of land animals? by Mephistro · 2009-09-15 02:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  HAHAHAHAAAAAAAA
  Hell, I can't breath ***chest explodes***
3. Re:no evidence of land animals? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  See http://www.adultsheepfinder.com/
4. Re:no evidence of land animals? by hey! · 2009-09-15 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I don't know about NZ, but I have doubts about their next door neighbors. Tie me kangaroo down, sport, indeed.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
5. Re:no evidence of land animals? by ultramk · 2009-09-15 08:04 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Sorry, wrong URL. You're looking for http://www.adultsheepfinder.co.nz/
  
  --
  You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
6. Re:no evidence of land animals? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  Please refrain from using 'fuck' and 'sheep' in the same sentence when discussing NZ.
  or Wales.
7. Re:no evidence of land animals? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know...'fuck, there are a lot of sheep in NZ' seems to work quite well...
  It's when you put those words next to each other in a sentence that you will find you are actually in Australia...
8. Re:no evidence of land animals? by lowededwookie · 2009-09-15 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Precisely. New Zealanders don't screw sheep... we screw cows on account of them being more accommodating of our larger penises.
9. Re:no evidence of land animals? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 17:57 · Score: 0
  
  Refrain?
  If it's good enough for kiwis, it's good enough for you.
Bird eating man, man eating bird? by rts008 · 2009-09-14 19:31 · Score: 1

So, the questions begin...
Man tastes like chicken, or was this just fowl 69-action pr0n?
Excuse me while I bleach my brain.

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
I think the bigger story is about how history can by scuppy · 2009-09-14 20:39 · Score: 0

I think the bigger story is about how history can be reliably passed down through word of mouth. New Zealand is a great example for several reasons.
Extinct by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 20:40 · Score: 0

"giant man-eating birds... a raptor that became extinct just 500 years ago."
I guess it means that finally men won...
1. Re:Extinct by gkai · 2009-09-14 20:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "giant man-eating birds... a raptor that became extinct just 500 years ago."
  I guess it means that finally men won...
  Yes, like always: big predator hunting homo sapiens means that the predator is on the fastlane to extinction....Except if it can retreat to a territory where human population is non-existent or very sparse (like polar bear for example), it is doomed....
2. Re:Extinct by Archangel+Michael · 2009-09-15 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Coyotes
  Not always. Nice try though.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
They killed 12 Members of Parliament? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 21:09 · Score: 0

The battle hardened Australian troops responded by killing all 12 MP's
They killed 12 Members of Parliament?
1. Re:They killed 12 Members of Parliament? by Krneki · 2009-09-14 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  The battle hardened Australian troops responded by killing all 12 MP's They killed 12 Members of Parliament?
  You wish.
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Re:so... [offtopic] by Eunuchswear · 2009-09-14 22:14 · Score: 1

Raul Castro told the truth when he said he wasn't elected to restore capitalism; he wasn't elected - period.
Of course Raul was elected, by 100% of eligible Cuban voters - aka Fidel Castro.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Begs the question... by bgillespie · 2009-09-14 22:45 · Score: 1

"But a re-examination of skeletons using modern technology ... showed it had a strong enough pelvis to support a killing blow as it dived at speeds of up to 80kph."
So... How exactly did this bird kill?
1. Re:Begs the question... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-14 22:59 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  By buggering things.
2. Re:Begs the question... by Doctor+Faustus · 2009-09-15 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Eagles kill with their talons. The pelvis strength is important because that's where the legs attach.
3. Re:Begs the question... by bgillespie · 2009-09-15 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  Good answer!
4. Re:Begs the question... by clone53421 · 2009-09-16 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  LOL, it sounds kind of like they're claiming the pelvis can withstand a killing blow, though, which would hardly make it a killing blow after all!
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Man, eating chicken by jandersen · 2009-09-14 23:03 · Score: 1

This is a good demonstration of the importance of good punctuation; of course, when they said "man eating bird", what they mean was not "a bird that eats people", but "a man who eats a bird". See, it all much clearer now.
Leftovers by HangingChad · 2009-09-15 00:00 · Score: 1

Humans: It's what's for dinner!

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
scale is hard to judge in mid-air by Scrameustache · 2009-09-15 00:02 · Score: 1

So - just maybe - the Roc may also have existed???
Do you think one of those could carry a baby elephant?

--
You can't take the sky from me...
1. Re:scale is hard to judge in mid-air by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2009-09-15 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  So - just maybe - the Roc may also have existed???
  Do you think one of those could carry a baby elephant?
  Legends DO tend to grow a bit with the telling. Also: It looks like these could carry off 250 pounds of bird. How big IS a baby elephant?
  Given that these eagles were alive at the time of the earliest recorded Roc legends and the Medeteranian and African ship technology was adequate to make it to New Zeland and back, at least occasonally, why shouldn't these be the basis for such stories?
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
2. Re:scale is hard to judge in mid-air by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2009-09-15 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  And Wikipedia comes through again:
  After a twenty-two-month pregnancy, the mother will give birth to a calf that will weigh about 113 kg (250 lb) ...
  Gosh, what a coincidence!
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
In Australia too! by clickety6 · 2009-09-15 00:05 · Score: 4, Funny

Australia also has plenty of man-eating birds only there they call them Sheilas...

--
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Talons by cdoggyd · 2009-09-15 00:07 · Score: 1

Do the man-eating birds have large talons? N.D.
dupe / not news by smoker2 · 2009-09-15 00:47 · Score: 1

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/04/2021228

http://www.mcmaster.ca/opr/html/opr/media/main/NewsReleases/2005/NR_bunce.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/3044.shtml

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524812.300-giant-eagle-evolved-in-record-time.html
This has been known for a long time by hesaigo999ca · 2009-09-15 01:27 · Score: 1

I remember reading about this....in xmen i think,
no...where they go to antartica or something, and end up near Australia where they got the manbird dude...
Isnt this the next xmen movie?
The bleeding obvious by jeremyp · 2009-09-15 01:29 · Score: 1

"Legends of the New Zealand Maori tell of giant man-eating birds. New scientific evidence proves that these birds did exist and were around the same time as humans in New Zealand.
If you are a giant man-eating bird, it's pretty much essential to be around at the same time as some humans.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Fire ecologies by geek2k5 · 2009-09-15 02:40 · Score: 1

There are some ecologies where fire is essential to the overall health of the ecology. Tallgrass prairie, the home turf of the American bison, is one example. Lodgepole forests, the kind that burned in the 1988 Yellowstone fires, are another.
Now while Native Americans didn't have rifles or horses, they did a pretty good job of hunting buffalo through the use of fire and buffalo jumps. I would say that a lack of horses forced them to be a bit more careful about their environment, because of lack of transportation. That lack of transportation would also keep the population low.
giant eagle in Te Papa Museum by KiwiCanuck · 2009-09-15 02:47 · Score: 1

There is a stuffed giant eagle suspended above a great moa in Te Papa Museum in Wellington. The caption for the eagle said that mothers had to watch for the eagles, as any baby left unattended could be carried away. If this is the same bird, then this is common knowledge.
Your point being...? by grikdog · 2009-09-15 03:00 · Score: 1

So oral tradition gets kicked up a notch on the veracity scale because some big monkey-eating bird "actually existed"? Is the surprise the bird, or the fact that the Maoris got it right, or the obvious alacrity with which Westerners can stick two unrelated facts together with their private brand of crazy glue? I should probably read TFA but I'm not getting the tattoo, tyvm.

--
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
1. Re:Your point being...? by sean.peters · 2009-09-15 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  I think the "news factor" is this: we've known for quite a while that a) a huge carnivorous bird lived in NZ, and b) the Maoris told stories about huge man-eating birds. But previously, we also thought that c) the huge birds died out before the arrival of the Maoris, so their legends weren't connected to these birds. But now it turns out that the birds and Maoris did overlap for some quite significant period of time, with the birds only dying out fairly recently. So the connection, previously thought to be impossible, is now possible.
That's nothing by Richy_T · 2009-09-15 03:08 · Score: 2, Funny

I went to a fair once and saw a six foot man eating chicken.
True story.
Re:And now you know why LOTR was made in New Zeala by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 04:36 · Score: 0

I wonder if we could clone one of these, but then we'd have to deal with the eventuality of Final Fantasy LARPing coming closer to the source material than the creators probably ever intended. Naaaa-na-na-nuh-nana-nuh-na-na-naaaaa~ *shot*
But could you imagine a drumstick from one of these suckers?
Cool! An Anne Hathaway/Amanda Seifreid love scene by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2009-09-15 04:46 · Score: 1

> New scientific evidence proves that these [giant, man-eating] birds
> did exist and were around the same time as humans in New Zealand.
The article continues: Last Thursday one bird even went so far as to tell a reporter to get the f*** away and that he had "never even met Xena."

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
+1cm is all it takes? by golden.radish · 2009-09-15 05:23 · Score: 1

Well it's good it's not just a slightly-larger-than-average Golden Eagle claw. http://storeforknowledge.com/Golden-Eagle-Claw-Replica-P8556C220.aspx A claw that is 1cm larger than a modern bird and it's a legendary giant man eating bird? Interesting.
People make the planet more boring every year by John+Little+John · 2009-09-15 05:32 · Score: 0

Exterminating cool things (directly or indirectly) every year all the while piling up trash and replicating like viruses.

--
The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to cross. Thus the wise say the path to salvation is hard...
Related to the Pterosaurs? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 08:21 · Score: 0

Sounds a lot like the bioluminescent pterosaurs in Papua New Guinea: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/livptero.htm
Actually.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 09:11 · Score: 0

There were/are frogs, bats, and seals around the coasts. But no native land mammals apart from the bats, and none of the lizards, frogs etc were of any great size
I guess a lack of small land animals is understandable when you have a bird like that looking for them!
Hitchcock could have used these things by vortexau · 2009-09-17 03:33 · Score: 1

Just think: Hitchcock's 'The Birds' could have been a really scary movie, if he had used giant birds instead of normal-sized examples.
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/thunderbirds%20are%20go.jpg

--
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
Re:Okay. . . that isn't entirely true. by vortexau · 2009-09-17 03:49 · Score: 1

Yet once upon a time, it would seem, that we did . . .
From the Constitution of Australia; Preamble article 6:
6. "The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.

"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State".

--
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
Re:That's nothing, in 3D . . by vortexau · 2009-09-17 03:55 · Score: 1

. . you can view a farmer with a big c0ck:
http://www.geocities.com/gabriel3d/manwithbigcock.html

--
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"